Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
 

On Sep 14, 8:13 am, "Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in oglegroups.com...
Thanks for the full description, Henry. The question is not whether
the circuit is propriety or whether you adapted it but whether it
started in a Gordon Rankin circuit. Or you might decide you'd rather
stay out of Yaeger's futile flame war.

No, Andre, the amplifiers I sold to Jon were a push-pull design based
loosely on Williamson. The Rankin circuit you are thinking of is the
"Baby Ongaku", a SE 2A3 design that I also adapted, built, and later
sold (but not to Jon Yaeger). There is no relationship between the
amps I sold to Jon and Gordon Rankin's published work, save that
they all use vacuum tubes.

I've added pictures of the 2A3 amplifiers to the Picasa web album so
you can see the difference.

I've explained all of this to you several times in the past and am a bit
puzzled why you keep repeating this misinformation. This seems to
be a pattern for you.

Must be because I focus on this sort of reproach and worry about it,
and then the good information is spoilt and lost.

Here, let's see if you're in a suitable frame of mind not to explode
on RAT within the week: Isn't Wolfie's monicker a bit presumptuous
for someone of your amateur standing on the piano?

What I lack in professionalism at the piano, Andre, I make up in
earnestness. Although you haven't heard me play... I might be better
than you expect.

Of course you might. But I know how well you play because you told us
the last time you dropped in. See, I do remember when you don't
clutter your posts with superfluous hits.

Perhaps you should learn an instrument -- you would
find it rewarding and therapeutic, if only you could bring yourself to put
in the effort.

I cycle instead. Pretty ladies cycle with me. I do my own bike
mechanicking.

If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Thanks, but I just stopped by to correct the misstatements you had
posted.

John will be disappointed.

-Henry

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html

Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
 

On Sep 14, 8:17 am, Jon Yaeger wrote:
If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Thanks, but I just stopped by to correct the misstatements you had
posted.

-Henry

Talk about a life's work, Henry . . . .

;-)

Now we have one point cleared up, that the Gordon Rankin design was
the other amplifier, the one you didn't buy. I apologize for saying
the one you did buy was a Rankin design, Yaeger. Pasternack should
have explained sooner and better, preferably at the time when all this
started. What are you doing about clearing up the other points?

Andre Jute

Clarification concerning amplifier sale
 

"Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com...
Now we have one point cleared up, that the Gordon Rankin design was
the other amplifier, the one you didn't buy. I apologize for saying
the one you did buy was a Rankin design, Yaeger. Pasternack should
have explained sooner and better, preferably at the time when all this
started. What are you doing about clearing up the other points?

Jon and I discussed the design and construction of the amplifiers at length
prior to the sale. I am certain he knew exactly what he was getting and I
know he was very satisfied. There is no issue, and nothing I should have
done "sooner or better".

Nor is there anything here that concerns you, or is a matter of your business.

I trust I have made myself clear and that this is the last we will hear from you
on this subject, save for your apology for falsely questioning my integrity.

-Henry

More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
 

In article ,
John Byrns wrote:
IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that
they dumped on Rover,

You *really* should read the story of this engine. Rover had one hell of a
job persuading GM they were serious about buying it - and got it for
pennies. What was an expensive engine to make by the million was more than
ok to make in much smaller quantities for a different class of vehicle
which would be owned by people prepared to take care of it - by, for
example, always using the correct coolant rather than plain water as the
US owners appeared to want to do.

--
*Eschew obfuscation *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
 

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
John Byrns wrote:
IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that
they dumped on Rover,

You *really* should read the story of this engine. Rover had one hell of a
job persuading GM they were serious about buying it - and got it for
pennies. What was an expensive engine to make by the million was more than
ok to make in much smaller quantities for a different class of vehicle
which would be owned by people prepared to take care of it - by, for
example, always using the correct coolant rather than plain water as the
US owners appeared to want to do.

We only used plain water during the summer months, here in the Northern
states we always used antifreeze coolant in the depth of the winter
months to avoid a cracked block or a popped "freeze plug".


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Dickless Wiecky's motor: bent rod, firing on zero cylinders More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:36:05 GMT, John Byrns
wrote:

In article ,
bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:

isn't this getting rather tiresome?

give it a rest.

who cares if it's 60, 90 or 112.7?

Someone must have cared or 60 & 112.7 degree V8s would have been more
popular.


Regards,

John Byrns

that's not the point, this petty point scoring is just childish.

Dickless Wiecky's motor: bent rod, firing on zero cylinders More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
 

In article ,
bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:36:05 GMT, John Byrns
wrote:

In article ,
bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:

isn't this getting rather tiresome?

give it a rest.

who cares if it's 60, 90 or 112.7?

Someone must have cared or 60 & 112.7 degree V8s would have been more
popular.

that's not the point, this petty point scoring is just childish.

You are the one doing the point scoring, not me.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
 

In article ,
John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
John Byrns wrote:
IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6
that they dumped on Rover,

You *really* should read the story of this engine. Rover had one hell
of a job persuading GM they were serious about buying it - and got it
for pennies. What was an expensive engine to make by the million was
more than ok to make in much smaller quantities for a different class
of vehicle which would be owned by people prepared to take care of it
- by, for example, always using the correct coolant rather than plain
water as the US owners appeared to want to do.

We only used plain water during the summer months, here in the Northern
states we always used antifreeze coolant in the depth of the winter
months to avoid a cracked block or a popped "freeze plug".

That's the problem. Aluminium engines need anti corrosion additives all
year round. Of course we're used to that these days - but then it was
expensive. But then it seems plenty wouldn't even pay for antifreeze in
the winter - but drain the water each night. Obviously not where the
winters were severe, though.

That's the story I've heard.

--
*Don't use no double negatives *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
 

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that V6s
needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft, either!
Can
we say rock and roll? ;-)

IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that
they dumped on Rover, and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it
could be built on the same line with existing tooling.

No, the 90 degree V6 (Buick) was initially contemporaneous with the aluminum
90 degree V8 (Oldsmobile).

More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
 

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that V6s
needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft, either!
Can
we say rock and roll? ;-)

IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that
they dumped on Rover, and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it
could be built on the same line with existing tooling.

Please note that my use of the term "aluminum V6" was a typo and it
should have read "aluminum V8".

No, the 90 degree V6 (Buick) was initially contemporaneous with the aluminum
90 degree V8 (Oldsmobile).

What does "initially contemporaneous" mean? It sounds like a bunch of
weasel words to me. My point was that the aluminum V8 came out before
the 90 degree V6, although their production did overlap if that is what
you mean by "initially contemporaneous".

The facts, which can be found on the Wikipedia, are that the Buick
aluminum V8 came out before the 90 degree iron V6 that was derived from
it. Wikipedia says the 61 model year for the aluminum V8 and the 1962
model year for the 90 degree V8. I well remember the events as GM was
recruiting new automotive engineering graduates from the college I
attended and they had a big display explaining the design, technology,
and production of their newly introduced V6. Not only did the V6
obviously follow the aluminum V8 to the market, meaning it came later,
but my memory is that GM presented it to the newly minted engineers as a
replacement for the ill stared aluminum V8.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/