Mr. Catania, What I found interesting about latest reply was the fact that you did nothing more than restate your previous comment, basically that the effects of thermal inertia in the recorded measurements have not been accounted for. Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. But amazingly, five minutes later, measurements recorded a 10 degree increase. Not only that, this sudden increase was apparently HIGHER than the recorded temperature when the input power was still on - by approximately 2 degrees. This implies that any residual effects pertaining to thermal inertia had already been accounted for long ago. The effects of thermal inertia cannot magically make a device suddenly become HOTTER particularly if previous measurements were revealing the fact that the temperature was already in the process of dropping. It therefore make no sense to imply that the effects of thermal inertia could be responsible for a sudden 10 C increase five minutes after all input power had been cut off - especially when the temperature had been previously recorded to have been dropping.
BTW, proclaiming that Mr. Rothwell is a "fool" is no way to go about winning friends and influencing people to your POV. In fact, I suspect your latest actions have done nothing more than to suggest to most here that Jed has probably done a far better job of analyzing the thermal inertia situation than you. Learn to be civil in the presentation of you POVs or get kicked out of this forum. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
