What exactly are you insinuating?
That your technique is to continuously troll until you’ve beaten people down. Its not a way to further discussion, merely a method of making yourself always right all the time.
You can test the fuse holder separately if you really were interested in arriving at the truth. I realize you and Al are just playing Ivory Tower, and have no interest or plan to test either the fuse or the fuse holder. That’s the difference between a Skeptic and a Sceptic.
This statement is false and is an example of the trolling behavior and rhetoric to which I referred.
I did point out on a different thread that we found issues with fuses a long time ago, and in 1990, designed our MA-2 with an entirely different kind of fuse and fuse holder on the basis of improved performance.
Apparently Geoff has forgotten the fact that I joined this thread recently with some results on testing. Those results are that the directionality appears out of coincidence and that actually greater improvement can be had by rotating the fuse in the holder for best contact. The improvement is measurable and audible; descriptions others have made on this thread of what happens when you get the direction right accurately describe what happens when the contact area is maximized.
Occam’s Razor has something to say here! Given that a fuse has to be used in AC circuits and given that people report differences by reversing the fuse, and also understanding how fuses are inherently incapable of having directionality in any way whatsoever, the explanation that they somehow have an effect by reversing them in the holder is a fairly complex explanation: some sort of unknowable, unmeasurable quality of the fuse itself.
A simpler explanation is that the reversal is improving the contact area because fuse and holder are not dimensionally perfect and the fuse might sit better in the holder in one direction. By rotating the fuse in the holder without reversing it gets the same effect only more profoundly.