Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Brook 10c servo bias
I strongly mentioned......
DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT FLIPPER SAYS; IT COULD BE BULL**** !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !*! I never asked anyone to 'take my word' for anything and provided the links to the patent, white paper, wikipedia article on plate detectors, RDH4 section explaining their operation, and multiple examples of DIY and commercial products using them. It is you, 'Pope Turner', who makes 'divine declarations' you expect people to take on 'blind faith'. Flipper trys to squirm and wriggle out of the aweful position he finds himself in, and now says "I never asked anyone to 'take my word' for anything..." etc. Ah, but Flipper did insist he was right about the Brook, and I will always insist he possibly isn't, and the ONLY way to find out iis that someone build a sample of the Brook and measure it carefully, and produce a scientifically written article about it, all without simulation, and without trying to get observations to fit the patent or any other established line of BS on the matter. We might have to wait 300 years before Fipper get orf his lazy arse to build a sample of the Brook 10C biasing circuit so everyone will know what it does in the real world. We might see If the Brook biasing circuit is worth implementing in future amps we might build. I'd guess its not, I can't think of any brand of amp or any individual who, since the days of the 10C, can proove its worth emulating. Patrick Turner. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Brook 10c servo bias
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:26:17 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote: I strongly mentioned...... DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT FLIPPER SAYS; IT COULD BE BULL**** !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !*! I never asked anyone to 'take my word' for anything and provided the links to the patent, white paper, wikipedia article on plate detectors, RDH4 section explaining their operation, and multiple examples of DIY and commercial products using them. It is you, 'Pope Turner', who makes 'divine declarations' you expect people to take on 'blind faith'. Flipper trys to squirm and wriggle out of the aweful position he finds himself in, and now says "I never asked anyone to 'take my word' for anything..." etc. Ah, but Flipper did insist he was right about the Brook, There isn't any 'did' to it. I was, still am, and provided all the evidence to show it. and I will always insist he possibly isn't, and the ONLY way to find out iis that someone build a sample of the Brook and measure it carefully, and produce a scientifically written article about it, all without simulation, and without trying to get observations to fit the patent or any other established line of BS on the matter. Why don't *you* get off your "lazy arse" are provide some evidence for the babble you spouted? Oh, I forgot. 'Pope Turner' need only speaketh because his word is 'the word'. We might have to wait 300 years before Fipper get orf his lazy arse to build a sample of the Brook 10C biasing circuit so everyone will know what it does in the real world. "Everyone," but you, already knows how it works. We might see If the Brook biasing circuit is worth implementing in future amps we might build. I'd guess its not, I can't think of any brand of amp or any individual who, since the days of the 10C, can proove its worth emulating. Patrick Turner. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Brook 10c servo bias
On Dec 19, 5:14*pm, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:26:17 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner wrote: I strongly mentioned...... DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT FLIPPER SAYS; IT COULD BE BULL**** !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !*!*! I never asked anyone to 'take my word' for anything and provided the links to the patent, white paper, wikipedia article on plate detectors, RDH4 section explaining their operation, and multiple examples of DIY and commercial products using them. It is you, 'Pope Turner', who makes 'divine declarations' you expect people to take on 'blind faith'. Flipper trys to squirm and wriggle out of the aweful position he finds himself in, and now says "I never asked anyone to 'take my word' for anything..." etc. Ah, but Flipper did insist he was right about the Brook, There isn't any 'did' to it. I was, still am, and provided all the evidence to show it. and I will always insist he possibly isn't, and the ONLY way to find out iis that someone build a sample of the Brook and measure it carefully, and produce a scientifically written article about it, all without simulation, and without trying to get observations to fit the patent or any other established line of BS on the matter. Why don't *you* get off your "lazy arse" are provide some evidence for the babble you spouted? Oh, I forgot. 'Pope Turner' need only speaketh because his word is 'the word'. We might have to wait 300 years before Fipper get orf his lazy arse to build a sample of the Brook 10C biasing circuit so everyone will know what it does in the real world. "Everyone," but you, already knows how it works. Most ppl don't know as much as you about the Brook 10C, which isn't much because you refuse to accept basic scientific principles. Nobody here has really demonstrated they understand the Brook 10C bias circuit. Nobody has built the circuit and measured it all properly. You have not, you will not, so you can only be judged as a very unreliable source of infomation on the Brook 10C. It does not matter what I know or don't now about the Brook 10C. Fact is, you've said you have it figured, but you have never prooved that. Then you accuse me of being like an arsolic Pope, but everyone knows I ain't, because what I want from you is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth and the only way you can establish the truth is to build and measure. Unlike the arsolic Pope who murdered ppl like Bruno, I am prepared to parly on matters of science without any burnings at stakes or boilings in oil. Instead, I merely ask for proof. Its not up to me to proove anything on the Brook. I've said 100 times I could be wrong. But you maintain you are right, without any doubt at all, and that's just not good enough for anyone to accept. Be the obstinate ****wit on this issue as long as you like, but that attitude will get you knowhere. If you want respect, you must earn it, and not be pig headed and lazy while accusing others of being lazy, because they refuse to build a test circuit when you won't. Patrick Turner. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Brook 10c servo bias
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:40:45 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote: On Dec 19, 5:14*pm, flipper wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:26:17 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner wrote: I strongly mentioned...... DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT FLIPPER SAYS; IT COULD BE BULL**** !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !*!*! I never asked anyone to 'take my word' for anything and provided the links to the patent, white paper, wikipedia article on plate detectors, RDH4 section explaining their operation, and multiple examples of DIY and commercial products using them. It is you, 'Pope Turner', who makes 'divine declarations' you expect people to take on 'blind faith'. Flipper trys to squirm and wriggle out of the aweful position he finds himself in, and now says "I never asked anyone to 'take my word' for anything..." etc. Ah, but Flipper did insist he was right about the Brook, There isn't any 'did' to it. I was, still am, and provided all the evidence to show it. and I will always insist he possibly isn't, and the ONLY way to find out iis that someone build a sample of the Brook and measure it carefully, and produce a scientifically written article about it, all without simulation, and without trying to get observations to fit the patent or any other established line of BS on the matter. Why don't *you* get off your "lazy arse" are provide some evidence for the babble you spouted? Oh, I forgot. 'Pope Turner' need only speaketh because his word is 'the word'. We might have to wait 300 years before Fipper get orf his lazy arse to build a sample of the Brook 10C biasing circuit so everyone will know what it does in the real world. "Everyone," but you, already knows how it works. Most ppl don't know as much as you about the Brook 10C, which isn't much because you refuse to accept basic scientific principles. You wouldn't know a 'scientific principle' if it bit you on the nose. Hint: "shove it up your ass" isn't a 'scientific principle'. Nobody here has really demonstrated they understand the Brook 10C bias circuit. Sure we have. Another hint: you not getting it doesn't mean nobody did. Nobody has built the circuit and measured it all properly. Because, just as no one needs to build a V-8 to grasp the operating principles of an internal combustion engine, no one who can read needs to build Walsh's "Automatic Bias Control" circuit to grasp it's principle of operation. You have not, you will not, so you can only be judged as a very unreliable source of infomation on the Brook 10C. You have not, you will not, so you can only be judged as a very unreliable source of information on the Brook 10C. I, on the other hand, don't claim to be the "source of information," which is why I provided links to all the "source of information." It does not matter what I know or don't now about the Brook 10C. Then stop babbling about it. Fact is, you've said you have it figured, but you have never prooved that. Walsh is who 'figured it out'. I simply read and comprehend what's written. Then you accuse me of being like an arsolic Pope, Because you insist on everyone taking 'your word' without a shred of evidence to back it up. but everyone knows I ain't, because what I want from you is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth That's what the Pope said. and the only way you can establish the truth is to build and measure. Wrong. Unlike the arsolic Pope who murdered ppl like Bruno, I am prepared to parly on matters of science without any burnings at stakes or boilings in oil. You just call people liars. Instead, I merely ask for proof. Already given. Its not up to me to proove anything on the Brook. I've said 100 times I could be wrong. Your entire 'argument' has been the false assertion a cathode biased triode cannot rectify and I have proved beyond any rational doubt that not only it can but that method was well known and routinely used. It was around that point your self aggrandizing 'open mind' decided "shove it up your ass" was a 'scientific argument'. But you maintain you are right, without any doubt at all, Because I can read. and that's just not good enough for anyone to accept. 'Pope Tuner' again presumes to speak for 'the world'. News flash: all rational people I've ever run across accept authoritative sources, like RDH4, and working examples to be "good enough for anyone to accept." Be the obstinate ****wit on this issue as long as you like, but that attitude will get you knowhere. If you want respect, you must earn it, and not be pig headed and lazy while accusing others of being lazy, because they refuse to build a test circuit when you won't. Good description of yourself. Walsh explicitly told you how to bias the 6SN7, so does RDH4, and there are scores of examples in commercially produced radios, all of which I provided the original source of information to, so if you can't figure it out from all that then go build one and learn. But I have no need to because I can read. Patrick Turner. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Brook 10c servo bias
Below. Flipper continues to offer no experimental evidence to support the claim that he really knows how the Brook 10c bias circuit works. He spends hours and hours trying to demolish my personality, and this just makes him look like a complete ****wit&Jerk, no big deal really, when instead, he could have built a sample of the Brook 10C and done a few measurements, and thus could have learnt something while teaching us something. Seems to me the real world performance of the Brook 10C will remain misunderstood by everyone here, despite their protests that they say they know what they are talking about. Patrick Turner. DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT FLIPPER SAYS; IT COULD BE BULL**** !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !*!*!*! I never asked anyone to 'take my word' for anything and provided the links to the patent, white paper, wikipedia article on plate detectors, RDH4 section explaining their operation, and multiple examples of DIY and commercial products using them. It is you, 'Pope Turner', who makes 'divine declarations' you expect people to take on 'blind faith'. Flipper trys to squirm and wriggle out of the aweful position he finds himself in, and now says "I never asked anyone to 'take my word' for anything..." etc. Ah, but Flipper did insist he was right about the Brook, There isn't any 'did' to it. I was, still am, and provided all the evidence to show it. and I will always insist he possibly isn't, and the ONLY way to find out iis that someone build a sample of the Brook and measure it carefully, and produce a scientifically written article about it, all without simulation, and without trying to get observations to fit the patent or any other established line of BS on the matter. Why don't *you* get off your "lazy arse" are provide some evidence for the babble you spouted? Oh, I forgot. 'Pope Turner' need only speaketh because his word is 'the word'. We might have to wait 300 years before Fipper get orf his lazy arse to build a sample of the Brook 10C biasing circuit so everyone will know what it does in the real world. "Everyone," but you, already knows how it works. Most ppl don't know as much as you about the Brook 10C, which isn't much because you refuse to accept basic scientific principles. You wouldn't know a 'scientific principle' if it bit you on the nose. Hint: "shove it up your ass" isn't a 'scientific principle'. Nobody here has really demonstrated they understand the Brook 10C bias circuit. Sure we have. Another hint: you not getting it doesn't mean nobody did. Nobody has built the circuit and measured it all properly. Because, just as no one needs to build a V-8 to grasp the operating principles of an internal combustion engine, no one who can read needs to build Walsh's "Automatic Bias Control" circuit to grasp it's principle of operation. You have not, you will not, so you can only be judged as a very unreliable source of infomation on the Brook 10C. You have not, you will not, so you can only be judged as a very unreliable source of information on the Brook 10C. I, on the other hand, don't claim to be the "source of information," which is why I provided links to all the "source of information." It does not matter what I know or don't now about the Brook 10C. Then stop babbling about it. Fact is, you've said you have it figured, but you have never prooved that. Walsh is who 'figured it out'. I simply read and comprehend what's written. Then you accuse me of being like an arsolic Pope, Because you insist on everyone taking 'your word' without a shred of evidence to back it up. but everyone knows I ain't, because what I want from you is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth That's what the Pope said. and the only way you can establish the truth is to build and measure. Wrong. Unlike the arsolic Pope who murdered ppl like Bruno, I am prepared to parly on matters of science without any burnings at stakes or boilings in oil. You just call people liars. Instead, I merely ask for proof. Already given. Its not up to me to proove anything on the Brook. I've said 100 times I could be wrong. Your entire 'argument' has been the false assertion a cathode biased triode cannot rectify and I have proved beyond any rational doubt that not only it can but that method was well known and routinely used. It was around that point your self aggrandizing 'open mind' decided "shove it up your ass" was a 'scientific argument'. But you maintain you are right, without any doubt at all, Because I can read. and that's just not good enough for anyone to accept. 'Pope Tuner' again presumes to speak for 'the world'. News flash: all rational people I've ever run across accept authoritative sources, like RDH4, and working examples to be "good enough for anyone to accept." Be the obstinate ****wit on this issue as long as you like, but that attitude will get you knowhere. If you want respect, you must earn it, and not be pig headed and lazy while accusing others of being lazy, because they refuse to build a test circuit when you won't. Good description of yourself. Walsh explicitly told you how to bias the 6SN7, so does RDH4, and there are scores of examples in commercially produced radios, all of which I provided the original source of information to, so if you can't figure it out from all that then go build one and learn. But I have no need to because I can read. Patrick Turner.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Brook 10c servo bias
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:13:55 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote: Below. Flipper continues to offer no experimental evidence to support the claim that he really knows how the Brook 10c bias circuit works. He spends hours and hours trying to demolish my personality, and this just makes him look like a complete ****wit&Jerk, no big deal really, when instead, he could have built a sample of the Brook 10C and done a few measurements, and thus could have learnt something while teaching us something. Because I can read. Seems to me the real world performance of the Brook 10C will remain misunderstood by everyone here, despite their protests that they say they know what they are talking about. You mean by you. Patrick Turner. DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT FLIPPER SAYS; IT COULD BE BULL**** !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !*!*!*! I never asked anyone to 'take my word' for anything and provided the links to the patent, white paper, wikipedia article on plate detectors, RDH4 section explaining their operation, and multiple examples of DIY and commercial products using them. It is you, 'Pope Turner', who makes 'divine declarations' you expect people to take on 'blind faith'. Flipper trys to squirm and wriggle out of the aweful position he finds himself in, and now says "I never asked anyone to 'take my word' for anything..." etc. Ah, but Flipper did insist he was right about the Brook, There isn't any 'did' to it. I was, still am, and provided all the evidence to show it. and I will always insist he possibly isn't, and the ONLY way to find out iis that someone build a sample of the Brook and measure it carefully, and produce a scientifically written article about it, all without simulation, and without trying to get observations to fit the patent or any other established line of BS on the matter. Why don't *you* get off your "lazy arse" are provide some evidence for the babble you spouted? Oh, I forgot. 'Pope Turner' need only speaketh because his word is 'the word'. We might have to wait 300 years before Fipper get orf his lazy arse to build a sample of the Brook 10C biasing circuit so everyone will know what it does in the real world. "Everyone," but you, already knows how it works. Most ppl don't know as much as you about the Brook 10C, which isn't much because you refuse to accept basic scientific principles. You wouldn't know a 'scientific principle' if it bit you on the nose. Hint: "shove it up your ass" isn't a 'scientific principle'. Nobody here has really demonstrated they understand the Brook 10C bias circuit. Sure we have. Another hint: you not getting it doesn't mean nobody did. Nobody has built the circuit and measured it all properly. Because, just as no one needs to build a V-8 to grasp the operating principles of an internal combustion engine, no one who can read needs to build Walsh's "Automatic Bias Control" circuit to grasp it's principle of operation. You have not, you will not, so you can only be judged as a very unreliable source of infomation on the Brook 10C. You have not, you will not, so you can only be judged as a very unreliable source of information on the Brook 10C. I, on the other hand, don't claim to be the "source of information," which is why I provided links to all the "source of information." It does not matter what I know or don't now about the Brook 10C. Then stop babbling about it. Fact is, you've said you have it figured, but you have never prooved that. Walsh is who 'figured it out'. I simply read and comprehend what's written. Then you accuse me of being like an arsolic Pope, Because you insist on everyone taking 'your word' without a shred of evidence to back it up. but everyone knows I ain't, because what I want from you is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth That's what the Pope said. and the only way you can establish the truth is to build and measure. Wrong. Unlike the arsolic Pope who murdered ppl like Bruno, I am prepared to parly on matters of science without any burnings at stakes or boilings in oil. You just call people liars. Instead, I merely ask for proof. Already given. Its not up to me to proove anything on the Brook. I've said 100 times I could be wrong. Your entire 'argument' has been the false assertion a cathode biased triode cannot rectify and I have proved beyond any rational doubt that not only it can but that method was well known and routinely used. It was around that point your self aggrandizing 'open mind' decided "shove it up your ass" was a 'scientific argument'. But you maintain you are right, without any doubt at all, Because I can read. and that's just not good enough for anyone to accept. 'Pope Tuner' again presumes to speak for 'the world'. News flash: all rational people I've ever run across accept authoritative sources, like RDH4, and working examples to be "good enough for anyone to accept." Be the obstinate ****wit on this issue as long as you like, but that attitude will get you knowhere. If you want respect, you must earn it, and not be pig headed and lazy while accusing others of being lazy, because they refuse to build a test circuit when you won't. Good description of yourself. Walsh explicitly told you how to bias the 6SN7, so does RDH4, and there are scores of examples in commercially produced radios, all of which I provided the original source of information to, so if you can't figure it out from all that then go build one and learn. But I have no need to because I can read. Patrick Turner.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Brook 10c servo bias
On Jan 1, 4:10*pm, flipper wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:13:55 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner wrote: Below. Flipper continues to offer no experimental evidence to support the claim that he really knows how the Brook 10c bias circuit works. He spends hours and hours trying to demolish my personality, and this just makes him look like a complete ****wit&Jerk, no big deal really, when instead, he could have built a sample of the Brook 10C and done a few measurements, and thus could have learnt something while teaching us something. Because I can read. Seems to me the real world performance of the Brook 10C will remain misunderstood by everyone here, despite their protests that they say they know what they are talking about. You mean by you. The Idiot Flipper claims to understand the world because he can read. Another 20 years looms ahead with Flipper sailing the waters of darkness, and failing to use a soldering iron and scientific method to find truth...... Patrick Turner. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Brook 10c servo bias
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 11:22:07 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote: On Jan 1, 4:10*pm, flipper wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:13:55 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner wrote: Below. Flipper continues to offer no experimental evidence to support the claim that he really knows how the Brook 10c bias circuit works. He spends hours and hours trying to demolish my personality, and this just makes him look like a complete ****wit&Jerk, no big deal really, when instead, he could have built a sample of the Brook 10C and done a few measurements, and thus could have learnt something while teaching us something. Because I can read. Seems to me the real world performance of the Brook 10C will remain misunderstood by everyone here, despite their protests that they say they know what they are talking about. You mean by you. The Idiot Flipper claims to understand the world because he can read. It is always an amusement that people who are about to say something idiotic seem compelled to preface it by declaring everyone else idiots. I never said a blooming thing about "understand the world." I simply said I can read and comprehend the patent, as well as the myriad other source materials provided. Rather, it is you who incessantly professes to speak for 'the world' and proclaims what 'everyone' supposedly 'thinks'. Another 20 years looms ahead with Flipper sailing the waters of darkness, and failing to use a soldering iron and scientific method to find truth...... ROTFLOL So where's your self built Brook 10C, Patrick? After all, since you either won't, or can't, read and comprehend the available literature that really is your only chance for 'scientific enlightenment'. Patrick Turner. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Brook 10c servo bias
On Jan 9, 6:05*pm, flipper wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 11:22:07 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner wrote: On Jan 1, 4:10*pm, flipper wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:13:55 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner wrote: Below. Flipper continues to offer no experimental evidence to support the claim that he really knows how the Brook 10c bias circuit works. He spends hours and hours trying to demolish my personality, and this just makes him look like a complete ****wit&Jerk, no big deal really, when instead, he could have built a sample of the Brook 10C and done a few measurements, and thus could have learnt something while teaching us something. Because I can read. Seems to me the real world performance of the Brook 10C will remain misunderstood by everyone here, despite their protests that they say they know what they are talking about. You mean by you. The Idiot Flipper claims to understand the world because he can read. It is always an amusement that people who are about to say something idiotic seem compelled to preface it by declaring everyone else idiots. I never said a blooming thing about "understand the world." I simply said I can read and comprehend the patent, as well as the myriad other source materials provided. Rather, it is you who incessantly professes to speak for 'the world' and proclaims what 'everyone' supposedly 'thinks'. Another 20 years looms ahead with Flipper sailing the waters of darkness, and failing to use a soldering iron and scientific method to find truth...... ROTFLOL So where's your self built Brook 10C, Patrick? After all, since you either won't, or can't, read and comprehend the available literature that really is your only chance for 'scientific enlightenment'. An ignorant arsole like yourself will always try to make someone else do his work for him. You have failed to make everyone here understand the Brook 10c any better than they might without your presence. Nobody needs you to be here spouting bull**** about a Brook amp and continuing to say how marvellous your powers of understanding are, and how ****ing infallible you are. Unless YOU build the Brook to prove something, and with due scientific dilligence, then for the next 20 years I shall always consider you a real dumbass & arsole. No need to reply any more, I'd say the group have got the message by now. Enjoy your intellectual wanking. Patrick Turner. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Brook 10c servo bias
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:55:29 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote: On Jan 9, 6:05*pm, flipper wrote: On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 11:22:07 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner wrote: On Jan 1, 4:10*pm, flipper wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:13:55 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner wrote: Below. Flipper continues to offer no experimental evidence to support the claim that he really knows how the Brook 10c bias circuit works. He spends hours and hours trying to demolish my personality, and this just makes him look like a complete ****wit&Jerk, no big deal really, when instead, he could have built a sample of the Brook 10C and done a few measurements, and thus could have learnt something while teaching us something. Because I can read. Seems to me the real world performance of the Brook 10C will remain misunderstood by everyone here, despite their protests that they say they know what they are talking about. You mean by you. The Idiot Flipper claims to understand the world because he can read. It is always an amusement that people who are about to say something idiotic seem compelled to preface it by declaring everyone else idiots. I never said a blooming thing about "understand the world." I simply said I can read and comprehend the patent, as well as the myriad other source materials provided. Rather, it is you who incessantly professes to speak for 'the world' and proclaims what 'everyone' supposedly 'thinks'. Another 20 years looms ahead with Flipper sailing the waters of darkness, and failing to use a soldering iron and scientific method to find truth...... ROTFLOL So where's your self built Brook 10C, Patrick? After all, since you either won't, or can't, read and comprehend the available literature that really is your only chance for 'scientific enlightenment'. An ignorant arsole like yourself will always try to make someone else do his work for him. I don't need anything done and it's you who want someone else to do your work for you. You have failed to make everyone here understand the Brook 10c any better than they might without your presence. Nobody needs you to be here spouting bull**** about a Brook amp and continuing to say how marvellous your powers of understanding are, and how ****ing infallible you are. There you go again pretending to speak for "everyone." I documented my analysis but the only thing you do is hurl insults. Unless YOU build the Brook to prove something, and with due scientific dilligence, then for the next 20 years I shall always consider you a real dumbass & arsole. That's just too bad. No need to reply any more, I'd say the group have got the message by now. No doubt. Enjoy your intellectual wanking. Patrick Turner. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Brook sliding bias operation. | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Brook amplifiers, sliding bias. | Vacuum Tubes | |||
More thoughts on servo bias | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Servo-controlled fixed bias | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Servo bias schemas at ABSE. | Vacuum Tubes |