Without knowing the internal electrical topology of these inverters it's just conjecture. I am aware of what my options are.
Sorry to be snippy. I guess I wasn't clear that I was just talking about it from an academic curiosity standpoint.Without knowing the internal electrical topology of these inverters it's just conjecture. I am aware of what my options are.
No harm, no foul.
That is logically equivalent to, " if there is a foul, then there is harm".No harm, no foul.
Um, OK, I guess.
Actually it's not, it's the inverse, which is not entailed by the original. 'No harm no foul' doesn't preclude there being a subset of harms that are still not fouls.
Electrofelon got it right. "No harm, no foul" I take to mean "if there is no harm, then there is no foul." The contrapositive would be "if there is a foul, then there is harm."
All of which goes to show that in here we will debate, harangue, and diverge from a point until the dead horse is a greasy spot on the ground. The first correct answer came in post #2.
But how fun would it have been to stop after post #2???All of which goes to show that in here we will debate, harangue, and diverge from a point until the dead horse is a greasy spot on the ground. The first correct answer came in post #2.
