[christofoo]

Starting in #222 it became clear to me that you had a more complete and more standard definition of pumping losses than me. (Tangent; isn't there an additional separate loss which was left out required to generate the vacuum, which is also proportional to manifold vacuum? Not that it changes any arguments, all we have to say is that there is some loss and it is proportional to manifold vacuum.) Primarily, I think it was a communication roadblock. This supports the general drift of a criticism towards me; if I read on this subject more my terminology would be consistent, and the discussion would be significantly less frustrating for everyone, although I wouldn't go so far as to agree that I should have left it alone, since I maintain that my earlier arguments are intact (off the top of my head, with the exception of 2 counterpoints that I expected to be minor). EDIT: top of my head is not so accurate, rereading my first two leading arguments #185 and #191 both of my last steps may have been rendered erroneous to everyone but me. Still seems like if you followed the initial steps you could have worked out what I meant, but eh, I can relate to annoyance from someone who seems not to know what he's talking about.

And, thanks again for your patience starting around the same post.