Back in Autumn. Temperatures in Kuala Lumpur were officially declared a "heat wave". A fine time to visit ... :-) (But I've been in Phoenix when it was almost 10 degrees C hotter again!) >> You may explain it as valid technical comment, but the Bard's Queen >> Gertrude would have something to say about that. > I don't know what that means and I'm not going to look it up. =A0The poin= t > remains ... Gertrude opines that continuing to dig deserves to be rewarded :-) * > it was a dumb comment that was poorly worded enough to be confusing. Most things can confuse some people. I wouldn't have expected it to confuse you or, more importantly, anyone who was following the general gist of what was said. You then went on to effectively restate what he said, and I genuinely found your version no clearer than his, and genuinely possibly less so. But, both versions were clear enough, I thought. Yours covered more of the subject than his so any comparison should arguably take only the part of yours that was equivalent to his. > It only has half a chance of making sense if you assume the author knows > what he's talking about, which is not a good assumption given the apparen= t > meaning of the comment. His overall technical assumption was somewhat incorrect, as we have both already noted. But the statement in isolation was both technically essentially correct and understandable. He expressly noted his lack of expertise in the area and expressly invited expert comment. That seems a pretty commendable approach. Moreover, I do not find your above statement wholly meaningful, as parsed by my brain so far. If an author does not know what he's talking about then it is uncertain whether anything said makes sense, even if it seems to :-). Assuming that an author DOES know in general terms what they are talking about is a near axiomatic assumption when first pass reading anything general. Once things start to not make sense one may revise the assumptions. But, his statement was entirely sensible. Just not worded as you would have worded it, apparently. > It isn't, or at least shouldn't be, your business to apologize for everyo= ne > making dumb statements. I completely agree on both counts. I certainly do not go out of my way to do either. eg not all of your utterances are scintillating (although many are) but I don't usually rush to your defence. And I've given up politely pointing out your core of consistent typos as you specifically state that you do not wish to use a spilling chicker, and as I haven't noted you showing any inclination to change them (although if you have in fact done so it may be that there are now fewer to notice :-) ). BUT you here set up a straw man - and you have used the same fellow on various other occasions. You regularly deem my interventions to indicate that what I am addressing is dumb, when I more usually believe that what I am addressing is an incorrect assessment of dumbness on your part. If you consistently see me as defending dumbness it frees you from needing to examine the point I am trying to make, as now. [[Put another way - you seem to on occasion set up artificial reasons for wading into people in a rude and aggressive manner, as here. If your assessment seems technically questionable and more liable to be an attempt to justify gratuitous argy bargy I may comment, as here]]. It is hardly worth the effort I imagine, but it would be interesting to take your statement and Robert's re the effect of diodes on DC transformer currents in a centre tapped 2 diode full-wave rectifier, feed them to a test audience and get comment on which, if either seems "dumb". Could be dangerous. Gertrude thinks so, anyway. > At best you're only confusing people who may be > listening in and not sure what's right. And, fwiw, that's about what I'd say about what you are saying. You take a technically correct statement, say its dumb, and then make a technically equivalent statement and say it's OK. Those who are less than certain about the circuits will be more confused than if you had not intervened. ie I say that you are doing what you say I am doing. It's unlikely that either you or I are wholly right or wholly wrong. It's liable to be a perspective issue. But if you insist in the complete rightness of your position you end up looking either vindicated or dumb. Gertrude says ... . Referring back: Robert's comment was trimmed by you so I have trimmed yours to somewhat more than the same tightness so that there is no risk of quoting you out of context. I'd have trimmed them both less tightly if starting such a comparison from scratch. As the text of Robert's shown below is what you quoted it seems logical to assume that that's what you are taking issue with. Maybe not. __________ Robert Rolf wrote: > Full wave rectifier transformers draw DC on > each half of the secondary, __________ Olin said: > There is a diode at each end of the secondary, both pointing in > the same direction with respect to the transformer. > Only one half of the secondary conducts each half-cycle, > but the primary conducts both half-cycles. > The load to the power line is symmetric to the extent the two > halves of the secondary are ballanced. __________ The key comments under comparison are: > Full wave rectifier transformers draw DC on each half of the secondary, and > Only one half of the secondary conducts each half-cycle, If you still insist that Robert's statement is "dumb" and unclear and confusing while yours adds clarification and is not-dumb and not-confusing then I will not be in the slightest bit surprised :-). Nor, I think, would Queen Gertrude be. Russell * Hamlet, Act III, Scene II, 179. Probably the only line, of the very few she speaks, that anyone quotes. http://www.bartleby.com/70/4232.html --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .