John Stewart wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

wrote:

Ok the conclusion is, Walker did an amazing good job.
In fact i am in the "don't change nothing" posision for capacotirs
and
resistors.

I have now another problem :
Woddside is not available to do the transformers at the moment
(selling
business ?), and Sowter says that they are not doing perfect
replicas
(instability ?).

Who knows where to buy good quad transformers at reasonable price
?
Thank's
Luc.

I sure don't, but I would roll my own if I was suitably bribed
to perform the task.

I'd try to find a way of improving on the horrors of the Quad OPT
with its high winding losses when connected for 8 ohms.

And what would they be?

I measured a total of about 17%

What about the core losses?

Core losses in most OPTs, even in Quad II, are negligible, because the
inductance of the primary is a high impedance at most signal F.

But Quad II also saturate at least twice the frequency I would ever
consider acceptable.

It is presumptuous of you that you would criticize Quad while freely
using their cathode FB output circuit. Got a better idea?

You bet I have. I like the Quad principle, and i apply it in my best PP
amps, but I use
OPTs with far lower losses and leakage inductances.

I also prefer my drive amp ideas. EF86 belong in preamps IMHO.

I refuse to produce amplifiers which comply with 1955 lowest common
denominator
standards. Sorry. I don't give a rat's arse what other folks are doing
with their amps,
I have my standards, and that's that.


Well Patrick, we all have some 20-20 hind sight. It's cheap &
certainly easy for us at this late date to criticize what has been
done in the past by others. Then throw money & time at the problem &
we are apt to make an improvement (or not). If Quad & others like
Hammond & Sowter had found an economical way to combine all of 4, 8 &
16 ohm taps while using all the copper in the secondary winding all of
the time they would have shown us how by now.

They consistently have refused to honour the best tube craft methods as
outlined in RDH4.

If they can't afford the extra 15 minutes of labour to make their
transformers comply with
the humble expectations of ppl like myself, then so be it, I will wind
my own trannies.

I shouldn't have to.




Sowter manages to do that by using a 4-winding secondary, but their
cost is more than double that of a similar Hammond.

My trannies are alsp more expensive than Hammond who wind trannies by
the thousand.

Its entirely unfair and unreasonable to expect a one off order for 2
OPTs by
anyone not doing volume to produce better quality at the same price.

I recently wound a single 400 watt OPT for a guy in NZ.

He couldn't find a better deal anywhere.

Couldn't find better performance either.



But even while using a 4-winding secondary the outcome is not perfect.
What should be the 8 ohm connexion actually results in 10 ohms.

How do you figure that?



And Hammond managed to do theirs & deliver a product to the market at
a reasonable price point, something overlooked by many. Something
called 'Business Acumen', I guess.

They could be 25% more expensive, and could have the right way of doing
the secondaries.
They'd have the quality I'd expect, that that others would expect, and
get more business.
To continue to make sub standard gear at a budget price is plain
stubborn.

The secondary winding as used by Quad appears to be the same as found
in the Hammond 1600 Series OPT's, so probably manages 4, 8 & 16 ohms
without difficulty.

I think you will find the Quad method differes from the Hammond.

Both are sub-standard, IMHO.



In some of your posts you mention the possible difficulty of getting
stability while using NFB with the OPT's of others. A quick look at
your circuits shows them to be festooned with many phase correction
networks. It seems your OPT's may be in that same category as those
you have criticized.

Nearly every amplifier I ever examine has the same HF phase correction
circuits.
Those that don't usually always oscillate at HF with a 0.22 uf on the
output.
All have a badly rising response with a peak around 30 kHz.
Few have the same LF networks, and thus are only marginally stable at
LF,
often with poor recovery after over load.

The use of the phase correction networks improves a tube amp and the
sound.

For eg, my 300 W OPTs have bandwidth from 18 Hz, at saturation at full
power
to 270 kHz.

I can't use all that bandwidth, so I have a step network to reduce open
loop
gain, and so at higher than 30 kHz, the amount of applied FB is reduced.

You simply don't need a lot of applied FB at 50 kHz and above!
And nor do you want lots of applied FB at below 16 Hz.

Tube amps are not direct coupled, and there should be limits on the
applied NFB
at extreme ends of the bansdwidth.

Correctly done, such networks improve the sound.


Now, here are the numbers for the secondary resistance for a Hammond
60 watt OPT.
While connected for 4 or 16 ohms, 86% of the secondary copper is used.
The 8 ohm connexion uses all of the secondary copper.
For the 16 ohm connexion the resistance in the used windings in series
with the load is 388 milliohms.


For the 4 ohm connexion the resistance in the used windings in series
with the load is 96.6 milliohms.
For the 8 ohm connexion the resistance in the used windings in series
with the load is 178 milliohms.

The S losses would be 2.36%, 2.34%, and 2.17% respectively, and this
looks better than Quad II.

I still won't buy a Hammond.

When they start using all the windings, I might, and only if they have
at least
4 separate sections in the secondary, with 5 primary sections, ie, like
I have done and as I have
described at my website.

WTF do you think I won't buy them? Its because I like my own better.


All measured by applying a constant current & measuring the resulting
voltage with a precision DMM.

I assume you used DC.



Before you dismiss this as shoddy you had better to be ready to match
it or do better for 88.64USD a copy & still make a profit sufficient
to stay in business.

I didn't say its shoddy, you said that. I just say below the high
standards I think are reasonable.

I don't care if they sold at 8c, I still wouldn't buy them. Not ONE.

People attribute what they hear from my amplifiers to what I make, not
what Hammond make.

I have my standards, and its unreasonable for you to expect that I make
something alternative and cheaper
as a small volume concern.

I have had enquiries from chinese ppl spamming me with offers of their
services to wind transformers, so I point them to my website where the
information is sufficient
to allow anyone with knowledge and who can read english to be able
to make superlative OPTs for tube amps.

I have told the two ppl concerned I'd like to see a sample of what they
can do soon,
but not a single person has offered to wind something like I wind for
the amps I build,
and thus save me from the donkey work of winding bloddy transformers.

They see the detail I want which was routinely available by makers in Oz
and the US and the UK
in 1955, and they vomit and they go away knowing its all too hard,
and they are peeved that I don't want 10,000 of their samples of
absolute muck,
if they did things their way.

I will do what Hammond and the chinese won't, and what Quad didn't.
No other Oz makers I know can wind anything I want, including mains
trannies.
Don't get me started about the local mains tranny winders;
They are mainly a bunch of ignorant do-little-for-a-lot goons who know
SFA
about transformers. They all spew up when I tell them how to wind
transformers.
So I wind my own.
Mains transformers for tube amps shall be inaudible, and run nice and
cool,
despite handling hundreds of watts into a rectifier with large C and SS
diodes.

I get fed up having to repair the Luxmans, the Phase linears, the crap
with noisy transformers.....

Since a bowl of rice in Oz costs a shirtload more than in china,
its going to cost a lot more if I wind anything for you.
I have months of work ahead of me, and I don't want to specialise in
making OPTs for people with no idea about quality, performance,
and who can't pay the right price.
Nobody else seems able to wind quality at a reasonable price.

BTW, an OPT worth USD $88 in the US will be aud $122 here plus
the freight, and so the importer here charges about aud $200+.
I couldn't get any sense out of this fellow when i tried to pin him down
about
stocks he actually had, and a price.
So the customer of mine who had asked me to get a price from the Oz
distributor went elsewhere, but the prices were not cheap.

S I guess the Oz hammond distributor sells very few OPTs, and stocks
almost
nothing. He mainly sells tubes.
But folks say they love tubes until they have to pay for the
transformers that go with them.

I don't see you offering your services below a figure you could live on.




The Sowter U066 is especially interesting since cathode FB similar to
that used in the Quad is possible. To me it looks like it could be
substituted into a Quad if there was no other alternative available. I
almost bought one a few years ago for experimental use since it has
many windings & possibilities on the primary.

Yes but the other complaint I could make about all the transfromer
makers and amp builders
is that almost none tell us exactly what is in their tranny.

Ian Iverson is quite happy with the CFB trannies he ordered from Sowter.

But I don't eaxctly know WTF is actually inside what they do.

What have these guys got to hide?

Are they frighened some ******* will steal their intellectual property?
They must be crazy, because whoever winds anything has to sell what they
wind....
Hardly anyone winds their own after making a lathe and practising...

You must have seen the Williamson OPT specification in RDH4.
That spec has been there for 50 years, and the ideas behind it dismissed
by
most mass makers.....

From the spec, we can work out all the parameters of the OPT, load
matches,
winding losses, leakage inductances, shunt C, primary L, saturation F,
primary wire dia, secondary wire dia,
exact winding geometry, insulation material and thickness...etc,
but we don't get any info from these other makers.

I have included such info at my website, and the OPT No1 is a typical
sample of anything
found in any amp I may build; but often I do better.

Damn it, there is no 4 ohm connection.
And the method of changing Z involves different current densities
in windings, not good practice....

Please tell us why in 50 words or less.

If you cannot see the point of what I am saying, you need to read at
least more words
than 50 of mine to understand.
RDH4 has a bit on it, but try read well beyond that book as well.

The spec of the U066 OPT at sowter's site falls well shot
of the info I would expect.

Where have they placed the CFB winding with respect to the anode and S
windings?

They appear to have used 4 sections of secondary, but does this mean
there are two sections of two layers of S windings, or 4 sections of one
layer each?
What are the turns in each winding shown?
How are they combined to get different load matches?

Sorry Mr Sowter, but you will have to do better than you have when
providing information!
So I won't buy any of their transformers either. Its no use asking these
ppl.
They just say they have a reputation for quality. Not good enough for
me.
They fail to convince me they know what they are doing.

I make no apologies for being hard to please.
Besides, Sowter prices are higher than Hammond, and freight is a killer,

and it makes it worth to wind my own, and to hell with the lot of them.


And how much different are the current densities in your opinion?

Lots different.

I don't believe in asymetrically arranged OPT secondaries.

There are no unused portions in any OPTs I wind.

There are no paralleled sections of windings where the current
density varies between any wire used in the secondary.
Do it right, or not at all, imho.

To those not worried by current density variations and wasted portions
of windings
and highish winding losses, enjoy your music and don't start worrying.

But as soon as you do start worrying about the details, and the methods
used in OPTs,
then pretty soon you start wondering why they do it the way they do.

Patrick Turner.

John Byrns wrote:

In article , Patrick Turner
wrote:

It was stated earlier that the total DC resistance of the windings when
connected in series for the 16 Ohm connection is 1.6 Ohms. I am curious,
did you measure the resistance of the individual sections to get the
partial resistances from P-Q, Q-S, and R-T? I am wondering if the same
gauge of wire was used in all the sections, or if the P-Q section was
wound of heavier wire than the two shorter sections.

Regards,

John Byrns

I have never stripped a Quad II transformer down.
Pehaps your questions could be answered just by measuring what is there.

True, all that is needed is a simple DVM to measure the DC resistance of
each of the secondary sections. I have the DVM, but not the QUAD II.

But its easy to measure the total winding resistance
with the amp functioning with a sine wave.

Using a sine wave to do a simple job like measuring the DC resistance of
the secondary winding sections sounds like overkill to me!

The easiest way to measure the winding resistances other than
as I have suggested, which tells you what the actual working resistance is
would be is to apply 10v dc via 100 ohm resistance to the sec, and measure the
sec coil voltage. This is the CCS method.
Primary R can be measured easily with a DVM, although probably
with the secondary shorted, lest the inductance of the primary prevent
the resistance measurement.
My Fluke refuses to measure my own OPTs due to so much inductance
lest I shunt it by shorting the sec.

But Phil Allison in between/during his latest tantrums has provided us with
winding
resistances for Quad II secs.

BTW, to measure the actual Ro of any amp, set it up
with a 400 Hz signal at say 3 volts of output, no load, and then
apply a load, and measure the new output signal, and find the V change.

Ro = Vchange / IRL.

Ro becomes greater when the amp works in the B part of AB, and will be different
at 10 Hz, 400 Hz, and maybe 20 kHz..



Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article cqKQd.59403$g16.44283@trndny08, "shiva"
wrote:

Hi John - looked at your 25L6 amp was this another case of "jeesh, I've
got
these 25L6's, and I'll be darned if I can't mske somethin' reasonable
out of
them (usually how my projects start out).

Actually I don't think I even had the 25L6's when I set out to build the
amp. I had all the other parts except the tubes and the main filter
capacitor. The chassis, which turned out to be a perfect fit for the
project, I had bought at a ham fest still wrapped in its original brown
paper, but the bottom of the paper had been punched in and someone had
used it as an ashtray. For reasons I now forget, I had been theoretically
considering a similar design for several years, but didn't have any reason
to build it. Then back in 1998 someone in this newsgroup said it was
impossible to build an amplifier with direct rectification of the power
line, without ending up with tremendous hum. I took exception to that
idea, and ended up building the amplifier to prove that it could be done.
I ended up with hum and noise 80 dB below 1 Watt, without any negative
feedback, which I consider a pretty darn good result.

Hi John -
Not sure why someone would say that 'bout he hum for series fils on AC
Mains - perhaps 'cos everyone's so DC-crazy (Good DC fils are a rarity,
unless good SS regulation is used (not for regulation - for *filtering*, and
then - it stops being a toob amp. I'd rather have a pile of differential
noise of a set freq. with no harmonics than a mixture of common &
differential mode noise with *tons* of harmonics.
I'm sure the fil the wiring layout is quite a bit more critical (I usually
use 2 dif. color wires for fils - I've seen many PP sections where fils were
wired out of phase - depending on the heater construction, this interferes
with hum cancellation in a PP circuit), though it certainly could be done.
You might have to "wiggle" a few heater wires after changing a toob... I
usually stay away from series fils (even though they make plenty if sense)
simply 'cos I 'd have to think more about tube selection, no last-minute
change - of mind about the tubes used, etc., etc.

The biggest hum
problem was the layout of the heater wiring near the driver tubes, which I
had to rearrange to achieve the desired results. Even better results
could be achieved if the heaters of the driver tubes were powered with DC
from the cathodes of the output tubes, although that would require using
different driver tubes with 150 mA heaters.


You should check out some heater DC schemes, like (If I remember right)
Bogen's DB 30 (the one with cathode feedback OT's), where he gets DC for a
preamp tube in a kind'o weird way by shunting a HT choke, through a pair of
low-voltage / high Mf caps with the tube's fils as the resistance. I could
be mis-remembering, though...

Here's a question: did you try playing with the values of the 47K
resistors across the input transformer's secondaries & do tone sweeps?
Or
Nobel (sp?) networks? I've had weird experiences with small signal
transformers (I've been pulling them from old mixing consoles& recording
amps forever), where they would resonate at weird freqs, depending on
the
output load. Perhaps that's where your "one note bass" was coming from?

I used the 47k resistors because the transformers were speced for a 100k
secondary load, and I figured the response would be flattest with that
load. The high frequency response extended to something like 80 kHz. I
would expect that improper loading would cause weird response mainly at
the high frequencies, the most I would expect at low frequencies would be
a possible early roll off. I believe microphone input transformers are
often run unloaded, for reasons I have forgotten.


In my head, it goes something like this (this is the opposite of a lecture -
just thinking this through in my barely - awake head... please correct me
where my reasoning goes astray): The transformer's winding could be seen
(to simplify from an infinite ladder) as RL shunted by C (dc res,
inductance of the windings, and inter-winding capacitance for the shunt C).
The L & C parts of the thing make it a basic resonant circuit above which
you should have a pure RC roloff, but it's a ladder, of rl shunted by c's,
so it's not quite that...
The circuit could be made to oscillate (welll, resonate) at any freq.
below resonance by changing the C of the load (bigger C = lower res. f. &
earlier roloff, higher reflected R into the primaries at high freq's.), and
by changing the load R (dropping reflected resistance to the primary, thus
cutting the high freq's on the input side (imperfect - presumably RC/LRC,
whatever), dropping the coupling efficiency (thus droppinghe couplin'
efficiency & causing low -end distortion & roloff )...
Oh, got to go and make $$$ - I'll send this unfinished, please point out
the mistakes ( my mind is in a fog now, and I'm not leafin' through ref.
books to prevent blunders).
-dim (off to do some blue-collar work...)
I triple diddled, that is I changed three things at once, and all I know
is that the one note bass and the grainy sound both disappeared after I
made the changes. Two of the changes were in the amplifier circuitry, but
I now suspect that neither of them had any effect on solving the
problems. I suspect that the problems were due to the cheap Radio Shack
bridging transformer I first used to match the 600 Ohm input of the
amplifier to my preamp. I never bothered to go back and try the Radio
Shack transformer again in place of the RCA Broadcast Quality bridging
transformers I have been using the past 6+ years. It would be easy enough
to try the Radio Shack transformers again to see if they were the cause of
the problems. They simply plug into the line between the preamp and power
amp, but I haven't felt inspired to try it, the amplifier has been working
so well all these years, with no failures, and still operating on the
original tubes.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"shiva"
"Phil Allison"

Agreed, AC testing is overkill just to get the DC resistance, and it
will
throw other losses into the measurement.

They are, as previously stated, 1.6, 0.85 and 0.6 ohms for the 16, 8
and 4 ohm settings.

Or wound inside the other windings, making the wire length per turn
shorter,
making total length shorter.


** But not 40% shorter !!!


Hi Phil -
Look, I'm not even following this thread, as I've mentioned. I don't even
know what the debate's about...
I also don't know how thick the secondary wire is, how the windings are
interleaved, how badly they're wound, how small the radius is (circumference
bein' 2Pi r, if r1's approachin' 0, than you can have as many turns as you
wish without any appreciable length of wire, but r2's gonna be 0+(thickness
of secondary wire), unless you're stacking right away & without
tape)+(thickness of any tape), so the next layer's gonna be ... well, a
whole *bunch* longer... Just an extreme case, but you see my point, right?
So, off the top of my head, 40% for secondary winding res. diff doesn't seem
out of bounds. It's obvious that the 4ohm winding would be the closest to
the primaries - has to be to improve the couplin', with the fewest turns
being the worst offender, so it's got to be shorter. 40% is fine by me....


I'm sure people's gear is better than mine,
but when it gets to sub - Ohm readings, one almost has to solder the
test
leads on to the probes, - the margin of error jumps right up.


** FYI - I used a bench PSU plus a known 1% accurate, 2 ohm, 25 watt
resistor to measure the resistance figures.

The bench PSU voltage was adjusted to give exactly 2.00 volts DC across
the
2 ohm resistor when wired in series with the Quad amp's output terminals.

How good are the terminals?

The same (4.5 digit ) DC meter was then used to measure the voltage drop
across the output probing the OP transformer terminals inside the amp
itself. Given that the current is 1.00 amps, any voltage drop corresponds
with resistance value in ohms.


Hey! I knew that ohm's law stuff would come in handy someday!

Inductance effects preclude the use of AC for measuring transformer
winding
resistance.


Inductance could be easily measured, especially given such low DC R values.
Also, the inductance should be rather small, if all the other taps are open.
At 50 /60Hz, which is what I assume Pat suggested (did he? Using the
mains?), you'd get pretty close. I wouldn't think of using AC for *DC*
resistance measurements of trannys, but who knows - i didn't read the
thread...

Also - be aware of the tempco of copper is + 0.004 per degree C.

That's nice. why, did you get a major readin' drift while the winding was
under test? Maybe youu were undone by the 25W resistor's temp. co.? (being
silly here)
Hey, maybe you have a shorted winding, and maybe the winding is not 4 ohms
at all, perhaps it's 3.2, and conveniently labeled as 4 'cos that's what the
consumer expects to see? Thhe power loss of a mismatch like that is
negligible, and the THD usually improves...
Anyhow, what *is* this thread about?
-dim (clueless)




.............. Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Patrick Turner" = congenital, autistic LIAR !!!



Je parle,

Phil Allison = killfilter's raison d'etre

Au revoir, Philippe!

- Jon the Zombie

"shiva" = a drug addict ****head

"Phil Allison"

Agreed, AC testing is overkill just to get the DC resistance, and it
will throw other losses into the measurement.

They are, as previously stated, 1.6, 0.85 and 0.6 ohms for the 16, 8
and 4 ohm settings.

Or wound inside the other windings, making the wire length per turn
shorter, making total length shorter.


** But not 40% shorter !!!


Hi Phil -
Look, I'm not even following this thread, as I've mentioned. I don't even
know what the debate's about...


** Then you ought to **** off.



I also don't know how thick the secondary wire is, how the windings are
interleaved, how badly they're wound, how small the radius is
(circumference
bein' 2Pi r, if r1's approachin' 0, than you can have as many turns as you
wish without any appreciable length of wire, but r2's gonna be
0+(thickness
of secondary wire), unless you're stacking right away & without
tape)+(thickness of any tape), so the next layer's gonna be ... well, a
whole *bunch* longer... Just an extreme case, but you see my point,
right?


** Go check the the shape of the core of a real transformer - ****head.


So, off the top of my head, 40% for secondary winding res. diff doesn't
seem
out of bounds.


** But your head is pointed and nothing will sit there.


It's obvious that the 4ohm winding would be the closest to
the primaries - has to be to improve the couplin', with the fewest turns
being the worst offender, so it's got to be shorter. 40% is fine by
me....


** Who cares what is "fine" by an admitted ****wit.



Inductance effects preclude the use of AC for measuring transformer
winding resistance.


Inductance could be easily measured, especially given such low DC R
values.


** How would a total ****wit know ??????


Also, the inductance should be rather small,


** It is huge even at 50 Hz - you complete ass.



if all the other taps are open.
At 50 /60Hz, which is what I assume Pat suggested (did he? Using the
mains?), you'd get pretty close. I wouldn't think of using AC for *DC*
resistance measurements of trannys, but who knows - i didn't read the
thread...


** What a drug ****ed ass.



Also - be aware of the tempco of copper is + 0.004 per degree C.

That's nice. why, did you get a major readin' drift while the winding was
under test? Maybe youu were undone by the 25W resistor's temp. co.?
(being
silly here)


** Maybe you were an abortion that crawled out of the bucket ??



Hey, maybe you have a shorted winding, and maybe the winding is not 4 ohms
at all, perhaps it's 3.2, and conveniently labeled as 4 'cos that's what
the
consumer expects to see? Thhe power loss of a mismatch like that is
negligible, and the THD usually improves...
Anyhow, what *is* this thread about?
-dim (clueless)


** **** off moron.


.............. Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"shiva" = a drug addict ****head

"Phil Allison"

Agreed, AC testing is overkill just to get the DC resistance, and it
will throw other losses into the measurement.

They are, as previously stated, 1.6, 0.85 and 0.6 ohms for the 16,
8
and 4 ohm settings.

Or wound inside the other windings, making the wire length per turn
shorter, making total length shorter.


** But not 40% shorter !!!


Hi Phil -
Look, I'm not even following this thread, as I've mentioned. I don't
even
know what the debate's about...


** Then you ought to **** off.



I also don't know how thick the secondary wire is, how the windings are
interleaved, how badly they're wound, how small the radius is
(circumference
bein' 2Pi r, if r1's approachin' 0, than you can have as many turns as
you
wish without any appreciable length of wire, but r2's gonna be
0+(thickness
of secondary wire), unless you're stacking right away & without
tape)+(thickness of any tape), so the next layer's gonna be ... well, a
whole *bunch* longer... Just an extreme case, but you see my point,
right?


** Go check the the shape of the core of a real transformer - ****head.


So, off the top of my head, 40% for secondary winding res. diff doesn't
seem
out of bounds.


** But your head is pointed and nothing will sit there.


It's obvious that the 4ohm winding would be the closest to
the primaries - has to be to improve the couplin', with the fewest turns
being the worst offender, so it's got to be shorter. 40% is fine by
me....


** Who cares what is "fine" by an admitted ****wit.



Inductance effects preclude the use of AC for measuring transformer
winding resistance.


Inductance could be easily measured, especially given such low DC R
values.


** How would a total ****wit know ??????


Also, the inductance should be rather small,


** It is huge even at 50 Hz - you complete ass.



if all the other taps are open.
At 50 /60Hz, which is what I assume Pat suggested (did he? Using the
mains?), you'd get pretty close. I wouldn't think of using AC for *DC*
resistance measurements of trannys, but who knows - i didn't read the
thread...


** What a drug ****ed ass.



Also - be aware of the tempco of copper is + 0.004 per degree C.

That's nice. why, did you get a major readin' drift while the winding
was
under test? Maybe youu were undone by the 25W resistor's temp. co.?
(being
silly here)


** Maybe you were an abortion that crawled out of the bucket ??



Hey, maybe you have a shorted winding, and maybe the winding is not 4
ohms
at all, perhaps it's 3.2, and conveniently labeled as 4 'cos that's what
the
consumer expects to see? Thhe power loss of a mismatch like that is
negligible, and the THD usually improves...
Anyhow, what *is* this thread about?
-dim (clueless)


** **** off moron.


............. Phil



Dear Phil.
I do not use recreational drugs, haven't for years, unless you consider a
couple of beers on weekends. Do try to keep your bitch ass from making
slanderous statements.
Yes, i do make money in electronics, and a **** like you is just beggin'
to be sued, but, somehow, I'd feel a little soiled...
While it is self-evident that my cats have finer debating techniques than
you, I thought I'd mention it nonetheless. Things which are obvious to
folks with IQ's in low double digits may not be as clear to you, who's few
remaining neurons are relyin' on syphilis spirochetes for neurotransmitters.
Don't loose heart, Phil - a human brain is an incredible machine, even the
one you've been 'blessed" with. What's so darned hot about upper brain
function, anyhow, right? Why should you care if your bile-filled verbiage
is birthed in grotesque neuropathology & has no reflection of, or pertinence
to, reality?
Just take pride in the fact that you're a *mammal*, one of the most
sophisticated things roamin' this planet. No matter how *lacking* a mammal
as you may be.
Life itself is a mmiracle, and *you*, (lucky you!), are *alive*.
If you *still* don't feel that mere *existence* and the exclusivity of
mammalhood is enough, modern medicine has come a long way, dear friend, and
you may find out that your so-called "deficiencies" are caused by something
as trivial as a football-sized brain tumor, or a neglected cranial fracture
(check now - a festering hole, oozing puss & spinal fluid, could explain so
much!). All this may be remedied by your friendly neighborhood MD, or even
a barber...
And Phil - you're not in my killfile (I ain't even got one). I *enjoy*
knowing that folks like you exist, and when I feel down, i remember you, who
(by contrast) make me feel truly blessed.
Now, take a deep breath, and think *happy thoughts*!
I'm afraid I'll have to go now, Phil. Chin up, Champ!
-dim