Larry,
There is no reason in the world, that I can think of, that the terminated employee should sample the middle layers of the log washer and send them to a laboratory for analysis. This would be like some car manufacturer who wanted to compete for Motor Trend car of the year to enter a car that only went through 75% of the assembly line. It would be like some person competing in a baking contest entering a cake that was only cooked 20 minutes out of the necessary 40 minutes. Traces of all the product that Asensio referred to would be found in those middle layers. He doesn't state, except for the filtered product, that any of the samples came from anywhere else. But even if the other samples did, there is absolutely no reason to pull samples from the middle layers and send them in for analysis. This alone, makes the rest of his report suspect. When I studied chemical engineering, when we did analyses, our answers were never subjective ones like poor, or good, or excellent, at least without supporting documentation. Our answers were numbers. Why didn't Asensio give us the analysis, and let us judge for ourselves?
The first sentence in your last paragraph very clearly points out to me that you don't have a technical background, at least in chemical engineering (because there is nothing logical in choosing the middle layer). We are concerned with input and output. If we sample other areas, we normally only do so for troubleshooting purposes. Using the cake example again, a baker would rarely ever pull his or her cake out of the oven when it was half-way baked, unless there were problems in the past. But if he or she did pull it out early to some how test what was going on, he or she certainly wouldn't represent the half-baked cake as the finished product and that is the problem with Asensio's posting. If he had good evidence, sampling the middle layers would be absolutely unnecessary. I am looking for the good evidence.
Mark |
