lisa_labSD said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

lisa_labSD said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Moderator note: a couple of off-topic posts removed. Carry on.

gary_naperville said:

No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here.

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

gary_naperville said:

No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.