Challenging the so-called "engineer" Stewart "Zero Proof" Pinkerton on his own ground
 

Good, this is the slimy dungbeetle I was waiting to catch in the pile
of **** Ancient Hacker dropped before he ran away:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Feb 2006 08:35:24 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

LOL.

If the Old Hack is right, the resident "engineers" who have *bragged*
that they are on my arse, for example Psycho Pinkerton and Poopie
Stevenson, scrutinizing and kibbitzing my every pronouncement, are
proven to be incompetent fools for not spotting so many gross errors in
text that has been in their faces for a year. All that remains to seal
judgement of them as electronic morons beyond belief is for Old Hack to
prove his points one by one.

Ah, you're conveniently forgetting that I debugged all your
incompetent KISS 'articles' as they were published.

Prove that you made a single valid electrical comment, that you changed
a single opinion, that you proved a single electrical error. You can't,
because in 4607 messages all you did was hurl flames and undermine the
good reputation of the honest profession of engineering.

The *circuits* of these KISS amps have been sitting on the net for at
least a year. You, Stewart Pinkerton, have not analysed those circuits.
You merely hurled vague personalities. Others have, and found them
good, and made suggestion which I incorporated (thanks especially to
John Byrns and Patrick Turner). You just hurled empty accusations.

You, Stewart Pinkerton, were humiliated with your own incompetence when
you claimed you could design a better amp with transistors than I can
with tubes. Your piece of **** was so incompetent that every could see
at a glance that it was ****. No one built it, not even you, because
you were forced to admit it is incompetent.

I didn't bother with the SS ones, since just *looking* at the abortion
you had created was enough for any sane reader to have a fit of the
giggles. Besides, it's just an opamp strapped to a bad power supply.

Wow! If you can prove them, the errors Ancient Hacker alleges are very,
very serious indeed. And you, Stewart Pinkerton, the self-appointed
scourge of the electronics hobbyists, let them slide by?

Who do you expect to believe you? Your little sock puppets who buy
their lowfi on the high street? The other quarterwitted "engineers"
floating around here? (No, I take that back. They at least have the
brains not to lie as transparently as Pinkerton.)

Besides, it's just an opamp strapped to a bad power supply.

And this is the rest of your excuse, eh? In plain English, Jute got it
right, there was nothing to argue about..

Besides, it's just an opamp strapped to a bad power supply.

......except maybe the power supply. So why didn't you in the entire
last year show me how to redesign the "bad" power supply, or ask me why
it is designed like that, or try to discuss the principles behind it
with me, or with anyone else? Why is this the first we hear of it?
After a year? You're slowing down in your old age, PinkoPscyho.

The crticisms below are of course correct,

Then prove them one by one, you blustering loudmouth.

but the whole thing was
simply too risible to bother with a line by line deconstruction.

Everyone should note this is an admission that Pinkerton saw the text
at the time because sure as hell he will shortly claim we didn't tell
him where to find the text and circuits, or that we altered them since,
or some other conspiracy to make him look like a fool.

Here, for everyone of goodwill, is the full set of articles and
schematics, the context of which by itself makes a nonsense of the
allegations of these trolls:

excised in the interests of sanity and improving audio design
everywhere

By itself, Pinkerton's attempt to cut the evidence is proof absolute
that I got it all right and that Pinkerton can't even find the tiniest
nit to pick. Here the evidence is again:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...dre%20Jute.htm
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...dre%20Jute.htm
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20mGBschem.jpg
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...%20mGBmatr.jpg
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...%20NoBleed.jpg

Here is the original post that Pinkerton claims is correct:

Everybody, before he takes it down, go see:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...dre%20Jute.htm

Nope, still up, and in your face, Pinkerton. In your face Poopie. In
your face Old Hack, In your face Useless Wiecky.

It's our perennial unintentional barrel-of-laughs guy trying to pass
off as an Electrical Engineer.

Wouldn't want to be mistaken for an "engineer" on these conferences,
not with the clowns who claim to be "engineers" here being daily
humiliated for their shortcomings of character, education, training,
knowledge, manners, morals, etc. I don't fancy being mystaken for
antisocial scum or an outright pscyhopath like Pinkerton.

and here's the punchline:

"The quiescent operating point of a transistor is Iq and it is found as
the square root of the theoretical power divided by twice the load. The
load in our design is the 8 ohm speaker.

Iq = SQRT(P/2RL)

Take the square root of 30/16 and discover that the biasing current
should be set to 1.37A. The theoretical highest signal is the available
input times the voltage gain or 22V, which is also the voltage we
expect from the power supply, so the bias resistor must be 16 ohm and
it will dissipate 30W so we should use a 100W component, which itself
will require a substantial heatsink."

How many bloopers can you spot in those few lines?

Name them and prove them from my text.

Confusing DC biasing versus AC swing?

Prove it, scumbag.

Using the wrong endpoints for the resistor?

Prove it, scumbag.

Calling a resistor what it is most definitely not, a constant-current
source?

Prove it, scumbag.

Suggesting there's going to be crossover distortion in an
op-amp with 60db of feedback?

Prove it, scumbag.

Suggesting a resistor is going to fix this?

Prove it, scumbag.

One might consider faking it in an area that is more forgiving, say
Numerology or Weather Prediction.

Pinkerton should run, not walk, to any alternative employment except
engineering. Oh, sorry, Pinkerton long since did run to alternative
employment, as a postroom employee in a bank.

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Andre Jute
Charisma is the ability by merely existing to engender mouthfoaming
rage in the uglier "engineers"

Challenging the so-called "engineer" Stewart "Zero Proof" Pinkerton on his own ground
 

For all your fulminating, you _ARE_ strangely quiet on how SILVER got
printed on your 'matched pair' of Western Electric 300Bs. Could it be a
diversion?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Jute foams at the mouth again, trying to cover his tracks
 

On 23 Feb 2006 06:11:57 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Feb 2006 08:35:24 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

LOL.

If the Old Hack is right, the resident "engineers" who have *bragged*
that they are on my arse, for example Psycho Pinkerton and Poopie
Stevenson, scrutinizing and kibbitzing my every pronouncement, are
proven to be incompetent fools for not spotting so many gross errors in
text that has been in their faces for a year. All that remains to seal
judgement of them as electronic morons beyond belief is for Old Hack to
prove his points one by one.

Ah, you're conveniently forgetting that I debugged all your
incompetent KISS 'articles' as they were published.

Prove that you made a single valid electrical comment, that you changed
a single opinion, that you proved a single electrical error. You can't,
because in 4607 messages all you did was hurl flames and undermine the
good reputation of the honest profession of engineering.

No flames, just deconstruction of your technically incompetent turgid
waffle. There is indeed someone here undermining the good reputation
of the honest profession of engineering, but it's not me.

The *circuits* of these KISS amps have been sitting on the net for at
least a year. You, Stewart Pinkerton, have not analysed those circuits.
You merely hurled vague personalities. Others have, and found them
good, and made suggestion which I incorporated (thanks especially to
John Byrns and Patrick Turner). You just hurled empty accusations.

Nope, I pointed out basic errors in the assumptions upon which you
based KISS, and in the risibly incompetent way you came up with some
of the numbers - particularly the required driver current.

You, Stewart Pinkerton, were humiliated with your own incompetence when
you claimed you could design a better amp with transistors than I can
with tubes. Your piece of **** was so incompetent that every could see
at a glance that it was ****. No one built it, not even you, because
you were forced to admit it is incompetent.

Actually, it's a perfectly competent design, terminally crippled by
its design constraints of single-ended functionality, two gain stages,
less than ten watts output, and no global feedback. Within those
limitations, it is certainly superior to your risible KISS 'design',
which you cribbed from 1920s cookbooks.

I didn't bother with the SS ones, since just *looking* at the abortion
you had created was enough for any sane reader to have a fit of the
giggles. Besides, it's just an opamp strapped to a bad power supply.

Wow! If you can prove them, the errors Ancient Hacker alleges are very,
very serious indeed. And you, Stewart Pinkerton, the self-appointed
scourge of the electronics hobbyists, let them slide by?

It's a Gainclone clone, anyone interested can see how the real thing
really should be done. Your bodge was basically too laughable to
bother with, based on false premises displaying a total lack of
understanding of how the device works, and not of any real interest to
anyone.

Who do you expect to believe you? Your little sock puppets who buy
their lowfi on the high street? The other quarterwitted "engineers"
floating around here? (No, I take that back. They at least have the
brains not to lie as transparently as Pinkerton.)

Besides, it's just an opamp strapped to a bad power supply.

And this is the rest of your excuse, eh? In plain English, Jute got it
right, there was nothing to argue about..

No, in plain English, you started with something that works OK, and
you royally ****ed it up. There wasn't anything there for you to *get*
right, it's just an opamp.

Besides, it's just an opamp strapped to a bad power supply.

.....except maybe the power supply. So why didn't you in the entire
last year show me how to redesign the "bad" power supply, or ask me why
it is designed like that, or try to discuss the principles behind it
with me, or with anyone else? Why is this the first we hear of it?
After a year? You're slowing down in your old age, PinkoPscyho.

No, the Gainclone has been around for ages, why would I bother with
your total ****up of it? Besides, it's fundamentally just another
overhyped piece of audio bull****, it doesn't work better (or worse)
than any other cheap amplifier.

snip another self-aggrandising republication of Jute's bull**** KISS
project - uncompleted, of course

Pinkerton should run, not walk, to any alternative employment except
engineering. Oh, sorry, Pinkerton long since did run to alternative
employment, as a postroom employee in a bank.

Just another typical Jute lie - I work at the other end of the
building from the post room, designing and implementing state of the
art automated document factories with the help of the finest software
and hardware that (lots of) money can buy, and helping to run the
biggest and best financial services print and distribution house in
Europe. You of course are a burnt-out never was, crying into your
Guinness in an Irish backwater, pretending to be an academic when you
are only a laughing stock.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering