Eric/JC: I've read the report twice fully, and a few other times only to verify a specific statement.
I still did not catch the significance that it was the output of the control box that was changed from 3ph to 1ph, not the input side. I posted as soon as I could to correct my error. Josh: I have always advocated for the fair treatment of individuals on vortex, whether supportive or not of topics being discussed. First and foremost, as is clearly stated in forum rules, is respect for differing opinions, and no personal attacks. Thus, I do not make the kind of statements about intentional misinformation often, nor lightly, and then only when there's been a *pattern over time* with the person. In the 5+ years of regular contributions to this forum, I don't think there are any instances where I have not corrected an error in my postings when I realized it myself, or if pointed out, and therefore there is no pattern of misinformation on my part. -Mark Iverson -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test Lol. That's a little bit redonculous. Far more likely: neither he nor I have read the paper closely enough. Eric On May 29, 2013, at 2:02, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think Mark was mistaken about this, and his failure to acknowledge it suggests he is deliberately trying to mislead people, and he appears to have succeeded in your case.
