That is an indicator of what you like, too, and it isn’t constructive.
Definitions are silly semantic games. Who knew.
When you equivocate between several different ones, yes they are.
That is your favorite word. Actually, I’m quite committed to defining what a rotary motor is, no equivocation.
That is your favorite tactic.
Equivocate is just what is happening here.
At this point, you now have an idiosyncratic definition of a rotary motor, a definition unique to you, and likely to leave everyone else confused.
At least it’s not lying for Jesus like some people often do.
…, everyone that doesn’t have a solid concept of what a rotary motor is, and is afraid to admit, for whatever reason, that that is what drives a bacterial flagellum’s rotation.
// A rotary motor is an assembly of parts for turning energy into rotary motion on a single axis, regardless of scale, materials and energy source.//
That’s idiosyncratic and confusing.
So, this thread has run its course. It will now close in the next hour. There are some important posts I plan to follow up on in separate threads, such as @Michael_Callen’s good faith attempt to understand how a flagellum works, and what its similarities and differences with human-designed motors are.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 58 minutes. New replies are no longer allowed.