|
|
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
Andre Jute wrote:
You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." conduction "under any signal condition". What a load of pedantic crap. How about simply specifying that a Class A amplification stage will never cease to conduct when operated within it's designed operating range (presuming that it was properly designed). As for injunears, having passed some written exam at some point in life (usually before any useful work was done) is no a guarantee of anything. I've worked with everything from PHDs to people without a qualification to their name, and, apart from a few of the PHDs, the ratio of the clever to the idiots has been roughly the same regardless of qualification. Keith |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
You really have to wonder.
Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. Here's the sequence of their errors, with a small sample of their abuse liberally spattered over the newsgroups: First Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience, pointed out that Poopie Stevenson made a silly error: Poopie's absurd redefinition of Class A as a Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting *under any signal condition*," (emphasis added). It's ludicrous. Then Poopie Stevenson confirmed: It's actually the only accurate definition. And Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger agreed without any qualification: Agreed. Then Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience even with fools, pointed out that the two parts of redefinition are mutually exclusive: Any amp can be driven out of class by excessive signal voltage. Which Poopie tried to blow away with poor-quality smoke: Overdriving to cut-off is merely gross abuse and a complete red herring / irrelevance. Fully supported of course by his yes-man, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger: Agreed. Jute seems to be addicted to excluded-middle arguments. Kick out those and the straw men, and he's hardly have anything to say. ;-) Now Don Pearce tries to bluster the argument out with an obvious lie: Can you overdrive a class A amp to cutoff? In my experience what happens when you overdrive a class A amp is that one device saturates, and the other sticks with its normal bias condition. There is no circumstance in which I have ever managed to put a class A amplifier output device into cutoff. d Of course, it is irrelevant (perhaps even commendable) that Don Pearce lives such a dull and unadventurous life that he has never overdriven a Class A amp; perhaps he doesn't own a Class A amp; on the evidence in this thread he doesn't even know what a Class A amp is. What matters is that Don Pearce, like Arny Krueger, supports Poopie Stevenson's absurd definition of Class A operation as 360 degrees of conduction "under any signal condition". How can any properly educated engineer not know that the signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? It is difficult not to conclude that these three clowns, Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, are either not engineers, or were not properly educated, or are too old and fat and slack to remember the basics they were taught. I have on previous occasions demonstrated what Poopie Stevenson's claim of a University of London degree actually means: not very much, as he got his degree from a jumped-up polytechnic (a British version of the soldering schools Ludwig is addicted to) forced onto UL by a socialist government trying to save a buck. Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Who knows where Pearce was so misshapen as to believe that it doesn't matter how much signal voltage you use in an amplifier? Poopie Stevenson, Bluster Pearce and Erroneous Krueger are, in engineering terms, ignorant and abusive clowns "under any signal condition". Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
"Andre Jute" wrote in message oups.com... Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Just goes to show that Jute is so stupid and arrogant that he is willing to go on record agreeing with the sockpuppet known as George Middius. AFAIK, the lie that I ever attended a community college is a lie that was originated on Usenet by the Middiot. I graduated from Oakland University which has never been a community college. It is the only degree-granting institution of higher education that I've ever attended. True, there is an educational resource named Oakland Community College, but it is a completely different institution. The rest of Jute's post is about as truthful as this false claim. |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
The Krooborg comes down to earth. Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Just goes to show that Jute is so stupid and arrogant that he is willing to go on record agreeing with the sockpuppet known as George Middius. AFAIK, the lie that I ever attended a community college is a lie Thanks Mr. **** for, admitting Turdborg that you were not educated at all ****-for-Brains. |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
Hi RATs!
I think, therefore, I error. Humans learn whatever they can to allow themselves to eat and sleep and smile and such. Music (recordings, from my hot rodded noise toys) eases the pain, and, suppresses my broken brain ... even better :) Those of us with adequate meds and no remaining ability to fight the "Glorious and Grande Battles for Income" are allowed to just putter and listen. I did more puttering, in better days ;) Education is a fine pose by fine posers in institutions of learning. Unschooled children, dull and clever, the world over, learn as much, or more, every day, than our silly institutions teach those, dull and clever, cursed by birth to attend to some fuddy duddy mouthing memorized banalities about organized and catalogued nonsense. If any of you ear heads have never seen "Auntie Mame", the Rosalind Russel version, it is a wonderful sendup of Big Buck Education in Gotham. I have been graced by some fine teachers. But those few brave souls can not carry the burden of all the dead meat stumbling around the world campuses. Many attend, but few get excited enough to go after more than a piece of parchment. None become immortal or really educated, but, some have more fun than others. An education is learning to find answers and figure out new questions. Some get it, some can't. All try their best, except the morbidly silly who think America's "No Child Left Behind" is anything more than holding the clever back to make the dull 'feel' normal. Those kind of manufactured emotions do no one any favors. No matter how well the folly is documented. Nor how often ;) All of us seek to understand things, in any manner which gives us a sense of understanding. We may be called polymaths, or idiots, but, those who try to memorize the answers are better at name calling than anything useful to their brethren. None are "poorly educated", we are all incredibly well educated, given the breadth of the Universe and the insanity of our fellows. No human speaks a language completely shared with any other, ever. Some may share more, or less, but that is just empty statistics. I look for answers where I find puzzles. Some are not thusly motivated. They look to preach their answers where no one sees any puzzle. Both have friends and enemies, whatever that may mean ;) It is hopeless. But, passes the time. Tubes are not the answer, they are just another way to find some joy in this war zone ... combat is popular, but, optional. Death be not proud, nor killing fair, but, we all will die ... Just, after this tune, OK? Happy Ears! Al |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
IN RESPONSE TO THIS
You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. Here's the sequence of their errors, with a small sample of their abuse liberally spattered over the newsgroups: First Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience, pointed out that Poopie Stevenson made a silly error: Poopie's absurd redefinition of Class A as a Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting *under any signal condition*," (emphasis added). It's ludicrous. Then Poopie Stevenson confirmed: It's actually the only accurate definition. And Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger agreed without any qualification: Agreed. Then Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience even with fools, pointed out that the two parts of redefinition are mutually exclusive: Any amp can be driven out of class by excessive signal voltage. Which Poopie tried to blow away with poor-quality smoke: Overdriving to cut-off is merely gross abuse and a complete red herring / irrelevance. Fully supported of course by his yes-man, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger: Agreed. Jute seems to be addicted to excluded-middle arguments. Kick out those and the straw men, and he's hardly have anything to say. ;-) Now Don Pearce tries to bluster the argument out with an obvious lie: Can you overdrive a class A amp to cutoff? In my experience what happens when you overdrive a class A amp is that one device saturates, and the other sticks with its normal bias condition. There is no circumstance in which I have ever managed to put a class A amplifier output device into cutoff. d Of course, it is irrelevant (perhaps even commendable) that Don Pearce lives such a dull and unadventurous life that he has never overdriven a Class A amp; perhaps he doesn't own a Class A amp; on the evidence in this thread he doesn't even know what a Class A amp is. What matters is that Don Pearce, like Arny Krueger, supports Poopie Stevenson's absurd definition of Class A operation as 360 degrees of conduction "under any signal condition". How can any properly educated engineer not know that the signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? It is difficult not to conclude that these three clowns, Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, are either not engineers, or were not properly educated, or are too old and fat and slack to remember the basics they were taught. I have on previous occasions demonstrated what Poopie Stevenson's claim of a University of London degree actually means: not very much, as he got his degree from a jumped-up polytechnic (a British version of the soldering schools Ludwig is addicted to) forced onto UL by a socialist government trying to save a buck. Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Who knows where Pearce was so misshapen as to believe that it doesn't matter how much signal voltage you use in an amplifier? Poopie Stevenson, Bluster Pearce and Erroneous Krueger are, in engineering terms, ignorant and abusive clowns "under any signal condition". Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE REASONE INDICTMENT, ERRONEOUS KRUEGER TELLS US THIS: On Oct 25, 10:31 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message oups.com... Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Just goes to show that Jute is so stupid and arrogant that he is willing to go on record agreeing with the sockpuppet known as George Middius. AFAIK, the lie that I ever attended a community college is a lie that was originated on Usenet by the Middiot. You're tight, Krueger, I merely reported what others said about you. I graduated from Oakland University Never heard of that one either. The rest of your post is poor-quality smoke to avoid the main issue: So, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger, where is your excuse for claiming that Class A must hold true "under any condition of signal"? which has never been a community college. It is the only degree-granting institution of higher education that I've ever attended. True, there is an educational resource named Oakland Community College, but it is a completely different institution. The rest of Jute's post is about as truthful as this false claim. Do you, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger, deny that you agreed with Poopie Stevenson that Class A must hold true "under any condition of signal"? Unsigned out of contempt for a liar and a fool |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
On Oct 26, 12:29 am, Andre Jute wrote:
IN RESPONSE TO THIS You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. Here's the sequence of their errors, with a small sample of their abuse liberally spattered over the newsgroups: First Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience, pointed out that Poopie Stevenson made a silly error: Poopie's absurd redefinition of Class A as a Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting *under any signal condition*," (emphasis added). It's ludicrous. Then Poopie Stevenson confirmed: It's actually the only accurate definition. And Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger agreed without any qualification: Agreed. Then Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience even with fools, pointed out that the two parts of redefinition are mutually exclusive: Any amp can be driven out of class by excessive signal voltage. Which Poopie tried to blow away with poor-quality smoke: Overdriving to cut-off is merely gross abuse and a complete red herring / irrelevance. Fully supported of course by his yes-man, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger: Agreed. Jute seems to be addicted to excluded-middle arguments. Kick out those and the straw men, and he's hardly have anything to say. ;-) Now Don Pearce tries to bluster the argument out with an obvious lie: Can you overdrive a class A amp to cutoff? In my experience what happens when you overdrive a class A amp is that one device saturates, and the other sticks with its normal bias condition. There is no circumstance in which I have ever managed to put a class A amplifier output device into cutoff. d Of course, it is irrelevant (perhaps even commendable) that Don Pearce lives such a dull and unadventurous life that he has never overdriven a Class A amp; perhaps he doesn't own a Class A amp; on the evidence in this thread he doesn't even know what a Class A amp is. What matters is that Don Pearce, like Arny Krueger, supports Poopie Stevenson's absurd definition of Class A operation as 360 degrees of conduction "under any signal condition". How can any properly educated engineer not know that the signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? It is difficult not to conclude that these three clowns, Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, are either not engineers, or were not properly educated, or are too old and fat and slack to remember the basics they were taught. I have on previous occasions demonstrated what Poopie Stevenson's claim of a University of London degree actually means: not very much, as he got his degree from a jumped-up polytechnic (a British version of the soldering schools Ludwig is addicted to) forced onto UL by a socialist government trying to save a buck. Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Who knows where Pearce was so misshapen as to believe that it doesn't matter how much signal voltage you use in an amplifier? Poopie Stevenson, Bluster Pearce and Erroneous Krueger are, in engineering terms, ignorant and abusive clowns "under any signal condition". Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE REASONE INDICTMENT, ERRONEOUS KRUEGER TELLS US THIS: On Oct 25, 10:31 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message roups.com... Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Just goes to show that Jute is so stupid and arrogant that he is willing to go on record agreeing with the sockpuppet known as George Middius. AFAIK, the lie that I ever attended a community college is a lie that was originated on Usenet by the Middiot. You're tight, Krueger, I merely reported what others said about you. I graduated from Oakland University Never heard of that one either. The rest of your post is poor-quality smoke to avoid the main issue: So, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger, where is your excuse for claiming that Class A must hold true "under any condition of signal"? which has never been a community college. It is the only degree-granting institution of higher education that I've ever attended. True, there is an educational resource named Oakland Community College, but it is a completely different institution. The rest of Jute's post is about as truthful as this false claim. Do you, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger, deny that you agreed with Poopie Stevenson that Class A must hold true "under any condition of signal"? Unsigned out of contempt for a liar and a fool All hail the marketer cheap-Jute. When are you going to get back to the definition of AB? back to claiming AB amps workin Class A for some fraction of its rated power? good grief Chuck, go wait for the great pumpkin. So you run your amps with clipping inducing signal? Signal is only of concern below the level required to deliver max power. What is the value of discussing signal that overdrives the amp? Turn the volume down fooool, or build a bigger amp. Class A means the finals are at a minimum idling at half the current they'll conduct at full power. It doesn't matter if the design can deal with grid current or not. If it can, then of course power will be higher than if it couldn't. Why would you worry about an AB amp's behaviour under signal higher than required to deliver max power( unless you're discussing the overload behaviour perhaps ). You know what was meant, and at worst the idea was mis-spoken. Get a grip! Cloud the issue, split The part of the an AB amp's finals conducting together is not class A. Your agreement isn't required, just like we don't need your approval for the Sun to rise the next morning. It will rise regardless...:) cheers, Douglas |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
"Multi-grid" wrote in message ups.com... On Oct 26, 12:29 am, Andre Jute wrote: IN RESPONSE TO THIS You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. Here's the sequence of their errors, with a small sample of their abuse liberally spattered over the newsgroups: First Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience, pointed out that Poopie Stevenson made a silly error: Poopie's absurd redefinition of Class A as a Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting *under any signal condition*," (emphasis added). It's ludicrous. Then Poopie Stevenson confirmed: It's actually the only accurate definition. And Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger agreed without any qualification: Agreed. Then Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience even with fools, pointed out that the two parts of redefinition are mutually exclusive: Any amp can be driven out of class by excessive signal voltage. Which Poopie tried to blow away with poor-quality smoke: Overdriving to cut-off is merely gross abuse and a complete red herring / irrelevance. Fully supported of course by his yes-man, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger: Agreed. Jute seems to be addicted to excluded-middle arguments. Kick out those and the straw men, and he's hardly have anything to say. ;-) Now Don Pearce tries to bluster the argument out with an obvious lie: Can you overdrive a class A amp to cutoff? In my experience what happens when you overdrive a class A amp is that one device saturates, and the other sticks with its normal bias condition. There is no circumstance in which I have ever managed to put a class A amplifier output device into cutoff. d Of course, it is irrelevant (perhaps even commendable) that Don Pearce lives such a dull and unadventurous life that he has never overdriven a Class A amp; perhaps he doesn't own a Class A amp; on the evidence in this thread he doesn't even know what a Class A amp is. What matters is that Don Pearce, like Arny Krueger, supports Poopie Stevenson's absurd definition of Class A operation as 360 degrees of conduction "under any signal condition". How can any properly educated engineer not know that the signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? It is difficult not to conclude that these three clowns, Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, are either not engineers, or were not properly educated, or are too old and fat and slack to remember the basics they were taught. I have on previous occasions demonstrated what Poopie Stevenson's claim of a University of London degree actually means: not very much, as he got his degree from a jumped-up polytechnic (a British version of the soldering schools Ludwig is addicted to) forced onto UL by a socialist government trying to save a buck. Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Who knows where Pearce was so misshapen as to believe that it doesn't matter how much signal voltage you use in an amplifier? Poopie Stevenson, Bluster Pearce and Erroneous Krueger are, in engineering terms, ignorant and abusive clowns "under any signal condition". Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE REASONE INDICTMENT, ERRONEOUS KRUEGER TELLS US THIS: On Oct 25, 10:31 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message roups.com... Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Just goes to show that Jute is so stupid and arrogant that he is willing to go on record agreeing with the sockpuppet known as George Middius. AFAIK, the lie that I ever attended a community college is a lie that was originated on Usenet by the Middiot. You're tight, Krueger, I merely reported what others said about you. I graduated from Oakland University Never heard of that one either. The rest of your post is poor-quality smoke to avoid the main issue: So, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger, where is your excuse for claiming that Class A must hold true "under any condition of signal"? which has never been a community college. It is the only degree-granting institution of higher education that I've ever attended. True, there is an educational resource named Oakland Community College, but it is a completely different institution. The rest of Jute's post is about as truthful as this false claim. Do you, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger, deny that you agreed with Poopie Stevenson that Class A must hold true "under any condition of signal"? Unsigned out of contempt for a liar and a fool All hail the marketer cheap-Jute. When are you going to get back to the definition of AB? back to claiming AB amps workin Class A for some fraction of its rated power? good grief Chuck, go wait for the great pumpkin. So you run your amps with clipping inducing signal? Signal is only of concern below the level required to deliver max power. What is the value of discussing signal that overdrives the amp? Turn the volume down fooool, or build a bigger amp. Class A means the finals are at a minimum idling at half the current they'll conduct at full power. It doesn't matter if the design can deal with grid current or not. If it can, then of course power will be higher than if it couldn't. Why would you worry about an AB amp's behaviour under signal higher than required to deliver max power( unless you're discussing the overload behaviour perhaps ). You know what was meant, and at worst the idea was mis-spoken. Get a grip! Cloud the issue, split The part of the an AB amp's finals conducting together is not class A. Your agreement isn't required, just like we don't need your approval for the Sun to rise the next morning. It will rise regardless...:) cheers, Douglas Doug, think for a minute about the description, "Class AB." What could that possibly mean? That the amp operates part of the time in A and part of the time in B? Why, Duh, that's exactly how a Class AB amp operates! Must be why they call it Class AB! There's a difference between a Class A amplifier and Class A operation. A Class AB amplifier isn't a Class A amplifier but it is capable of Class A Operation under certain conditions. That's *why* it's called Class AB. Fred |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
Andre Jute wrote: You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." And of course they are correct. It is the very textbook DEFINITION of Class A. Graham |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
Andre Jute wrote:
You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." Let's see, I graduated Syracuse University in 1978 with a BSEE, so I'd be an engineer. For class A, I'd add the condition "if the input signal level doesn't drive the amp into distortion or clipping" to "_all_ the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition.". I also added "all" to make it clear that each and every output device never turns off. I've seen class A amps that had push-pull tubes, each tube configured to never shut off, thru out the entire waveform cycle. This would help reduce 2nd harmonic distortions (or have perfect cancellation IF both tubes have identical characteristics and fed identical except inverted signals). Okay, how about class AB? That's usually a push pull configuration where, at or near zero crossing, both devices are conducting. But get above, say 10% of maximum input signal level, one of the devices stops conducting, and the other device is doing the work. Lets also say that this is a 100W amplifier, if you run it with an input signal that makes only 1 watt (the volume control is set low), then, sure you could call it a 1 watt class A amp. But that'd be rather silly... Class B is where there is no class A overlap. Sure, you could have low quiescent current, but you could easily have crossover distortion. And it'd sound like a cheap op-amp... And there's class C, but that's not usable in audio work. It's used in FM RF transmitters, where the distortions are filtered out. And there's class D, which IIRC is a pulse width modulation scheme with a clock running at about 10X the highest audio frequency. And heavy low pass filtering to remove the clock and its harmonics. Mainly used in solid state amps, and even there it's not real common. |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
On Oct 26, 2:27 am, "Phread" wrote:
"Multi-grid" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 26, 12:29 am, Andre Jute wrote: IN RESPONSE TO THIS You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. Here's the sequence of their errors, with a small sample of their abuse liberally spattered over the newsgroups: First Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience, pointed out that Poopie Stevenson made a silly error: Poopie's absurd redefinition of Class A as a Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting *under any signal condition*," (emphasis added). It's ludicrous. Then Poopie Stevenson confirmed: It's actually the only accurate definition. And Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger agreed without any qualification: Agreed. Then Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience even with fools, pointed out that the two parts of redefinition are mutually exclusive: Any amp can be driven out of class by excessive signal voltage. Which Poopie tried to blow away with poor-quality smoke: Overdriving to cut-off is merely gross abuse and a complete red herring / irrelevance. Fully supported of course by his yes-man, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger: Agreed. Jute seems to be addicted to excluded-middle arguments. Kick out those and the straw men, and he's hardly have anything to say. ;-) Now Don Pearce tries to bluster the argument out with an obvious lie: Can you overdrive a class A amp to cutoff? In my experience what happens when you overdrive a class A amp is that one device saturates, and the other sticks with its normal bias condition. There is no circumstance in which I have ever managed to put a class A amplifier output device into cutoff. d Of course, it is irrelevant (perhaps even commendable) that Don Pearce lives such a dull and unadventurous life that he has never overdriven a Class A amp; perhaps he doesn't own a Class A amp; on the evidence in this thread he doesn't even know what a Class A amp is. What matters is that Don Pearce, like Arny Krueger, supports Poopie Stevenson's absurd definition of Class A operation as 360 degrees of conduction "under any signal condition". How can any properly educated engineer not know that the signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? It is difficult not to conclude that these three clowns, Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, are either not engineers, or were not properly educated, or are too old and fat and slack to remember the basics they were taught. I have on previous occasions demonstrated what Poopie Stevenson's claim of a University of London degree actually means: not very much, as he got his degree from a jumped-up polytechnic (a British version of the soldering schools Ludwig is addicted to) forced onto UL by a socialist government trying to save a buck. Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Who knows where Pearce was so misshapen as to believe that it doesn't matter how much signal voltage you use in an amplifier? Poopie Stevenson, Bluster Pearce and Erroneous Krueger are, in engineering terms, ignorant and abusive clowns "under any signal condition". Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE REASONE INDICTMENT, ERRONEOUS KRUEGER TELLS US THIS: On Oct 25, 10:31 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message roups.com... Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Just goes to show that Jute is so stupid and arrogant that he is willing to go on record agreeing with the sockpuppet known as George Middius. AFAIK, the lie that I ever attended a community college is a lie that was originated on Usenet by the Middiot. You're tight, Krueger, I merely reported what others said about you. I graduated from Oakland University Never heard of that one either. The rest of your post is poor-quality smoke to avoid the main issue: So, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger, where is your excuse for claiming that Class A must hold true "under any condition of signal"? which has never been a community college. It is the only degree-granting institution of higher education that I've ever attended. True, there is an educational resource named Oakland Community College, but it is a completely different institution. The rest of Jute's post is about as truthful as this false claim. Do you, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger, deny that you agreed with Poopie Stevenson that Class A must hold true "under any condition of signal"? Unsigned out of contempt for a liar and a fool All hail the marketer cheap-Jute. When are you going to get back to the definition of AB? back to claiming AB amps workin Class A for some fraction of its rated power? good grief Chuck, go wait for the great pumpkin. So you run your amps with clipping inducing signal? Signal is only of concern below the level required to deliver max power. What is the value of discussing signal that overdrives the amp? Turn the volume down fooool, or build a bigger amp. Class A means the finals are at a minimum idling at half the current they'll conduct at full power. It doesn't matter if the design can deal with grid current or not. If it can, then of course power will be higher than if it couldn't. Why would you worry about an AB amp's behaviour under signal higher than required to deliver max power( unless you're discussing the overload behaviour perhaps ). You know what was meant, and at worst the idea was mis-spoken. Get a grip! Cloud the issue, split The part of the an AB amp's finals conducting together is not class A. Your agreement isn't required, just like we don't need your approval for the Sun to rise the next morning. It will rise regardless...:) cheers, Douglas Doug, think for a minute about the description, "Class AB." What could that possibly mean? That the amp operates part of the time in A and part of the time in B? Why, Duh, that's exactly how a Class AB amp operates! Must be why they call it Class AB! There's a difference between a Class A amplifier and Class A operation. A Class AB amplifier isn't a Class A amplifier but it is capable of Class A Operation under certain conditions. That's *why* it's called Class AB. Fred- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hey Fred, An AB amp's behaviour is by definition AB. That it is like A and B does not make it either. It is simply AB. Full 360 degree conduction is A, and something around 180 is B. That AB has both an A and a B in it does not mean it is a Class A part of the time and B for others. Anything else is a marketing-induced misunderstanding. But hey, I am not in charge here( thank God, not going to be held responsible for the RAT mess! ), and you sure don't need my approval to Believe, neh? cheers, Douglas |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
On Oct 25, 4:27 pm, "Phread" wrote:
"Multi-grid" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 26, 12:29 am, Andre Jute wrote: You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. Here's the sequence of their errors, with a small sample of their abuse liberally spattered over the newsgroups: First Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience, pointed out that Poopie Stevenson made a silly error: Poopie's absurd redefinition of Class A as a Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting *under any signal condition*," (emphasis added). It's ludicrous. Then Poopie Stevenson confirmed: It's actually the only accurate definition. And Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger agreed without any qualification: Agreed. Then Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience even with fools, pointed out that the two parts of redefinition are mutually exclusive: Any amp can be driven out of class by excessive signal voltage. Which Poopie tried to blow away with poor-quality smoke: Overdriving to cut-off is merely gross abuse and a complete red herring / irrelevance. Fully supported of course by his yes-man, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger: Agreed. Jute seems to be addicted to excluded-middle arguments. Kick out those and the straw men, and he's hardly have anything to say. ;-) Now Don Pearce tries to bluster the argument out with an obvious lie: Can you overdrive a class A amp to cutoff? In my experience what happens when you overdrive a class A amp is that one device saturates, and the other sticks with its normal bias condition. There is no circumstance in which I have ever managed to put a class A amplifier output device into cutoff. d Of course, it is irrelevant (perhaps even commendable) that Don Pearce lives such a dull and unadventurous life that he has never overdriven a Class A amp; perhaps he doesn't own a Class A amp; on the evidence in this thread he doesn't even know what a Class A amp is. What matters is that Don Pearce, like Arny Krueger, supports Poopie Stevenson's absurd definition of Class A operation as 360 degrees of conduction "under any signal condition". How can any properly educated engineer not know that the signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? It is difficult not to conclude that these three clowns, Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, are either not engineers, or were not properly educated, or are too old and fat and slack to remember the basics they were taught. I have on previous occasions demonstrated what Poopie Stevenson's claim of a University of London degree actually means: not very much, as he got his degree from a jumped-up polytechnic (a British version of the soldering schools Ludwig is addicted to) forced onto UL by a socialist government trying to save a buck. Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Who knows where Pearce was so misshapen as to believe that it doesn't matter how much signal voltage you use in an amplifier? Poopie Stevenson, Bluster Pearce and Erroneous Krueger are, in engineering terms, ignorant and abusive clowns "under any signal condition". Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain The part of the an AB amp's finals conducting together is not class A. Your agreement isn't required, just like we don't need your approval for the Sun to rise the next morning. It will rise regardless...:) cheers, Douglas Doug, think for a minute about the description, "Class AB." What could that possibly mean? That the amp operates part of the time in A and part of the time in B? Why, Duh, that's exactly how a Class AB amp operates! Must be why they call it Class AB! There's a difference between a Class A amplifier and Class A operation. A Class AB amplifier isn't a Class A amplifier but it is capable of Class A Operation under certain conditions. That's *why* it's called Class AB. Fred Precisely. "A Class AB amplifier ... is capable of Class A Operation under certain conditions", one of those conditions being that the signal should not be large enough to drive the amplifier beyond the boundaries of Class A. That precludes "under any signal condition" as Graham "Poopie" Stevenson has it, supported by Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Thanks, Fred. I don't think you'll make a lot of impact on Multi- grid's thick skull but you did your duty by trying. Maybe you want next to try to educate the self-styled "engineers" Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
Poopie Stevenson, aka Eeyore
wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." And of course they are correct. It is the very textbook DEFINITION of Class A. Graham Name one textbook that includes the words "under any signal condition" in the definition of Class A. You can't because the qualification entirely negates the definition of Class A. No real engineer would put such a travesty into a textbook. Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger are wrong. If you don't know it, you don't belong here. After this display of gross ignorance, Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger shouldn't call themselves "engineers". 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 HERE IS THE ORIGINAL POST IN THIS THREAD FOR THOSE WHO MISSED IT: You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. Here's the sequence of their errors, with a small sample of their abuse liberally spattered over the newsgroups: First Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience, pointed out that Poopie Stevenson made a silly error: Poopie's absurd redefinition of Class A as a Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting *under any signal condition*," (emphasis added). It's ludicrous. Then Poopie Stevenson confirmed: It's actually the only accurate definition. And Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger agreed without any qualification: Agreed. Then Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience even with fools, pointed out that the two parts of redefinition are mutually exclusive: Any amp can be driven out of class by excessive signal voltage. Which Poopie tried to blow away with poor-quality smoke: Overdriving to cut-off is merely gross abuse and a complete red herring / irrelevance. Fully supported of course by his yes-man, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger: Agreed. Jute seems to be addicted to excluded-middle arguments. Kick out those and the straw men, and he's hardly have anything to say. ;-) Now Don Pearce tries to bluster the argument out with an obvious lie: Can you overdrive a class A amp to cutoff? In my experience what happens when you overdrive a class A amp is that one device saturates, and the other sticks with its normal bias condition. There is no circumstance in which I have ever managed to put a class A amplifier output device into cutoff. d Of course, it is irrelevant (perhaps even commendable) that Don Pearce lives such a dull and unadventurous life that he has never overdriven a Class A amp; perhaps he doesn't own a Class A amp; on the evidence in this thread he doesn't even know what a Class A amp is. What matters is that Don Pearce, like Arny Krueger, supports Poopie Stevenson's absurd definition of Class A operation as 360 degrees of conduction "under any signal condition". How can any properly educated engineer not know that the signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? It is difficult not to conclude that these three clowns, Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, are either not engineers, or were not properly educated, or are too old and fat and slack to remember the basics they were taught. I have on previous occasions demonstrated what Poopie Stevenson's claim of a University of London degree actually means: not very much, as he got his degree from a jumped-up polytechnic (a British version of the soldering schools Ludwig is addicted to) forced onto UL by a socialist government trying to save a buck. Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Who knows where Pearce was so misshapen as to believe that it doesn't matter how much signal voltage you use in an amplifier? Poopie Stevenson, Bluster Pearce and Erroneous Krueger are, in engineering terms, ignorant and abusive clowns "under any signal condition". Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
If anyone wishes to see inside what passes for Andre's head, I suggest
that they read: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/mo...c/CarSnar.html Read it through. The Bellman is a gentle version of Andre, vapid and not of this world, and with about as similar a perception of reality. Add some pretense, add some Munchausen, more than a bit of ego, remove any slight amount of good intent, and you would be left with Andre. Proof by repetition. Blank maps needing no explanation. Denegrates those who actually know better. Manages expeditions that result in no good ends. Uses surrogates when challenged. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
Andre Jute wrote: You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. Here's the sequence of their errors, with a small sample of their abuse liberally spattered over the newsgroups: First Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience, pointed out that Poopie Stevenson made a silly error: Poopie's absurd redefinition of Class A as a Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting *under any signal condition*," (emphasis added). It's ludicrous. Then Poopie Stevenson confirmed: It's actually the only accurate definition. And Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger agreed without any qualification: Agreed. Then Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience even with fools, pointed out that the two parts of redefinition are mutually exclusive: Any amp can be driven out of class by excessive signal voltage. Which Poopie tried to blow away with poor-quality smoke: Overdriving to cut-off is merely gross abuse and a complete red herring / irrelevance. Fully supported of course by his yes-man, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger: Agreed. Jute seems to be addicted to excluded-middle arguments. Kick out those and the straw men, and he's hardly have anything to say. ;-) Now Don Pearce tries to bluster the argument out with an obvious lie: Can you overdrive a class A amp to cutoff? In my experience what happens when you overdrive a class A amp is that one device saturates, and the other sticks with its normal bias condition. There is no circumstance in which I have ever managed to put a class A amplifier output device into cutoff. d Of course, it is irrelevant (perhaps even commendable) that Don Pearce lives such a dull and unadventurous life that he has never overdriven a Class A amp; perhaps he doesn't own a Class A amp; on the evidence in this thread he doesn't even know what a Class A amp is. What matters is that Don Pearce, like Arny Krueger, supports Poopie Stevenson's absurd definition of Class A operation as 360 degrees of conduction "under any signal condition". How can any properly educated engineer not know that the signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? It is difficult not to conclude that these three clowns, Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, are either not engineers, or were not properly educated, or are too old and fat and slack to remember the basics they were taught. I have on previous occasions demonstrated what Poopie Stevenson's claim of a University of London degree actually means: not very much, as he got his degree from a jumped-up polytechnic (a British version of the soldering schools Ludwig is addicted to) forced onto UL by a socialist government trying to save a buck. Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Who knows where Pearce was so misshapen as to believe that it doesn't matter how much signal voltage you use in an amplifier? Poopie Stevenson, Bluster Pearce and Erroneous Krueger are, in engineering terms, ignorant and abusive clowns "under any signal condition". Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain About 25 years ago a guy figured out how to drive a complementary pair of BJTs or mosfets in a follower config so that neither devices ever actually cut right off, and he did it using opamps with a non linear loop of NFB which gave the driver pure square law character, so sharp switch off simply never ever occurred. Bias was higher than usual though, to allow the gradual reduction of idle current. I recall his name was a Mr Sandman, from an Electronics World article. He called his amplifier a class S type, a version of class A. I cannot think of any brandname amp with the technique. Virtually class A. It gave astonishingly low high order distortions compared to all those gizmos which switched off and on again during each 1/2 wave cycle. So the usual heavy loop of global NFB had a much simpler easier task of cleaning up the signal. People had been doing it for 50 years with triodes, but anyway, wonders will never cease. Patrick Turner. |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
On Oct 25, 8:07 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. Here's the sequence of their errors, with a small sample of their abuse liberally spattered over the newsgroups: First Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience, pointed out that Poopie Stevenson made a silly error: Poopie's absurd redefinition of Class A as a Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting *under any signal condition*," (emphasis added). It's ludicrous. Then Poopie Stevenson confirmed: It's actually the only accurate definition. And Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger agreed without any qualification: Agreed. Then Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience even with fools, pointed out that the two parts of redefinition are mutually exclusive: Any amp can be driven out of class by excessive signal voltage. Which Poopie tried to blow away with poor-quality smoke: Overdriving to cut-off is merely gross abuse and a complete red herring / irrelevance. Fully supported of course by his yes-man, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger: Agreed. Jute seems to be addicted to excluded-middle arguments. Kick out those and the straw men, and he's hardly have anything to say. ;-) Now Don Pearce tries to bluster the argument out with an obvious lie: Can you overdrive a class A amp to cutoff? In my experience what happens when you overdrive a class A amp is that one device saturates, and the other sticks with its normal bias condition. There is no circumstance in which I have ever managed to put a class A amplifier output device into cutoff. d Of course, it is irrelevant (perhaps even commendable) that Don Pearce lives such a dull and unadventurous life that he has never overdriven a Class A amp; perhaps he doesn't own a Class A amp; on the evidence in this thread he doesn't even know what a Class A amp is. What matters is that Don Pearce, like Arny Krueger, supports Poopie Stevenson's absurd definition of Class A operation as 360 degrees of conduction "under any signal condition". How can any properly educated engineer not know that the signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? It is difficult not to conclude that these three clowns, Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, are either not engineers, or were not properly educated, or are too old and fat and slack to remember the basics they were taught. I have on previous occasions demonstrated what Poopie Stevenson's claim of a University of London degree actually means: not very much, as he got his degree from a jumped-up polytechnic (a British version of the soldering schools Ludwig is addicted to) forced onto UL by a socialist government trying to save a buck. Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Who knows where Pearce was so misshapen as to believe that it doesn't matter how much signal voltage you use in an amplifier? Poopie Stevenson, Bluster Pearce and Erroneous Krueger are, in engineering terms, ignorant and abusive clowns "under any signal condition". Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain Andre, Please list one instance where your personal attacks and general nastiness has helped forward your goal. cheers, Douglas |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
On Oct 25, 4:32 pm, robert casey wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." Let's see, I graduated Syracuse University in 1978 with a BSEE, so I'd be an engineer. You're observably an engineer, Robert, I'm writing about "engineers", who are observably something else, most easily spotted by their symptomatic tailoring of electronic truths to their personal animosities. For class A, I'd add the condition "if the input signal level doesn't drive the amp into distortion or clipping" to "_all_ the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition.". It is such an obvious condition that most texts leave it to the reader's good sense to add to the definition. This thread is particularly about Graham Stevenson, Don Pearce and Arny Krueger explicitly claiming the opposite is true, trying for malicious personal reasons to redefine Class A operation as one in which "the output device(s) never cease conducting under any signal condition." I also added "all" to make it clear that each and every output device never turns off. I've seen class A amps that had push-pull tubes, each tube configured to never shut off, thru out the entire waveform cycle. This would help reduce 2nd harmonic distortions (or have perfect cancellation IF both tubes have identical characteristics and fed identical except inverted signals). Dream on. I've seen KT66 that after fifty years of use were more closely matched than new-production EL34. Okay, how about class AB? That's usually a push pull configuration where, at or near zero crossing, both devices are conducting. But get above, say 10% of maximum input signal level, one of the devices stops conducting, and the other device is doing the work. Lets also say that this is a 100W amplifier, if you run it with an input signal that makes only 1 watt (the volume control is set low), then, sure you could call it a 1 watt class A amp. I wouldn't call it a Class A amp. I would say "it has 1W in Class A and xWatts in Class B". It seems to me worth keeping the distinction between an amplifier class and an operatiing class; it pleases me as a wordsmith that the verbal distinction makes Class AB possible; if we could not express it, we might not think of it. A Class A amplifier is one in which up to the maximum specified signal no device ever ceases conducting. (Had to get down a new keyboard. Sputtered my wine across the previous one. First time in years I had poor Australian wine. Some ponce at the studio recommended it as "earthy". In raal life it tastes like the peapod peepee made by some vegetarian ladies I dined with once and never again -- nut cutlets, yech! --, and then only because I owed the brother of one, who I knew at HP, a favour -- he was one of the designers of my 400W party amps for entertaining only 800 of my closest friends. Back to the good stuff!) Class B is where there is no class A overlap. Sure, you could have low quiescent current, but you could easily have crossover distortion. And it'd sound like a cheap op-amp... And there's class C, but that's not usable in audio work. It's used in FM RF transmitters, where the distortions are filtered out. And there's class D, which IIRC is a pulse width modulation scheme with a clock running at about 10X the highest audio frequency. And heavy low pass filtering to remove the clock and its harmonics. Mainly used in solid state amps, and even there it's not real common. Thanks for the straighforward analysis. You realize of course that you and Phil Allison by demystifying the facts so bluntly are spoling my fun kicking the enemies of fidelity around. Andre Jute Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg. -- Robert Casey |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com... Poopie Stevenson, aka Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." And of course they are correct. It is the very textbook DEFINITION of Class A. No it's noy. In class A, the devices amplify the entire waveform, all the positive parts and all the negative parts. The device never cuts off, but that's not the definition. Many years back, Pioneer came up with a class AB transistor amp in which the bias was clamped in such a way that the devices never cut off. But that didn't make the amp class A. This is a classic example -- common among engineers, and very common in this group -- of thinking you understand things you have no comprehension of. |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
"Andre Jute" wrote in message oups.com... On Oct 25, 4:27 pm, "Phread" wrote: "Multi-grid" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Oct 26, 12:29 am, Andre Jute wrote: You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. Here's the sequence of their errors, with a small sample of their abuse liberally spattered over the newsgroups: First Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience, pointed out that Poopie Stevenson made a silly error: Poopie's absurd redefinition of Class A as a Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting *under any signal condition*," (emphasis added). It's ludicrous. Then Poopie Stevenson confirmed: It's actually the only accurate definition. And Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger agreed without any qualification: Agreed. Then Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience even with fools, pointed out that the two parts of redefinition are mutually exclusive: Any amp can be driven out of class by excessive signal voltage. Which Poopie tried to blow away with poor-quality smoke: Overdriving to cut-off is merely gross abuse and a complete red herring / irrelevance. Fully supported of course by his yes-man, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger: Agreed. Jute seems to be addicted to excluded-middle arguments. Kick out those and the straw men, and he's hardly have anything to say. ;-) Now Don Pearce tries to bluster the argument out with an obvious lie: Can you overdrive a class A amp to cutoff? In my experience what happens when you overdrive a class A amp is that one device saturates, and the other sticks with its normal bias condition. There is no circumstance in which I have ever managed to put a class A amplifier output device into cutoff. d Of course, it is irrelevant (perhaps even commendable) that Don Pearce lives such a dull and unadventurous life that he has never overdriven a Class A amp; perhaps he doesn't own a Class A amp; on the evidence in this thread he doesn't even know what a Class A amp is. What matters is that Don Pearce, like Arny Krueger, supports Poopie Stevenson's absurd definition of Class A operation as 360 degrees of conduction "under any signal condition". How can any properly educated engineer not know that the signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? It is difficult not to conclude that these three clowns, Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, are either not engineers, or were not properly educated, or are too old and fat and slack to remember the basics they were taught. I have on previous occasions demonstrated what Poopie Stevenson's claim of a University of London degree actually means: not very much, as he got his degree from a jumped-up polytechnic (a British version of the soldering schools Ludwig is addicted to) forced onto UL by a socialist government trying to save a buck. Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Who knows where Pearce was so misshapen as to believe that it doesn't matter how much signal voltage you use in an amplifier? Poopie Stevenson, Bluster Pearce and Erroneous Krueger are, in engineering terms, ignorant and abusive clowns "under any signal condition". Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain The part of the an AB amp's finals conducting together is not class A. Your agreement isn't required, just like we don't need your approval for the Sun to rise the next morning. It will rise regardless...:) cheers, Douglas Doug, think for a minute about the description, "Class AB." What could that possibly mean? That the amp operates part of the time in A and part of the time in B? Why, Duh, that's exactly how a Class AB amp operates! Must be why they call it Class AB! There's a difference between a Class A amplifier and Class A operation. A Class AB amplifier isn't a Class A amplifier but it is capable of Class A Operation under certain conditions. That's *why* it's called Class AB. Fred Precisely. "A Class AB amplifier ... is capable of Class A Operation under certain conditions", one of those conditions being that the signal should not be large enough to drive the amplifier beyond the boundaries of Class A. That precludes "under any signal condition" as Graham "Poopie" Stevenson has it, supported by Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Thanks, Fred. I don't think you'll make a lot of impact on Multi- grid's thick skull but you did your duty by trying. Maybe you want next to try to educate the self-styled "engineers" Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. I find Don Pearce's posts on RAT and RAP to be informative. Arny and Graham are beyond education because they already know it all. Just ask one of them; they'll be happy to tell you. Fred Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
In article ,
robert casey wrote: And there's class C, but that's not usable in audio work. It's used in FM RF transmitters, where the distortions are filtered out. Class C amps are not just used in "FM RF transmitters", but also in AM RF transmitters, and other applications too. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message . .. "Andre Jute" wrote in message oups.com... Poopie Stevenson, aka Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." And of course they are correct. It is the very textbook DEFINITION of Class A. No it's noy. In class A, the devices amplify the entire waveform, all the positive parts and all the negative parts. The device never cuts off, but that's not the definition. Many years back, Pioneer came up with a class AB transistor amp in which the bias was clamped in such a way that the devices never cut off. But that didn't make the amp class A. This is a classic example -- common among engineers, and very common in this group -- of thinking you understand things you have no comprehension of. Marketing people redefine the definitions all the time, and technology marches on, and meanings change. There was a stupid argument in a NG somewhere a while back over the "right" name for DB-9 connectors (they're DE-9 evidently). But this person was haranguing people for being so dense and uneducated for using the wrong term. Since then, I have seen DB-9 used in manuals, articles and spec sheets. The term, right or wrong, has come into common usage, and I'll bet even a NASA purchasing agent knows what people are talking about, and the space shuttle gets the right parts. |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
Peter Wieck in
rec.audio.tubes1193359133.733368.298360@o80g2000h se.googlegroups.com: Denegrates those who actually know better. Ah, Denegrates, me old profligate pomegranate ... Denigrates |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:32:51 -0300, robert casey wrote:
snip Okay, how about class AB? That's usually a push pull configuration where, at or near zero crossing, both devices are conducting. But get above, say 10% of maximum input signal level, one of the devices stops conducting, and the other device is doing the work. Lets also say that this is a 100W amplifier, if you run it with an input signal that makes only 1 watt (the volume control is set low), then, sure you could call it a 1 watt class A amp. But that'd be rather silly... Class B is where there is no class A overlap. Sure, you could have low quiescent current, but you could easily have crossover distortion. And it'd sound like a cheap op-amp... snip AFAIK classes AB and B are *always* PP, as they both depend on that mode for cancellation of even harmonics. You just can't do that with SE output. -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
On Oct 25, 7:17 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message oups.com... Poopie Stevenson, aka Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." And of course they are correct. It is the very textbook DEFINITION of Class A. No it's noy. In class A, the devices amplify the entire waveform, all the positive parts and all the negative parts. The device never cuts off, but that's not the definition. Actually, William, what I was trying to explain to these clowns Graham Stevenson, Arny Krueger and Don Pearce is that "under any signal condition" totally negates the first part of the definition, that "the output device(s)never cease conducting". Many years back, Pioneer came up with a class AB transistor amp in which the bias was clamped in such a way that the devices never cut off. But that didn't make the amp class A. This is a classic example -- common among engineers, and very common in this group -- of thinking you understand things you have no comprehension of. It is worse than that with this bunch of self-styled "engineers": they think that their personal animosities are a licence to redefine definitions to embarrass their "enemies". In other words, they lie on professional matters for personal reasons. What sort of physics is that? It is past time for us to haul up Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, and to explain to them sternly that personalities cannot ever substitute for the principles of physics. Those three substandard jerks are an embarrassment to decent, honest engineers everywhere. Andre Jute Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg. -- Robert Casey |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
Chel van Gennip wrote:
Andre Jute wrote [of Don Pearce]: he has never overdriven a Class A amp; perhaps he doesn't own a Class A amp; on the evidence in this thread he doesn't even know what a Class A amp is. There is a difference between an amplifier and a mode/class of amplification. I know, Chel. In fact I pointed out elsewhere that the class of amplifier and the class of operation shouldn't be confused in casual conversation because it leads to loose thinking. But I didn't think that it was necessary to tell you guys that... Some amplifiers, designed to operate in Class A, will operate in Class C when input signals are exceeding specifications (overdriven). That is why we have this thread, to explain to the three self-styled "engineers" Graham Stevenson, Arny Krueger and Don Pearce that a Class A amplifier must have its signal limited or it is no longer a Class A amplifier. How can any properly educated engineer not know that the signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? Yet those three signed their names repeatedly to a claim that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." As you say, not when the signal is so large that the amp is driven into Class C! What sort of low-fi would that be? Here is the original post in full: Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. Here's the sequence of their errors, with a small sample of their abuse liberally spattered over the newsgroups: First Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience, pointed out that Poopie Stevenson made a silly error: Poopie's absurd redefinition of Class A as a Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting *under any signal condition*," (emphasis added). It's ludicrous. Then Poopie Stevenson confirmed: It's actually the only accurate definition. And Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger agreed without any qualification: Agreed. Then Andre Jute, he of the saintly patience even with fools, pointed out that the two parts of redefinition are mutually exclusive: Any amp can be driven out of class by excessive signal voltage. Which Poopie tried to blow away with poor-quality smoke: Overdriving to cut-off is merely gross abuse and a complete red herring / irrelevance. Fully supported of course by his yes-man, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger: Agreed. Jute seems to be addicted to excluded-middle arguments. Kick out those and the straw men, and he's hardly have anything to say. ;-) Now Don Pearce tries to bluster the argument out with an obvious lie: Can you overdrive a class A amp to cutoff? In my experience what happens when you overdrive a class A amp is that one device saturates, and the other sticks with its normal bias condition. There is no circumstance in which I have ever managed to put a class A amplifier output device into cutoff. d Of course, it is irrelevant (perhaps even commendable) that Don Pearce lives such a dull and unadventurous life that he has never overdriven a Class A amp; perhaps he doesn't own a Class A amp; on the evidence in this thread he doesn't even know what a Class A amp is. What matters is that Don Pearce, like Arny Krueger, supports Poopie Stevenson's absurd definition of Class A operation as 360 degrees of conduction "under any signal condition". How can any properly educated engineer not know that the signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? It is difficult not to conclude that these three clowns, Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, are either not engineers, or were not properly educated, or are too old and fat and slack to remember the basics they were taught. I have on previous occasions demonstrated what Poopie Stevenson's claim of a University of London degree actually means: not very much, as he got his degree from a jumped-up polytechnic (a British version of the soldering schools Ludwig is addicted to) forced onto UL by a socialist government trying to save a buck. Others have noted that Krueger was "educated" at a community college I have never even heard of. Who knows where Pearce was so misshapen as to believe that it doesn't matter how much signal voltage you use in an amplifier? Poopie Stevenson, Bluster Pearce and Erroneous Krueger are, in engineering terms, ignorant and abusive clowns "under any signal condition". Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
On Oct 26, 5:34 am, RdM wrote:
Peter Wieck in rec.audio.tubes1193359133.733368.298...@o80g2000h se.googlegroups.com: Denegrates those who actually know better. Ah, Denegrates, me old profligate pomegranate ... Denigrates So who is the little illiterate Worthless Wiecky, pernicious pornegranate, denigrating today? Andre Jute Pasticheur |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
In article ,
mick wrote: On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:32:51 -0300, robert casey wrote: snip Okay, how about class AB? That's usually a push pull configuration where, at or near zero crossing, both devices are conducting. But get above, say 10% of maximum input signal level, one of the devices stops conducting, and the other device is doing the work. Lets also say that this is a 100W amplifier, if you run it with an input signal that makes only 1 watt (the volume control is set low), then, sure you could call it a 1 watt class A amp. But that'd be rather silly... Class B is where there is no class A overlap. Sure, you could have low quiescent current, but you could easily have crossover distortion. And it'd sound like a cheap op-amp... snip AFAIK classes AB and B are *always* PP, as they both depend on that mode for cancellation of even harmonics. You just can't do that with SE output. That is presumably true in audio applications, but it isn't true in all applications, for example single ended class AB and class B amplifiers are often used in applications like Television broadcast transmitters. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
I gather that somehow this flame war has been going on for a while elsewhere and someone recently added rec.audio.pro to the newsgroups line. I would appreciate if people would remove it in the future because it does not belong here. Thank you. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
Andre Jute wrote: What sort of physics is that? It is past time for us to haul up Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, and to explain to them sternly that personalities cannot ever substitute for the principles of physics. What it's time for is A. for you to shut up. B. for you to get an education in electronics. Graham |
What is an "engineer" (was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?)
In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote: You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. This raises the question of what is an engineer? The following are a few of the many definitions I have heard. 1. The person responsible for the operation and maintenance of a buildings infrastructure. 2. The person who drives a Train. 3. A person who has received an "engineering" degree from a University. 4. A person licensed to practice "engineering", similar to the way Doctors and Lawyers are licensed. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Why is "Andrew Joot" so poorly educated?
Andre Jute wrote: That is why we have this thread, to explain to the three self-styled "engineers" Graham Stevenson, Arny Krueger and Don Pearce that a Class A amplifier must have its signal limited or it is no longer a Class A amplifier. Self-styled eh ? At least we all had a proper technical education. Whereas you're qualified as a journalist or something ? maybe ? What ARE your qualifications Mr Joot ? Some arty-farty degree in History perhaps ? Enquiring minds need to know. Graham |
What is an "engineer" (was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?)
"John Byrns" wrote in message
... In article .com, Andre Jute wrote: You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. This raises the question of what is an engineer? The following are a few of the many definitions I have heard. 1. The person responsible for the operation and maintenance of a buildings infrastructure. 2. The person who drives a Train. 3. A person who has received an "engineering" degree from a University. 4. A person licensed to practice "engineering", similar to the way Doctors and Lawyers are licensed. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ A lot of the problem with the term "engineer" in English stems from the use of the word "engine" to mean a machine, consequently an engineer is perceived by the general public to be someone who tends a machine. Hence when my washing machine breaks down, Hotpoint send "an engineer", or it was the "engineer" who greased the wheels of a steam engine on the railways. However, I understand that the root of the word "engineer" is the same as the word "ingenuity" and that consequently, an "engineer" is someone who practices "ingenuity". That's why I have always been proud to be called an "engineer", and why I complain to Hotpoint that they're sending me a fitter or a mechanic, or at best a technician, not an "engineer". S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
In article ,
Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: What sort of physics is that? It is past time for us to haul up Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, and to explain to them sternly that personalities cannot ever substitute for the principles of physics. What it's time for is A. for you to shut up. B. for you to get an education in electronics. Why, because he exposed you as someone who presents himself as an expert, but in reality doesn't have a clue what he is talking about? Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
What is an "engineer" (was Why are "engineers" so poorlyeducated?)
John Byrns wrote: This raises the question of what is an engineer? The following are a few of the many definitions I have heard. 1. The person responsible for the operation and maintenance of a buildings infrastructure. 2. The person who drives a Train. US (and possibly Canada) usage only AFAIK. Elsewhere called a 'train driver'. Graham |
Why is "Andrew Joot" so poorly educated?
In article ,
Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: That is why we have this thread, to explain to the three self-styled "engineers" Graham Stevenson, Arny Krueger and Don Pearce that a Class A amplifier must have its signal limited or it is no longer a Class A amplifier. Self-styled eh ? At least we all had a proper technical education. That's far from obvious. Whereas you're qualified as a journalist or something ? maybe ? What ARE your qualifications Mr Joot ? Some arty-farty degree in History perhaps ? I would like to think that what counts here is what we know, not what degree(s) we may hold. There seems to be more than a bit of truth in the idea that those that must flaunt the degree(s) they hold generally fall towards the idiot end of the scale. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
On Oct 26, 6:44 am, Eeyore
wrote: Randy Yates wrote: Thomas Tornblom writes: I am probably making a mistake, sticking my head into this, but doesn't your statement: --- Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." --- fall flat when you consider that it is no longer a Class A amp if you drive it outside of the designed range? Absolutely. More broadly, specification of the input signal range is part of the amplifier design and is impacted by, among other things, the choice of the class of operation it is intended to operate in. Clearly for audio, operation into clipping / cut-off etc is excluded by context. It is excluded by context when you leave off "under any signal condition" or when you add the *further*qualification "which does not exceed Class A boundaries". This entire folderol was created by your clumsy and crude attempt to support Multi-grid in a wrongheaded argument with me. You're a fool, Poopie. And Poopie, you really should consider remedial English comprehension classes if your education doesn't even fit you to understand that "under any signal condition" is an unlimited, sky-high open sesame to abuse. Graham Andre Jute Zero tolerance for the enemies of fidelity |
Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
John Byrns wrote: Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: What sort of physics is that? It is past time for us to haul up Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce, and to explain to them sternly that personalities cannot ever substitute for the principles of physics. What it's time for is A. for you to shut up. B. for you to get an education in electronics. Why, because he exposed you as someone who presents himself as an expert, but in reality doesn't have a clue what he is talking about? Oh FFS ! What are you ? Some kind of MORON ? Or just a sockpuppet ? Graham |
Spitting on Newton's gravee (was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?)
On Oct 26, 6:45 am, Eeyore
wrote: Andre Jute wrote: On Oct 26, 6:18 am, Thomas Tornblom wrote: I am probably making a mistake, sticking my head into this, but doesn't your statement: --- Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." --- fall flat when you consider that it is no longer a Class A amp if you drive it outside of the designed range? Exactly. I'm pointing out the idiocy of Messrs Stevenson, Krueger and Pearce in negating their definition within the same sentence: "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." That's not my statement, hence the quotation marks: it's their statement. They have several times repeated that silly statement and hotly defended it with personal abuse. You're the miserable ****ing abusive (and stupid. ingorant, pontlessly argumentative) one here Joot. You're missing the point, Poopie. There is a certain decency in physics, as in society, which we honour by paying attention to the very words of the classical definitions, and new definitions when they achieve general acceptance. You spat on Newton's grave when for your personal, petty purposes you crudely redefined a classic definiton. Arny Krueger and Don Pearce stood beside you and spat on Newton's grave. Now you've been caught out and you're abusive about it. You're scum, and so are Krueger and Pearce. By those criteria NOTHING is Class A, so we can all stop talking about it now. You're right. Your malicious qualification "under any signal condition" makes Class A impossible. I'm glad you now admit it. Will you also apologize for your offensive behaviour and for wasting so much of our time? Can we expect apologies from Krueger and Pearce as well for spitting on Newton's grave? Graham Andre Jute Zero tolerance for the enemies of science |
What is an "engineer" (was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?)
=On Oct 26, 6:58 am, John Byrns wrote:
In article .com, Andre Jute wrote: You really have to wonder. Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal condition." The three "engineers" in question are Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, Don "Bluster" Pearce and Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger. Apparently they are perfectly unable to understand, after they have been told so a handful of times already, that "any signal condition" includes overdrive which turns even the correct part of the definition into absurd nonsense. This raises the question of what is an engineer? The following are a few of the many definitions I have heard. 1. The person responsible for the operation and maintenance of a buildings infrastructure. 2. The person who drives a Train. 3. A person who has received an "engineering" degree from a University. 4. A person licensed to practice "engineering", similar to the way Doctors and Lawyers are licensed. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ Hell, the guy who carries away my trash is a "garbage disposal engineer", presumably because he works on a big dumpster -- see Serge Auckland's funny-sad post. If engineers are supposed to exhibit ingenuity, as Serge so plausibly says, then I would pick several present and past RAT contributors known not to have engineering degrees as fitting to be called engineers long, long before I would pick Arny Krueger or Don Pearce, who strike me as exceedingly dull fellows, paragons of pedanticism without a spark of invention, and I would *never* pick Graham Poopie Stevenson if someone (himself!) didn't tell me that Poopie claims to be an engineer. Of course there are some members of these conferences with engineering degrees that one would instantly pick; I apologize to them for the offence of including binmen in their noble calling. Andre Jute Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg. -- Robert Casey |
What is an "engineer" (was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?)
This raises the question of what is an engineer? The
following are a few of the many definitions I have heard. 1. The person responsible for the operation and maintenance of a buildings infrastructure. 2. The person who drives a Train. 3. A person who has received an "engineering" degree from a University. 4. A person licensed to practice "engineering", similar to the way Doctors and Lawyers are licensed. Regards, John Byrns To advertise engineering services in any of the 50 united states takes #4 above. Registration with the professional engineering board of the state you offer service in. It is a crime to offer services or practice electrical engineering without a the license. I am a registered professional electrical engineer in California. peace dawg |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:41 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