"AAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
--Charley Brown

"Can't we all just get along?"
--Rodney King

"Resistance is futile."
--the Borg

"He's dead, Jim."
--McCoy





On 5/19/2011 9:26 AM, RussellMc wrote:
> 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.  The point
>> 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 appare=
nt
>> 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 every=
one
>> 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
.