"Arny Krueger" wrote

I'm sure we all have our favorite snake oil story...

Recently I got John Atkinson of Stereophile to confirm
that SP ran an article about the sonic advantages of
treating CDs with Armor All. In fact the result was
damaged CDs.

Is that what you and Atkinson are going to debate at the
show... Armor All?

Powell wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote
Recently I got John Atkinson of Stereophile to confirm
that SP ran an article about the sonic advantages of
treating CDs with Armor All.

I answered Mr. Krueger's question as soon as I saw his
posting. I guess that is what he mean by "getting" me to
confirm this fact. Contarry to his implication, I didn't
have anything to hide.

In fact the result was damaged CDs.

As I pointed out, damaged from the scratches that could result
from the ArmorAll application. These scratches can be polished out.

Is that what you and Atkinson are going to debate at the
show... Armor All?

I did assure Mr. Krueger that he could raise any subject he felt
relevant.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

At the last Stereophile writers' meeting I attended, at least 15 years ago, John
Atkinson asked an intelligent question. To wit...

"Why is it that some mounts are supposed to isolate the amp/CD player, etc, from
the surface they're on, while others couple it tightly to the surface (cones, in
particular), yet both approaches claim improved sound?"

I suggested that one way to find out would be to play an impulse from a CD
through a speaker in front of the player. (A similar experiment to test
amplifiers could be done with a pulse generator feeding the amp.) You could then
look at the pulse's spectrum and decay (at the player's or amp's output) using a
variety of isolation devices, no isolation at all, and with no speaker at all
(as a reference). This should show whether CD players, etc, are meaningfully
microphonic, and whether isolation devices have any effect.

John thought that was a good idea. Then he said the thing that forever made me
lose respect for his "understanding" of science.

"But what if there's no difference between the isolating devices?"

In case this isn't clear... You don't assume the result before performing an
experiment. Indeed, it's often better to perform an experiment simply to see
what happens, rather than trying to "prove" or "disprove" something.

I doubt that John ever performed the experiment. I am guilty, too, of failing to
follow through on subjective observations with controlled experiments.

Our whole society has the biggest snake oil jones of all....that the
new and improved consumer product really _ is_ an improvement. Usually
each new generation of consumer product-and often commercial ones as
well- are mixed improvements. Ask any VCR tech (I should say _former_
VCR tech) who will explained how the early toploaders were nearly
indestructible and highly repairable with crude electronic performance,
the early frontloaders were well made and superior in performance, and
current ones are low end ****boxes that are not even worth opening for
cleaning, they are totally nonrepairable plus being inferior
electronically. TV sets and car radios have worse RF sections than late
tube and mid-life solid state ones. Cars have engine and transmission
castings far less rugged and rebuildable than cars of 40, 30, or even
20 years ago.

John Atkinson wrote:

Powell wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote
Recently I got John Atkinson of Stereophile to confirm
that SP ran an article about the sonic advantages of
treating CDs with Armor All.

I answered Mr. Krueger's question as soon as I saw his
posting. I guess that is what he mean by "getting" me to
confirm this fact. Contarry to his implication, I didn't
have anything to hide.

In fact the result was damaged CDs.

As I pointed out, damaged from the scratches that could result
from the ArmorAll application. These scratches can be polished out.

So, you basically say that it is no big deal. If somebody
damaged a couple of dozen (or more) compact discs, they can
get to work and polish out the scratches.

John, if people had not followed the advice of that article
in the first place, they would not have to polish anything.
Basically, all of those people followed the Stereophile
directions and used up a lot of time doing so. Then, they
had to follow more Stereophile directions and use up even
more time fixing the mess your guy caused.

The guy who wrote that article did a lot more damage than
you claim I have done by virtue of my supposed evil antics.
At least I have never duped anybody into damaging their
record collections.

Incidentally, while scratches were the supposed result, it
is also possible that Armor All could potentially damage the
label side of a disc. No telling, really, but the stuff is
made for use on rubber or rubberized products and not
lacquer coatings. Your article writer obviously never
researched much of anything when he came up with his dream
plan to make compact discs sound better.

Howard Ferstler

William Sommerwerck wrote:

At the last Stereophile writers' meeting I attended, at least 15 years ago, John
Atkinson asked an intelligent question. To wit...

"Why is it that some mounts are supposed to isolate the amp/CD player, etc, from
the surface they're on, while others couple it tightly to the surface (cones, in
particular), yet both approaches claim improved sound?"

I suggested that one way to find out would be to play an impulse from a CD
through a speaker in front of the player. (A similar experiment to test
amplifiers could be done with a pulse generator feeding the amp.) You could then
look at the pulse's spectrum and decay (at the player's or amp's output) using a
variety of isolation devices, no isolation at all, and with no speaker at all
(as a reference). This should show whether CD players, etc, are meaningfully
microphonic, and whether isolation devices have any effect.

John thought that was a good idea. Then he said the thing that forever made me
lose respect for his "understanding" of science.

"But what if there's no difference between the isolating devices?"

God, what will those who advertise such items in the
magazine think, and worse yet, do?

In case this isn't clear... You don't assume the result before performing an
experiment. Indeed, it's often better to perform an experiment simply to see
what happens, rather than trying to "prove" or "disprove" something.

I doubt that John ever performed the experiment. I am guilty, too, of failing to
follow through on subjective observations with controlled experiments.

I forgive you, and, believe it or not, forgive John, too.

Incidentally, I wrote an article for Stereo Review Magazine
about three decades back where I did pretty much as you
indicated, but did so with an LP record player instead of a
CD player, with the human ears as the evaluation tool.

I even showed how someone could use their record player to
rather carefully evaluate the feedback. The player
essentially would behave as a microphone that would clearly
determine just how much of an audible problem feedback would
be. Often, the feedback was fairly strong, but not always,
depending upon how well isolated the turntable would be from
the mounting base. I even evaluated how audible feedback
from footfalls near a record player would be.

With CD players, I would hazard that the only artifact that
would possibly be audible would be gross mistracking. If
that did not occur, probably the feedback would be
inaudible.

However, like you I have not done that experiment.

Howard Ferstler

wrote:

Our whole society has the biggest snake oil jones of all....that the
new and improved consumer product really _ is_ an improvement.

Very often it is.

Usually
each new generation of consumer product-and often commercial ones as
well- are mixed improvements.

Yep.

Ask any VCR tech (I should say _former_
VCR tech) who will explained how the early toploaders were nearly
indestructible and highly repairable with crude electronic performance,
the early frontloaders were well made and superior in performance, and
current ones are low end ****boxes that are not even worth opening for
cleaning, they are totally nonrepairable plus being inferior
electronically. TV sets and car radios have worse RF sections than late
tube and mid-life solid state ones. Cars have engine and transmission
castings far less rugged and rebuildable than cars of 40, 30, or even
20 years ago.

Your last sentence is preposterous. I drove cars that far
back, and today's versions are head and shoulders better,
and that includes reliability. Statistics put out by
Consumer's Union over the last few decades support this
point, by the way. Cars are more reliable than ever, not to
mention cleaner burning and more fuel efficient.

Howard Ferstler

Powell wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote

I'm sure we all have our favorite snake oil story...

Recently I got John Atkinson of Stereophile to confirm
that SP ran an article about the sonic advantages of
treating CDs with Armor All. In fact the result was
damaged CDs.

Is that what you and Atkinson are going to debate at the
show... Armor All?

It would be best if, rather than the DBT protocol, they
debated:

1) Epistemology.
2) Ethics.

Howard Ferstler

Yeah but when they do break-they're done for. Or at least that
assembly is.

The small block Chevy is still in production (as the GM corporate Gen
III V8) but there's nothing inherently better about the core engine
being produced today. Anyone who builds hot rod or racing engines
prefers the Gen I blocks, heads, cranks and rods over the new ones.
They do last longer in the stock application because EFI engines don't
dribble raw gas over the cylinder walls during shutdown, and because
oils and filters have improved. But with modern closed loop EFI and a
catalyst just about any old engine would meet today's emissions
standards.

Now when a car refuses to start it is generally summarily towed to the
dealer. Tow fees are at an all time high although most people have
motor club towing.

As has been pointed out a large number of electronics geniuses drive
old nonelectronic cars. Pease has his VW and Jim Williams used todrive
an Alfa of pre-Graduate vintage. Of course, they live in California.

On 3 Mar 2005 18:03:52 -0800, wrote:

Our whole society has the biggest snake oil jones of all....that the
new and improved consumer product really _ is_ an improvement. Usually
each new generation of consumer product-and often commercial ones as
well- are mixed improvements. Ask any VCR tech (I should say _former_
VCR tech) who will explained how the early toploaders were nearly
indestructible and highly repairable with crude electronic performance,
the early frontloaders were well made and superior in performance, and
current ones are low end ****boxes that are not even worth opening for
cleaning, they are totally nonrepairable plus being inferior
electronically. TV sets and car radios have worse RF sections than late
tube and mid-life solid state ones. Cars have engine and transmission
castings far less rugged and rebuildable than cars of 40, 30, or even
20 years ago.

On the other hand, you can now buy a CD burner for your computer that
works pretty good for $30. Electronic products tend to be ever
cheaper, even adjusted for inflation. I agree about the build
quality, but with cars part of the problem is trying to get fuel
economy with lighter weight.

Al

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...


It would be best if, rather than the DBT protocol, they
debated:


2) Ethics.

I admire your willingness to learn something
completely new.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Howard Ferstler wrote:
wrote:

Cars have engine and transmission
castings far less rugged and rebuildable than cars of 40, 30, or even
20 years ago.

Your last sentence is preposterous. I drove cars that far
back, and today's versions are head and shoulders better,
and that includes reliability. Statistics put out by
Consumer's Union over the last few decades support this
point, by the way. Cars are more reliable than ever, not to
mention cleaner burning and more fuel efficient.


While I don't really agree with calcerise here, I don't see any
contradiction between your statement and his. Clearly, cars are much
more reliable today than they were in the 60s and 70s. But engine and
transmission castings today are much lighter and thinner than they were
back then, which could lead to them being less "rugged" (though it
certainly helps with that fuel efficiency that you mention). The
important point is that they are rugged enough to last through a cars
expected lifetime, and that other parts of the car have been improved to
have significantly better reliability. So while cars broke often in the
60s and 70s, it wasn't generally the engine or transmission castings
that caused the failure. And it still isn't today.

I can't comment on the "rebuildable" part. I don't think engine
castings get "rebuilt" much these days. Even in the 60s and 70s, cars
that needed that level of repair tended to get junked.

I guess the point is that while his statement may be true, it doesn't
really support his argument.

Howard Ferstler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
As I pointed out, damaged from the scratches that could result
from the ArmorAll application. These scratches can be polished
out.

So, you basically say that it is no big deal.

No, that is not what I said.

If somebody damaged a couple of dozen (or more) compact discs,
they can get to work and polish out the scratches.

Yes, but if they applied the Armorall correctly, they would
not have scracthed the discs.

it is also possible that Armor All could potentially damage
the label side of a disc.

It is possible, which is why Armor All should not be applied
to the label side. I suggest you read what Stereophile actually
wrote about this tweak before you wonder off into your own world
of wander, Mr. Ferstler.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Howard Ferstler wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I doubt that John ever performed the experiment. I am guilty,
too, of failing to follow through on subjective observations
with controlled experiments.

I forgive you, and, believe it or not, forgive John, too.

Very gracious of you, Mr. Ferstler. Thank you.

I even showed how someone could use their record player to
rather carefully evaluate the feedback. The player
essentially would behave as a microphone that would clearly
determine just how much of an audible problem feedback would
be.

You might want to discuss this phenomenon with Arny Krueger.
When I mentioned on r.a.o. having performed a similar
experiment he was dismissive both of the experiment and of
the implications of the results. (Google can retrieve the
details if you care to investigate.) But that, of course,
might just have been because I was the one who introduced the
subject :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On 4 Mar 2005 04:40:07 -0800, "John Atkinson"
wrote:


Howard Ferstler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
As I pointed out, damaged from the scratches that could result
from the ArmorAll application. These scratches can be polished
out.

So, you basically say that it is no big deal.

No, that is not what I said.

If somebody damaged a couple of dozen (or more) compact discs,
they can get to work and polish out the scratches.

Yes, but if they applied the Armorall correctly, they would
not have scracthed the discs.

it is also possible that Armor All could potentially damage
the label side of a disc.

It is possible, which is why Armor All should not be applied
to the label side. I suggest you read what Stereophile actually
wrote about this tweak before you wonder off into your own world
of wander, Mr. Ferstler.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Just tried to find the relevant article on the Stereophile website -
typed "Armor All" into the search box, and got a whole heap of
apparently irrelevant articles. Can you explain how best to drive your
search engine?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article .com,
wrote:
The small block Chevy is still in production (as the GM corporate Gen
III V8) but there's nothing inherently better about the core engine
being produced today. Anyone who builds hot rod or racing engines
prefers the Gen I blocks, heads, cranks and rods over the new ones.
They do last longer in the stock application because EFI engines don't
dribble raw gas over the cylinder walls during shutdown, and because
oils and filters have improved. But with modern closed loop EFI and a
catalyst just about any old engine would meet today's emissions
standards.

Why is dribbling raw gas on the cylinder wall such a bad thing? Other
than that it might wind up past the rings and diluting the oil. It's
not like gasoline is that corrosive.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:59:55 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On 4 Mar 2005 04:40:07 -0800, "John Atkinson"
wrote:


Howard Ferstler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
As I pointed out, damaged from the scratches that could result
from the ArmorAll application. These scratches can be polished
out.

So, you basically say that it is no big deal.

No, that is not what I said.

If somebody damaged a couple of dozen (or more) compact discs,
they can get to work and polish out the scratches.

Yes, but if they applied the Armorall correctly, they would
not have scracthed the discs.

it is also possible that Armor All could potentially damage
the label side of a disc.

It is possible, which is why Armor All should not be applied
to the label side. I suggest you read what Stereophile actually
wrote about this tweak before you wonder off into your own world
of wander, Mr. Ferstler.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Just tried to find the relevant article on the Stereophile website -
typed "Armor All" into the search box, and got a whole heap of
apparently irrelevant articles. Can you explain how best to drive your
search engine?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Sure you didn't type in Armour All?

g

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 07:47:24 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

Just tried to find the relevant article on the Stereophile website -
typed "Armor All" into the search box, and got a whole heap of
apparently irrelevant articles. Can you explain how best to drive your
search engine?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Sure you didn't type in Armour All?

g

I'm bilingual in English and Gibberish.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:47:48 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:


On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 07:47:24 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

Just tried to find the relevant article on the Stereophile website -
typed "Armor All" into the search box, and got a whole heap of
apparently irrelevant articles. Can you explain how best to drive your
search engine?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Sure you didn't type in Armour All?

g

I'm bi

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 08:21:02 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

I'm bi

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

I'll take your word for it.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce said:

I'm bi

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

I'll take your word for it.

It's time you bought a round, Don.

Howard Ferstler wrote in
:

wrote:

Our whole society has the biggest snake oil jones of all....that the
new and improved consumer product really _ is_ an improvement.

Very often it is.

Usually
each new generation of consumer product-and often commercial ones as
well- are mixed improvements.

Yep.

Ask any VCR tech (I should say _former_
VCR tech) who will explained how the early toploaders were nearly
indestructible and highly repairable with crude electronic performance,
the early frontloaders were well made and superior in performance, and
current ones are low end ****boxes that are not even worth opening for
cleaning, they are totally nonrepairable plus being inferior
electronically. TV sets and car radios have worse RF sections than late
tube and mid-life solid state ones. Cars have engine and transmission
castings far less rugged and rebuildable than cars of 40, 30, or even
20 years ago.

Your last sentence is preposterous. I drove cars that far
back, and today's versions are head and shoulders better,
and that includes reliability. Statistics put out by
Consumer's Union over the last few decades support this
point, by the way. Cars are more reliable than ever, not to
mention cleaner burning and more fuel efficient.

Howard Ferstler


I quite agree with you Howard. My car has a 10 year rust warrantee and I
don't do anthing unusual I still get about 300,000 miles out of a car
before I have to start thinking about doing something to it like valve
guide seals and the like. I also get a minimum of 200,000 miles out of a
clutch. Brakes I am not so fortuneate with as those wear at a rate of
every 2-3 years. Even at 200,000 miles nothing is done to the engine or
transmission other than regular maintenance. Compare that to say a 1977
ford when the timing chain and gears have to be replaced at 80,000 or
before as the nylon teeth are all worn off/broken. Ford starters go out
every 2-4 years. Alternators at about the same rate. I still have the
original starter and alternator on my cars. None of my cars have ever had
the vavle covers off or the transmission out. No major repair to the
drivetrain at all. Had to replace the CV boot at about 150,000

My son recently pulled the head of his friends car after his friend ran it
without coolant thus warping all the valves. He examined the block and
there is almost no wear to the cylinder walls after 192,000 miles. He
found a used head, installed it, and the car runs fine with normal
compression for a new engine and normal oil consumption for a new engine.
Try that with an 50's, 60's, or 70's engine and the block will have to be
replaced.

One thing should be noted is that these are NOT American cars but german
made cars.

Again cal is living in the past claiming he knows all about current
technology when in fact he knows almost nothing and spreads his
misinformation based on personal prejudices and perceptions istead of
facts.

His assesment of electronics is equally wrong in regard to RF performance.
I agree nothing beats the cast and machined frame of a early VHS recorder
afor it's repairablity, but it is plain to see that no one wants to spend
the money for such an item so we are left with plastic throw away VCRs that
cost one days wages to an unskilled factory worker. Compare that to the
VCRs of the 80's. The performance is just as good if not better especially
in the RF sections.

Cal knows all there is to know about electorincs, cars, and technology in
general. If you don't believe me, just ask him. He will tell you that too.

r

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:29:56 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



Don Pearce said:

I'm bi

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

I'll take your word for it.

It's time you bought a round, Don.





Nearly bought several in Afghanistan thank you George! Just not the
desired kind.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce said:

It's time you bought a round, Don.

Nearly bought several in Afghanistan thank you George! Just not the
desired kind.

"In the year 1878 I took my degree of Doctor of Medicine of the University
of London..."

How dreary of you. But good-o for banning the barbaric fox hunting.

another viewer wrote:
In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Why is dribbling raw gas on the cylinder wall such a bad thing? Other
than that it might wind up past the rings and diluting the oil. It's
not like gasoline is that corrosive.

it does screw up the lubricating properties of the oil.
bad juju for reciprocating motors.

Yeah, but you're changing your oil every 2,500 miles anyway, because that's
not the only thing that screws it up.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

another viewer wrote:

the other thing leaking gasoline into the cylinders does is wash the oil
off the cylinder wall. gasoline is a good solvent and it does clean the
residual oil (which you want there) off the cylinder walls really well.
that's probably the worst thing because you have no lubrication when the
motor is restarted until the oil flow is restored. that condition
produces bad wear on the walls and rings, and that has nothing to do
with oil change frequency. like i said, it's bad juju. g

Ahh! THAT makes perfect sense. And that's not something that high flow
synthetics are going to be any better at preventing either, I would guess.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:54:57 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



Don Pearce said:

It's time you bought a round, Don.

Nearly bought several in Afghanistan thank you George! Just not the
desired kind.

"In the year 1878 I took my degree of Doctor of Medicine of the University
of London..."

How dreary of you. But good-o for banning the barbaric fox hunting.



Huh?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

another viewer wrote:

the other thing leaking gasoline into the cylinders does is wash the oil
off the cylinder wall. gasoline is a good solvent and it does clean the
residual oil (which you want there) off the cylinder walls really well.
that's probably the worst thing because you have no lubrication when the
motor is restarted until the oil flow is restored. that condition
produces bad wear on the walls and rings, and that has nothing to do
with oil change frequency. like i said, it's bad juju. g

Ahh! THAT makes perfect sense. And that's not something that high flow
synthetics are going to be any better at preventing either, I would guess.
--scott

newp, only thing that stops that is keeping raw fuel outta the
cylinders. i'm not a real fan of synthetics, they have a tendency to
leak thru gaskets and seals where the dinosaur based oils don't.
molecular size seems to be the culprit there with the syns having
smaller structures. i haven't tried snake oil, but it certainly been
marketed to me in a variety of ways.

our standing joke at the shop is to acquire some high tension wire from
the power company and use that for speaker cable. if it's good enough
for 100,000 volt transmission lines..... vbg
(audio related sig line inserted this time instead of the bikes)
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com

Don Pearce wrote:
Just tried to find the relevant article on the Stereophile
website...Can you explain how best to drive your search engine?

The 1991 Armor All coverage is not yet posted in our on-line
archives. I am slowly working my way through the older material
and it should be available in the late Spring.

My suggestion to Mr. Fesrtler, BTW, was not so much for him to
find this material and read it (though that would be worth
his while, of course), but that he should try harder to refrain
from commenting on articles that he hasn't read at all. That
way, his comments would be more pertinent, perhaps even helpful.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote

I did assure Mr. Krueger that he could raise any
subject he felt relevant.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

That just leaves the hidden agenda unaccounted-for.
How will you market the debate at your Hi-Fi show...
3 ring circus or freak show tent ?

John Atkinson wrote:

I suggest you read what Stereophile actually
wrote about this tweak before you wonder off into your own world
of wander, Mr. Ferstler.

Reading what _S_ said about all kinds of tweakoid thigns led me to avoid
renewing my subscription. Why pay to have smoke blown up one's butt when
that service is available free on usenet?

--
ha

said:

As has been pointed out a large number of electronics geniuses drive
old nonelectronic cars. Pease has his VW and Jim Williams used todrive
an Alfa of pre-Graduate vintage. Of course, they live in California.


Hey, this means I'm in the same class as Pease and Williams ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:26:22 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

John thought that was a good idea. Then he said the thing that forever made me
lose respect for his "understanding" of science.

"But what if there's no difference between the isolating devices?"

In case this isn't clear... You don't assume the result before performing an
experiment. Indeed, it's often better to perform an experiment simply to see
what happens, rather than trying to "prove" or "disprove" something.

What's so wrong with that? Google "scientific method". You start
with a hypothesis. Experiment then proves or disproves it. You've
got to be prepared for a negative result though, and others have to be
able to reproduce your results.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Don Pearce said:

It's time you bought a round, Don.

Nearly bought several in Afghanistan thank you George! Just not the
desired kind.

"In the year 1878 I took my degree of Doctor of Medicine of the
University
of London..."

How dreary of you. But good-o for banning the barbaric fox hunting.



Huh?

"You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive."
- "A Study in Scarlet", A. Conan Doyle

Peace,
Paul

Sander deWaal wrote:
said:

As has been pointed out a large number of electronics geniuses
drive
old nonelectronic cars. Pease has his VW and Jim Williams used
todrive
an Alfa of pre-Graduate vintage. Of course, they live in California.


Hey, this means I'm in the same class as Pease and Williams ;-)



Oh, c'mon, Sander. Your CX is way cooler than an Alfa Spyder or *any*
VW.
(Even if you did fool with the headlamps ;-)

said:

As has been pointed out a large number of electronics geniuses
drive
old nonelectronic cars. Pease has his VW and Jim Williams used
todrive
an Alfa of pre-Graduate vintage. Of course, they live in California.

Hey, this means I'm in the same class as Pease and Williams ;-)

Oh, c'mon, Sander. Your CX is way cooler than an Alfa Spyder or *any*
VW.
(Even if you did fool with the headlamps ;-)


It gets even worse......my CX has GASP! electronic injection and
ignition (which never failed me BTW, because it's Bosch - decent
German engineered ©)

;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:04:32 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:

"You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive."
- "A Study in Scarlet", A. Conan Doyle

Peace,
Paul


Alimentary, my dear Watson (yup, got a nasty stomach bug too).

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Sander deWaal wrote:
said:

As has been pointed out a large number of electronics geniuses
drive
old nonelectronic cars. Pease has his VW and Jim Williams used
todrive
an Alfa of pre-Graduate vintage. Of course, they live in
California.

Hey, this means I'm in the same class as Pease and Williams ;-)

Oh, c'mon, Sander. Your CX is way cooler than an Alfa Spyder or
*any*
VW.
(Even if you did fool with the headlamps ;-)


It gets even worse......my CX has GASP! electronic injection and
ignition (which never failed me BTW, because it's Bosch - decent
German engineered =A9)
=20
;-)



Sander, that's how the car came from the factory, yes?

John Atkinson said:

My suggestion to Mr. Fesrtler, BTW, was not so much for him to
find this material and read it (though that would be worth
his while, of course), but that he should try harder to refrain
from commenting on articles that he hasn't read at all. That
way, his comments would be more pertinent, perhaps even helpful.

I think we should all prepare for Harold's final departure from RAO, and
indeed, perhaps from this mortal plane.

When we look back on our experiences with a departed soul, we tend to
remember the good times. I remember Zippy's caustic humor more than his
belligerence, as one example. Now would be a good time for the Ferstlerian
to reflect on his legacy, such as it might be. It would be a shame if he
were only remembered as a raving crackpot, ranting uncontrollably about
imaginary demons and fantastic conspiracies.

said:

It gets even worse......my CX has GASP! electronic injection and
ignition (which never failed me BTW, because it's Bosch - decent
German engineered ©)

Sander, that's how the car came from the factory, yes?


Yup. The "i" in CX25 GTi stands for injection.
To be fair, two brands were fitted, in no particular order:
Bosch and Magneti Marelli.
Dunno about MM, but the (analog!) Bosch stuff is pretty sturdy and
problem-free, even after 20-odd years.
It's the (French) connectors and sockets that fail miserably without
maintenance.

Nothing a can of WD-40 can't cure, you will note.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "