Ian Iveson wrote:
The generally accepted code for emphasis is enclosure within
asterisks.

Says you!

Do what you like, but I will interpret capitals as
shouting coz I can't be bothered to remember you as an exception.

As for the rest, I have lost you somewhere it seems.

If what you are really saying is you cannot be bothered to
accurately read my posts, then I believe you.


The problem with Casino's transformer is the windings, not the core.
You explain it how you like, you are just wriggling. What's the
difference between that transformer and one identical except for
double the voltage? Windings. That is all.

No, "wriggling" implies I am attempting deception. I am just
telling it like it is. My explanation has remained the same
each time I have made it. It has remained correct each time
I have made it. My statement was that the core will saturate.
It will. Casino asked what would happen, I told him. You're
the one who has muddled things up here.

You started out very wrong, and then started to read up on the
subject. After you found out you were wrong, you started to
WRIGGLE your way towards a more correct explanation. And in
your usual fashion, you start to bluster and blow, and twist
and turn the statements of others to serve your own flaccid
arguments.


You have by no means demonstrated that William is wrong. You, OTOH,
most definitely *are* wrong.

I have made statements, not demonstrations. This medium does not lend
itself well to demonstrations. William was wrong, period!
Your siding up with his advice makes you wrong too.


It will not go "poof".

Nowhere near "poof".

Prove it!

-Chuck