chris_chi24 said:

Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…

Coming at chris_chi24’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.

Following on from chris_chi24 — and this may be the naive question:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

jason_paloalto said:

If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.

jason_paloalto said:

If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.

Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.