hazpat t1_jcghwce wrote

Flow meters are usualy built in and auto adjust. Checking flow with a rotometer is fast and simple.

Most meters operate under factory calibration factors that are acceptable under most conditions. You can, but are not required by any regs, to set user calibration factors based on local conditions. This is a very tedious process that you don't typically see people do unless they are in abnormal conditions like constant fog or whatever. On my meters temp and pressure sensors are built in, no idea about the purple, but I would trust the particulate data if it passed a flow and zero check.


hazpat t1_jcgdz3o wrote

I would believe they can be tested in a very similar matter to professional sensors. My top of the line detectors are just calibrated to zero, which i assume is extremely easy to do on the purple. You simply apply a filter and make sure levels drop to 0. There are no mid range calibration for particulate matter. It is nearly impossible to produce a standard concentration aerosol.

Now if it is also testing for gasses or vapors, it would need to be calibrated with standards


hazpat t1_jadeums wrote

I'll stick with what the artist says. You can even see the irregular wax texture when zoomed no striations from printing.

Saying it's 3d is a baseless claim that does not fit the artists typical style. The texture on the item makes it obvious it isn't 3d printed.

Using your everythings using new tech mentality, your comment was probably ai generated cause people tend to look into the artist before they claim to know the technique.

u/villeto must not be confident in their bs reply lol


hazpat t1_jad1s8c wrote

They explained they carved the wax... extremely common and easy way to do brass casting. Using plastic instead of wax wouldn't work as the brass won't vaporize it as effectively.

It's hilarious to see young kids flabbergasted by extremely common techniques.


hazpat t1_j5lfmm5 wrote

You realize they say multiple times they need more evidence to support their hypothesis right?. They aren't even sure if the species exhibits sexual dimorphism. You seem hyper invested in these authors initial untested hypothesis, you also seem to keep assuming this article has to be true because of peer review... it's literally a hypothesis open for discussion