"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
Chris Bacon wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) through a haze of senile flatulence wrote:

Since you seem to be incapable of understanding a simple statement
I'll go through it again as you do when teaching children.

My original comment was to Drivel - since he seems to think the large
power input of a cheap tool makes it somehow more desirable over other
models.

It doesn't. It's the output power which matters - however it is
measured.

And if a cheapy needs a 1000 watt (input) motor to do what a decent
one can with a 600 watt, it means it's a poor design of motor and
probably drive mechanism. And likely, the end result rather heavier
than it could be. And all that wasted energy goes in heat, which isn't
a good thing for the longevity of the tool.

Well, thank you for explaining that so plainly - combined with your
earlier efforts, it shows even more evidently what you know. I'm sure
you're aware of this already.

You've not really understood any of this, have you?

See Chris. See what I mean.