The same machine, with the same figures on the specification sheet and not one number more or fewer, should read as two different articles depending on whether they are written for a buyer or for an engineer. The facts do not differ. What differs is the decision the reader is going to make with them.
What a buyer does with the figures
A buyer is interested in the boundaries: which part of the demand this machine covers and which part it does not; what the delivery includes and what it does not; how acceptance is judged, by which standard and with which test items; and how a deviation is handled. The risk this reader fears most is unclear boundaries: the quotation stage was vague, and at acceptance it turns out that the two sides understood the scope differently.
So for a buyer the order is conditions first, figures second. A flow rate of 6000 L/h on its own tells the buyer nothing; it has to be stated as a rated flow, measured under defined conditions, with a note on whether the actual throughput changes with the viscosity of the oil. Once the condition is given, the figure becomes usable.
What an engineer does with the figures
A site engineer is interested in the mechanism: how the figure is obtained, at which reading point it is taken, what happens if it is not met, and where to look first when it is not. To them, -0.08 ~ -0.0999 MPa is not just a pass mark but the pressure at the position that tells them the state of the chamber, it is the other set of readings that shows whether the pipework is sound, and it is the first place to look when the gas content is out of limit.
Engineers read selectively. They notice whether the conditions behind a figure that is mentioned often are made clear, and whether the figures in a table can be compared directly with the values on site. So for an engineer the order is the mechanism first, the figures second.
The same numbers, written two ways
| Parameter | Written for a buyer | Written for an engineer |
|---|---|---|
| Flow rate 6000 L/h | A rated flow; whether it is enough depends on the oil volume and the length of the window | The flow under rated conditions; the actual value shifts with viscosity and temperature |
| Working vacuum -0.08 ~ -0.0999 MPa | The acceptance criterion for degassing, verified against GB/T 423 | The reading at the chamber, with a pressure difference to the reading at the pump |
| Water content ≤3 ppm (GB/T 7600) | One of the factory test items; how the sample is taken for acceptance is agreed by both sides | Different sampling points give different results, so the method has to be read with the report |
| Breakdown voltage ≥65 kV (GB/T 507) | Applies to insulating oil; whether it matches the oil has to be confirmed in advance | Affected by oil temperature, bubbles and settling time, so a single reading decides nothing |
| Cleanliness NAS class 5 (NAS 1638) | The cleanliness figure that corresponds to the filtration accuracy of the machine | Not the same thing as ≤1 μm; the two figures have to be read separately |
A few rules we follow when writing
- Conditions first, figures second. A figure without its condition is of no use to a buyer and cannot be verified by an engineer.
- Parameters are copied from the specification without conversion, rounding or approximate wording. A range is written as a range and is never reduced to a single value.
- Evaluative adjectives are removed during the internal review; only facts and cause-and-effect relations are kept.
- Where selection is discussed, the conditions are given and the conclusion is left to the user.
- The same content is written in Chinese and English at the same time, and every parameter in the two versions corresponds word for word, so that nothing shifts in translation.
Why both versions are published together
A buyer at home and a buyer overseas ask almost exactly the same questions: where the boundaries are, where the figures come from, what happens if they are missed. The difference lies in the terminology and in the habits of expression. Since the same class of question has to be answered, there is no reason to let the two audiences receive content of different depth.
Publishing both versions at the same time also has a practical advantage: any vagueness in the Chinese text is written just as vaguely in the English version, and a passage that fails the review in both languages shows that the Chinese text was not clear enough to begin with. The proofreading pass is therefore also the pass that makes the content sound.
An article has to answer the questions of the reader it is written for, and the figures go where the reader needs them.
