Quote:
Originally Posted by LS1-450  Everyone has access to the paper, including you. |
Fine. I'll Join IEEE, pay a subscription fee, and purchase a copy of the paper, when it would have been far simpler for you to simply provide a link to a freely downloadable copy of it, or better yet, simply address my question about actual real world resistance of plasma channels, or even intelligently contradict my assertion that gap resistance values are orders of magnitude higher than other circuit elements with real data. Instead, you want to play this pseudo intellectual jousting match by tossing out quotes from IEEE papers and walking away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS1-450 If you had taken the time to read the thread prior to boring us w/ your wisdom, you would have seen that "the PHD rocket scientists" had discussed the air gap resistance long before you chose to use it as a platform to launch your attack. |
I certainly did read the thread. Camaroholic made an intelligent reference to gap resistance, which was subsequently ignored. Further interpretations of Ohm's Law assumed a zero value for gap resistance and calculated current based on wire resistance alone. There were also intelligent posts by RevGTO, Joecar, Justin, and others which were met with nothing more than superstition, misinformation, and unsubsubstantiated marketing hype.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS1-450 The end result that us "PHD rocket scientists" are trying to achieve is optimum cornel size & burn time. |
Bullshit. Where's the "US?" You were not even part of this thread before you posted your objections to my post. Moreover, there was ZERO discussion of burn time or "cornel" size prior to your post I'm quoting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS1-450 Go back to your followers before they stray off track while planning for the "Big ending." |
What are you smoking?
It is clear that your objection to my post was based solely on its admittedly sarcastic tone, as you have been unable or unwilling to provide any substanitive rebuttal to my technical points. Your citation of a paper where the only sections freely available on the internet are the ones you quoted, combined with your implication that you were a contributor to this thread prior to getting all butthurt about my post, and the inclusion of topics never discussed, leave me with the indelible impression that you are far more of a bullshit artist than the type of quality technical contributor to are pretending to defend.