Open the articles on our website and a common feature becomes visible: many of them give conditions rather than conclusions. What is written is that oil with a high water content has its temperature limit pulled down to 70 °C, rather than that all oil should be heated to 70 °C; what is written is which part to give priority to under a certain duty, rather than that one model should be chosen in every situation. The people writing these notes first found the style unsatisfying, and only later understood that it has to be kept.
The premises of a conclusion belong to the reader
The basis for a selection is spread across every site: how much has to be processed, what the oil is, how much water it carries, what form the power supply takes, how much space the site allows, and what the ambient temperature and the altitude are like. These conditions differ greatly from one site to the next. A conclusion that holds at one site may not hold at the next.
A conclusion stated without conditions is therefore bound to be simplified as it travels, and the simplification tends to run towards buy this one. The value of a carefully written article lies in handing the reader the complete basis for the judgement, so that he can check it against the datasheet, rather than making a decision that may not suit him.
From our side this is not a matter of posture. A wrong conclusion that makes the site pay for it costs far more than no conclusion at all. Once technical content is used as the basis for a selection, it has to stand up to changes in the conditions.
About the numbers that carry an approximation
For the same reason some of the figures in our technical documents carry the word approx. The weight of the ZYD-100 is written as approx. 720 kg. That is a nominal value; the actual weighbridge result is affected by the configuration, the transport method and the conditions of weighing. Acceptance is based on the nameplate and on the weighbridge, not on the number in the article.
| How it is written | Example | The problem with it |
|---|---|---|
| A conclusion without conditions | You should choose a vacuum oil purifier | The premises are left out and the reader cannot check them |
| A judgement with conditions | Oil with a high water content, the temperature limit pulled down to 70 °C | The condition and the conclusion are both present |
| A nominal value written to the decimal | Weight 720 kg | A nominal value is written as though it were measured |
| A nominal value with its qualification | Weight approx. 720 kg, to the weighbridge | Both the range and the basis are stated |
The same applies to the values in the datasheets: they come from the fixed specifications of the machine, with nothing derived and nothing converted before it is listed. Wherever approx. is used, the original data is itself a range or a nominal value, not a number made to look tidier.
How the review works
- Wherever a selection conclusion is given, the conditions under which it holds are written alongside it.
- Wherever a figure appears, it is checked against the fixed specifications of the machine rather than derived from them.
- Wherever a figure carries approx. or a range, it is confirmed that it has not been turned into a single value on the way through.
- Wherever a sentence describes the capability of a machine, the adjectives that cannot be traced to the specifications are removed.
- Wherever a statement is about the industry, no market share, no ranking and no conclusive judgement is written.
This process makes the articles less satisfying to read, and it also makes them hold up. A reader who takes the conditions and checks them against the datasheet gets useful information where they match, and knows where to ask the next question where they do not.
Not giving a conclusion is not a refusal to take a position. It hands the basis of the judgement to the only person able to make it.
