|
|
Clarification concerning amplifier sale
On Sep 14, 10:31 am, "Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in oglegroups.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". No one has suggested that you didn't explain to Yaeger. I merely listed it as a possibility when Yeager turned reasonable requests for information into a flame war which, predictably, he lost. However, there is something you should have done "sooner or better", and that was explain to me once Yaeger made the provenance of your computer a matter of my integrity. I've remembered: you refused to do so. The consequences aren't my problem. Nor is there anything here that concerns you, or is a matter of your business. Of course not. Yeager made them my business in one of his flamewars. I trust I have made myself clear and that this is the last we will hear from you on this subject, What subject? save for your apology for falsely questioning my integrity. Your integrity is non-existent, Plod, and your reputation long gone. See my other post where I expose a petty dishonesty by you on the day I invite you back to RAT. As for an apology, I don't owe one: I didn't on this occasion question your integrity but your silly refusal to put the information on the table when Yaeger offered your computer for public sale, in pieces. I questioned Yaeger's integrity, but that's a separate matter, unless you two are Siamese twins. -Henry You should drop this, Henry, before your fragile equilibrium is once more wrecked. It is quite clear that you still see me, see red, and cannot stay out of my face. You know what happens next, inevitable as the seasons. Andre Jute |
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 22:16:22 GMT, John Byrns
wrote: 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 au contraire, i i think that this whole group has been infested with nonsense. I have no interest in point scoring or any other kind or scoring. |
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, 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". Goes without saying. 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". According to Hardcastle, the 198 cu in cast iron V-6 was developed from that engine using some of the design and tooling. And was in production for about a year at the same time as the V-8. It was made from '62-'67 after which GM sold their tooling to Jeep - then bought it back from AMC and produced the 231 cu in V-6 in '75. 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. The other point Hardcastle makes is that the Buick 300 and 340 units are based on that original V-8 using the by now developed thin wall cast iron casting techniques which helped to minimise the weight penalty. -- *Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Gentlemen in Audio was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 15, 12:50 am, "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, 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". Goes without saying. Yes, I saw it too, and just passed it by, knowing that John meant the V8. I really can't resist saying that this is the way gentlemen treat an obvious typo by anyone else. This thread gets its very name "More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation" because I was ****ed off by the boorish way in which some parties on these conferences screech every tiny error into a heresy simply to build up their own low self- esteem. There's a right way and a wrong way. Congratlulations to Dave and Arny for showing that there are still gentlemen left here. Andre Jute |
The Sin Eater Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 14, 10:51 pm, Jon Yaeger wrote:
Have a nice evening with your family. Jon Just about the only good advice available, so I took it. Cooked a meal for my family, watched a movie with them. The Sin Eater with Heath Ledger. Superb; better than those millennium movies, one with Arnold Schwarzenegger, one with Gabriel Byrne. Andre Jute Habit is the nursery of errors. -- Victor Hugo |
Dickless Wiecky's motor: bent rod, firing on zero cylinders More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 14, 9:53 pm, bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:16:22 GMT, John Byrns wrote: 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 au contraire, i i think that this whole group has been infested with nonsense. I have no interest in point scoring or any other kind or scoring. Are you sure you want to say "or any other kind of scoring", Bill. This is a tube audio group, dedicated to mechanims on which music is played. Music is all about scoring on large lined sheets of paper... Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
Andre - how would you explain this?
On Sep 15, 9:19 am, Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article om, Andre Jute at wrote on 9/15/07 10:38 AM: On Sep 14, 10:51 pm, Jon Yaeger wrote: Have a nice evening with your family. Jon Just about the only good advice available, so I took it. Cooked a meal for my family, watched a movie with them. The Sin Eater with Heath Ledger. Superb; better than those millennium movies, one with Arnold Schwarzenegger, one with Gabriel Byrne. Andre Jute Habit is the nursery of errors. -- Victor Hugo Andre, If you'll note the time of my post, it was 10:51 PM. Dublin time was 3:51 A.M., I believe. We keep Leprechaun Time. That was also 3.51am. When you wrote your reply it was 10:38 AM your time. About 7 hours later. Remember the Zulu witchdoctor who nearly killed me with thirst and sunburn? Among the things I did to pay him back: I would follow him around and tell his three wives what he thought of the younger women, and I was always right, as they could see on his face; they made his life hell for months, until he gave blood for me to stop cursing him. I knew you (or somebody) would say, get a life, spend more time with your family, go cook a barbeque, something like that. So I did, stopping off long enough to take three bets on it (EUR 250 altogther, about USD300) and in the morning there was your letter. Of course, the witchdoctor is smoke and mirrors. It isn't even psychology, just being sensitive to people. Interesting schedule your family keeps during the "evening." Are you sure you're in Ireland -- not Transylvania? http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/Going%20wolfie.html ;-) Jon Andre Jute Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg. -- Robert Casey |
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... 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. How about this: the Buick 90 degree V6 and the oldsmobile aluminum V8 were both introduced for the 1962 model year. 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 Wiki article says that the 215 V8 was introduced in 1961 - IOW, for the 1962 model year. "In 1961 Buick unveiled an entirely new small V8 engine with aluminum cylinder heads and cylinder block." The Wiki V6 article says that the 90 degree V6 was first available for the 1962 model year, which you say below. 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. The derivation happened during engineering. Wikipedia says the 61 model year for the aluminum V8 and the 1962 model year for the 90 degree V8. No, the Wikipedia says that the aluminum V8 was introduced in 1961, which is when the 1962 model year was introduced in the US. In those days, the new model year cars were introduced in September-October of the previous year. I think they are more flexible about that these days. |
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: "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. How about this: the Buick 90 degree V6 and the oldsmobile aluminum V8 were both introduced for the 1962 model year. 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 Wiki article says that the 215 V8 was introduced in 1961 - IOW, for the 1962 model year. I think that is where you are going wrong, check this "Wiki" article which says that the 215 V8 was "introduced for the 1961 model year." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_V8_engine#215 The Wiki V6 article says that the 90 degree V6 was first available for the 1962 model year, which you say below. 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. The derivation happened during engineering. The "Wiki" puts it a little differently saying the 90 degree V6 "was reverse-engineered from the 215 and used many of the same design parameters, but was cast in iron." The "reverse-engineered" term puts it more the way I remember it, the aluminum V8 didn't work out and they wanted a similar sized engine that they could build without investing in more new tooling. See he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_Special The "Wiki" also says "In 1962, the Special was the first American car to use a V6 engine." My memory is that a considerable amount of time elapsed between the introduction of the V8 and the V6, at least a year and probably more. It wouldn't be at all surprised at all if the V6 was introduced later in the 1962 model year and not at the time of the initial introduction of the 1962 models. Wikipedia says the 61 model year for the aluminum V8 and the 1962 model year for the 90 degree V8. No, the Wikipedia says that the aluminum V8 was introduced in 1961, which is when the 1962 model year was introduced in the US. In those days, the new model year cars were introduced in September-October of the previous year. Check the above "Wiki" reference for the V8, it specifically says "1961 model year", not the 1962 model year. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk