Huh!

[finnsawyer]

"Power Loss Explained".  Apparently this has disappeared.  I find in my comments section that it is now attributed to me, which is not correct.  Yesterday, when I was able to bring up the posting, I found I could not respond to a comment made by TomW, so I included it in my response in a comment to "Coil Shape Vectors".  So, it appears something was wrong with this posting from the start.  Just thought I'd point that out.  And why couldn't I put it in the Intro now?


Not an unheard of problem making a comment that can not accept the long original topic after the re:. Not sure about the other issues. See my comment about the other story you cant find. Man this job is so much fun I would even do it for free.

[TomW]

fin;

Well, RP [original poster] requested it be removed because it got off topic and ended up being a discussion of which letter designations mean what [kind of]. It still exists but is not visible.

Not sure what you mean by "was attributed to me".

Another example where strict adherance to the initial topic could have eliminated some confusion. That is an unacceptable policy here to enforce relatively strict on topic commenting [I guess]. In this case, I lead it off topic asking why v represented voltage rather than E as I thought was an accepted designation.

Oh, here I go explaining again which usually just leads to more hassle than it is worth....

Just so you know what happened there.

No need to discuss this really so I will make it read only after I post this.

Cheers.

TomW

[finnsawyer]

Seems to me you were the one who made the comment about E versus V for voltage.  Should be Emf not E.  Cheers.

[TomW]

In my first comment:



I lead it off topic asking why v represented voltage rather than E as I thought was an accepted designation.

I already took responsibility for it.

Ah I give up. Never explaining anything again.

Thanks for reading carefully.

T