Fuses fuses fuses

Geoffkait 7-19-2017
... as I already pointed out, ALL measured differences were about an order of magnitude less than 5%. NONE were anywhere near 5% so YOUR INTERPRETATION MAKES NO SENSE. If things were as you say then they could have said "in the range of of 10%%, fortifying their argument. Apparently I was correct, you never read the HiFi Tuning data sheets carefully.

Apparently you don’t read my posts very carefully. I have made the following statement multiple times in this thread (the statement even appearing in what you’ve quoted in your post just above), and also in other fuse-related threads in which you’ve participated:

In fact, all or nearly all of the directional differences in resistance were vastly smaller than 5%, with the exception of the "standard glass fuse."

The paper provides direction-related resistance measurements for two "standard glass fuses," which differ for the two directions by approximately 4.6% and 3.8%, if calculated by dividing the difference between the two numbers by the lower of the two numbers, or by approximately 4.4% and 3.6% if calculated by dividing the difference between the two numbers by the higher of the two numbers. None of those numbers, of course, are an order of magnitude less than 5%.

Regarding the meaning of "in the range of 5%," yes, in casual conversation among most Americans that would be equivalent to saying "generally around 5%," or "in the area of 5%." However given especially that the paper was presumably written by a German, and by someone for whom English is presumably not his or her first language, without particular knowledge of German linguistics it would be presumptuous to exclude the possibility that "in the range of 5%" might have instead been intended to mean the same thing as "within the range of 5%." Which all of the numbers were, of course, and consequently that interpretation would make their statement accurate. And note that I said that their statement was "arguably accurate," the word "arguably" having been intentionally chosen to leave open the possibility that the statement could be interpreted in ways that would make it inaccurate.

What’s bizarre, funny and ironic all at the same time is that you would pick an argument on this point since, you know, it kind of supports your position, not mine. Hel-loo!

My post was not intended to "pick an argument." That’s not how I do things.

Regards,
-- Al

To the people here on Audiogon that have seen me post from time to time over the years please accept my apologies. I'm really not a sh*t stirrer. I never intended or expected or dreamed that this thread would ignite passions the way it has. I'm sorry! To the folks that have had strokes or heart attacks because of this thread, please go listen to some chill music. To the people who have put up reasoned posts, I suggest walk away and whistle, don't worry, look at the bright side of life. To those on the sidelines, hopefully you won't need to buy anymore popcorn. 

Al, if they had wished to say what you’re assuming they were saying, they would simply have said, in the range 0-5%. That’s a range. One number is not a range. However, there is no difference in the data sheets for resistance more than about 0.5%. Thus, your interpretation makes no sense, even allowing for language differences. You could be pulling my leg. Is this a lawyer trick? 😀

zavato OP
To the people here on Audiogon that have seen me post from time to time over the years please accept my apologies. I’m really not a sh*t stirrer. I never intended or expected or dreamed that this thread would ignite passions the way it has. I’m sorry! To the folks that have had strokes or heart attacks because of this thread, please go listen to some chill music. To the people who have put up reasoned posts, I suggest walk away and whistle, don’t worry, look at the bright side of life. To those on the sidelines, hopefully you won’t need to buy anymore popcorn.

Translation: "I didn’t do nothin’."

Geoffkait 7-19-2017
However, there is no difference in the data sheets for resistance more than about 0.5%. Thus, your interpretation makes no sense, even allowing for language differences. You could be pulling my leg. Is this a lawyer trick? 😀

I would respectfully point out that the four numbers I clearly cited in my previous post, namely 4.6%, 3.8%, 4.4%, and 3.6%, are all "more than about 0.5%."

Regards,
-- Al