Re: A Challenge for Stewart Pinkerton


Ian Iveson wrote:
John Byrns wrote

In response to Andre's KISS amp you gave us your solid state KISASS
amplifier design, although you never built it. Considering this is
actually a tube group, and you are a very clever engineer, I challenge you
to design a tube amp for the group that will meet your exacting standards,
show some originality, and be relatively simple in concept and design. In
this challenge, since you are a solid state guy, negative feedback can be
used freely, and there is no need to actually build the amplifier, as long
as it is a reasonably simple and practical design capable of an output of
a few Watts of high quality audio. The question is do you have the
necessary engineering skills to actually meet the challenge?

Maybe not the best approach if you want a favour.

But, Ivy, my old darling, we don't *need* a favour. John's impulse is
merely to put a noisome gatecrasher to work. To me it seems a
charitable impulse, considering what a monstrous disaster Pinkostinko's
KISASS design was, to give the guy a second chance to strut his stuff,
if he has any stuff.

Valve amps don't need much "engineering skills" so it's not a very good test.

Yes, dear old Poison Ivy, we know. But, d'you see, Pinkopsycho insists
that his reason for being here and smelling up the place is that he
knows more engineering than we do. John is just giving Pinko a chance
to prove he knows any relevant engineering at all.

"Show some originality" might be a big ask. What is that a test of? Imagination?

You're right, imagination mught be "a big ask" of Pinkerton. i admire
your talent for understatement, dear Ivy. I would have said that the
slightest emanation of imagination from Pinko is "intergalactically
unlikely". Still, since Pinko claims to be such a bigshot postal
engineer, always abusing people for following spec *** designs,
surely he can show us a new way to apply standard knowledge -- assuming
he knows and understands the standard information we hold axiomatic, of
course. That, after all, is what any design engineer does: he arranges
components in new and more efficient or more economical ways.

Would a hybrid be allowed?

We're willing to consider whatever lifts up Pinko's wick.

AFAIK, Stewart's position is that amplifier design is all done and dusted.

Then what is he doing on RAT? He must have an awful lot of time to
waste on futile flame wars.

I'm inclined to agree.

That might have been valuable information if you knew something, Ivy
dear. But not too long ago I demonstrated that you didn't even know how
the negative grid bias and the plate voltage together determine the
current a tube draws. In short, you don't know what you're talking
about.

What do you think, John? Is an innovative valve amplifier still a possibility?

We see innovative tube amps all the time. I was looking at one only
yesterday on Steve Bench's site, an inverted triode OTL. We don't
expect anything that clever from Pinkerton, not by an integalactic
distance. We are well aware of Pinkerton's rather severe limits. But
even a decently well developed, and fully documented, standard EL34 amp
(as outlined by Iain Churches) would be proof that Pinko isn't a total
idiot. We have such respect for engineering as a noble concept, even if
we have none for Pinkerton, that we're willing to bend over backwards
to prove that a particularly loudmouthed engineer isn't the total fool
he appears; I even offered to lend this unpleasant man a set of
transformers to use in building his design, so that he shouldn't be put
the greatest expense in any amp if he can't afford transformers out of
his own pocket. Oh, well, it looks like the proof of Stewart
Pinkerton's entirely notional competence won't be forthcoming; he's
weaseled out again.

cheers, Ian

Nice hearing from you, Ivy. Any other lost causes you want to espouse,
do come on RAT and give us chapter and verse. We can always do with a
giggle.

Andre Jute

.