Richard J Kinch wrote:
Jeff writes:


"(2) Average current consumption for 12 VDC systems over 24-hour
period." In other words, the value listed is Amp-hours per day, a
perfectly fine measure of current.


Learn the difference between intensive and extensive units.

I learned it. Did you? You really like to make yourself seem
important by using technical terms that you think others don't know.

They do not
equate. Both the amp-hour statement and the footnote are thereby
nonsensical.

This sounds like another huge backpedal. You seem to be implying that
the "Amp-hour" spec would make sense, except that they left out the
BTU rating, which I admitted up front would be very handy.

Of course, it only takes a little digging (very little, since the site
only has about 10 pages and its mentioned several times) to find the
the specs are based on the setup of the Cruising World tests performed
by Joe Minick in 1995. For better or worse, this report is a standard
often referenced when comparing units. In that test, a 5 cu. ft. box
with 4 inches of foam was used, with some added heat to simulate
usage. The daily load was 1850 BTU.

At 18 Amp-hours/day, the Tropikool rates substantially better than of
of the units tested by CW, except for the Glacier Bay.

A footnote of nonsense does not redeem the nonsense being
footnoted, as if they were some kind of inverse nonsense that cancels out.
Your "in other words" is just a blind assumption of what the author meant
to say, but didn't.

In other words, you made a huge blunder and now you're trying to find
a way to weasel out with a shred of your dignity intact. Sorry, way
too late.


You inability to grasp this is in direct contradiction to your claim
of having a PhD in some field of physics or engineering.


Scoffing at the wise is the habit of fools.

Yes, that's just what got you into this problem. Based on a quick
glance you decided to label this as "either a fraud, or a nutcase."
You thought no one would call you on that. Frankly, I don't know if
this technology will catch on, but labeling it as a "hoax" because you
don't understand it makes you the fool.



I would gladly settle issues based on my credentials, but this is Usenet,
the river of foolishness. Engage at your peril.

So now you're claiming you must be right, because you're a "Dawkter."
Maybe that carries some weight down in the boonies, but up here
in Cambridge, PhD's from MIT and Harvard are a dime a dozen, and most
who brag about their credentials are considered jackasses. What's
next? Are you going to claim you're a member of Mensa?