Re: [compost_tea] Re: Re: USNOP Example

From: David Anderson <danderson_at_backpackgeartest.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:45:45 -0700
Okay Kirk, this will be my last response on this subject, because I'm
sure that it is getting old for everyone else, and I have said my piece.

Kirk Leonard wrote:
> DA > All those variables are also the weaknesses of making compost tea and
>
>>dealing with pathogens. <
>
>
> Au contraire, Dave, there are ultimately only two operative variables:  the
> tea machine and the compost, and if the compost is pathogen-free, voila,
> there is no pathogen possibility.  Compost tea is a lot simpler than telecom
> servers.  Been there too.  Nine years at Intel.  Know that realm well.

What part of Intel? I did two stints there myself. I will tell you that
there are very few people at Intel that understand reliability. They
still are very much ingrained with the consumer product mindset. But
there is no arguing that such a mindset has served them well.

I simply disagree that there are only 2 variables. It might be that if
those two variables meet high standards, that the other variables do not
matter.

If that is the case, do you not think that such information would be
helpful for your cause? Knowing the failure point is a good thing.

Intel posts information on the environmental limits of their processors,
after which you can expect failure. And there are processors that meet
more stringent requirements than others.

>
> KL > > "Sabotaging?"  Are you sure you meant to put it that way?:)
>
> DA > Yes. I absolutely meant that. You you do not design your tests to
>
>>intentionally find all the weaknesses, then your tests will not be
>
> accepted.
>
> Again, au contraire.  "All the weaknesses" are in the machine and especially
> in the compost, eh?  If we test the worst possible compost with same
> nutrient loads then we know the machine works well.  Challenging, yes, but
> not at all complicated.  Could be done anywhere, "ideal" conditions not
> necessary (ideal conditions are everywhere, aren't they?).  And I certainly
> don't wish to sabotage anything, so I actually resent the implication.

Are you offended by the semantics or the suggestion that trying to break
the process is good testing procedure?

If it is the first, then I withdraw my use of the word and suggest that
you replace it with whatever you want that means changing all variables
until you know where the machine fails to produce safe CT.

If it is the latter, then you should not be the one putting together the
testing criteria.

>>You not only need to test it under ideal conditions, but you also need
>>to test to see what happens when there are process errors. Otherwise,
>>you are back to needing tea testing instead of machine testing.
>
>
> Process errors are irrelevant with good compost and a good machine.

Then that would be a valuable thing to prove. You seem to be trying to
avoid proving that.

My definition of a "good machine" is one that will still produce good
tea (or tell you that it is bad) even if you do have process errors.

>
> DA > What I am suggesting is standard QA stuff. You try and break the
>
>>process, then you use that information to make the process better.
>
>
> Gotcha, and again, if the compost is pathogen-free, there is no
> process-breaking possibility, even with a bad machine.  And a good machine
> can handle bad compost.

Sorry, no gotcha here. The report is correct, there is no such thing as
pathogen-free compost. There is no such thing as pathogen-free air, or
hands in a normal ACT production environment.

And a "bad machine" can certainly contain more than its share of
pathogens. A bad machine was what they tested with in the report, and it
got bad results.


-----

I was just telling you how to get where you want to be. Like I said at
the start of my first post on this subject, I have a fair amount of
experience in similar situations.

It's good that you do want to see some testing, and what you are
suggesting will help get you where you want to go with it. But given the
current conditions, I believe that you will find that it is insufficient
to counter the examples of bad tea made with bad machines.

Your test will get you to the next step, and you will suddenly find
yourself confronted with the same points that I have been making.

I really do wish you luck with it, and I would like to see tea get
approval, as well as having testing standards for the machines.

I'm signing off on the politics of this now, so I will give you the last
word if you wish to take it. If you get the testing program going, and
you are interested in my input, it should be pretty clear by now that I
am pretty free with my opinion.

Good luck,
Dave

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Wed Jul 21 2004 - 19:59:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:25 EST