Re: A little experiment on demagnetization

Jerry,

No umbrage taken. I did test the "victim" motor before I disassembled
it; I'm too cheap not to. The purpose of the second motor was to act
as a baseline because once the original one was taken apart, there
would be no way to restore it should additional data be required.
This was the case by the way when issues of inductance change came
up; I was thankful I had an identical motor to check against.

Again, no hard feelings and sorry for the sarcasm; it's been a very
long day. I do appreciate your criticism, I realize it was well meant
and it keeps my work honest.

Mariss




--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Kimberlin
<kimberln@a...> wrote:

> "Mariss Freimanis " wrote:
> >
> > Jerry,
> >
> > I apologize for my meaningless and faulty experiment. I will try

to

> > do better the next time.
>
> Mariss, mind now that I only read your subsequent posts on this
> subject after I read the first one. Had I seen the second bunch,
> I probably wouldn't have criticized. In reality, I was thinking
> that you probably just glossed over the whole thing a little and
> really did measure both motors and found them the same, but just
> didn't say so.
>
> > In the meantime I will research the meaning of the

word "identical",

> > perhaps that is where I made the error. I assumed it was

synonomous

> > with "the same".
>
> Well, when I have done scientific experiments in the past, I
> usually test a whole bunch of the same type of things, do a
> little statistical calculations and then come to a conclusion.
> Certainly every motor of a specific type can't be identical, but
> one might be statistically the same as any other in the batch for
> all practical purposes and could be tested. I guess my shady
> past is catching up with me.... :-).
>
> Regards,
>
> JerryK