In article , Ned Simmons
says...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Saying the loss
is "in the regulator" isn't any sloppier than the other
jargon we've all been tossing about. How about "due to a
regulator", or "due to the expansion of the gas as a result
of the delta P across the orifice of the regulator",
or....?

There doesn't have to *be* a diaphram/spring/orifice
regulator in the connection between the two tanks in
my example. You still see the same thermodynamics
for a plain, large valve that connects the two tanks,
and is opened to permit gas to flow from one to the
other.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================