On Dec 8, 10:21*pm, Sean Con wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:52:21 +0100, Sean Con
wrote:

It is difficult to separate the report from the reporter here (if, in
fact, such a distinction exists):

some resistance leads to energy loss .. probably energy is being
converted to heat, not loss.

Heat is not loss if heat is your objective. *This is a curious

boy... what is happening here - i feel lost

firstly, Art, temperature IS involved, when we are talking about solar
wind plasmas

second, richard, i guess my sentencing style is confusing
"some resistance leads to energy loss .. " -- this is copied from art's
previous message (if you follow the messages, you would notice the
copying)

"probably energy is being converted to heat, not loss." -- this is what
i commented

probably now you see why some other sentences appear self contradicting
because the first part is art's message, second part is what i write

and sorry for writing "feel", english is not my mother language, but i
believe you understood what i wanted to express

.....

Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i
feel people dont like us discussing something.

you can see my email address in the message, can you please also make
some diagrams etc.. ?

thank you

no, please do continue on here!! it helps keep the rest of us amused
watching art spin new bafflegab in response to questions. just don't
expect any of it to make sense.