[Andre Jute]

Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, who claims to be an engineer, wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Soundhaspriority wrote:
I was at a show where a designer informed me that he used tube power
rectification -- 5R4 -- because it resulted in lower power supply impedance.
I countered by saying, how could this be, tube rectifiers have a 10% voltage
drop. He replied that this was true, but nevertheless, stood by his
statement.

It seems to me this could be true if a tube rectifier had negative dynamic
resistance, so that as the current increased, the voltage drop across the
tube decreased.

Any elucidatory comments?

It is not as straightforward a question as it seems.

Yes it is.

A typical junk science claim from Jootikins.

Really? Then why did you snip away my text where I explain precisely
what the relationship is.

The rectifier 'slope impedance' can can be determined from it's characterisitcs.
It *will* be higher than any silicon rectifier by loads and loads. And the supply
voltage with a tube rectifier will droop greater on load too.

Do you claim that it is a linear relationship? Yes or no, Poopie. Don't
give us your bull**** waffle, give us a specific answer as you claim
(below) is everyone's scientific duty.

However, it is not
difficult to follow his mental process. It merely requires some
flexibility

Read gullibility and willingness to discard science.

Nope. Sophistication almost always includes wily scepticism. I leave
gullibility to diplomaed quarterwits like you and their rote learning.

(in addition to the extremely specialized knowledge that is
a given in this discussion) to hold his view rather than yours; most
practising tube designers, if they are more than mere mechanics, will
go along with him, though not all will admit it in public. All of that
said, explaining his viewpoint is not something I would wish to
undertake on a trade show floor.

How to determince the use of JUNK SCIENCE !
================================================== ===

The following characteristics have been argued by the cited authors to be useful
in identifying pseudoscience.

Who are these cited authors that you don't tell us the names of,
Poopie? I've spoken to you before about your appeals to already
discredited authority. You're really a very slow learner.

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

Is that the headline? If so, it should be distinguished somehow from
the rest, or it looks like you're just repeating yourself, like a bad
comedy act in the clubs where you work:

Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack
specific measurements as a basis [18].

Nope. I made no vague claims. My claims are specific and give measured
results. You cut away the evidence so that your lie will stand up. We
are not fooled.

Failure to make use of operational definitions [19]

I made use of the operational definition of Ohm's Law several times, of
the operational definition of damping, and so on. You cut away the
evidence. But this is more than a lie, it is your admission that you do
not recognize Ohm, or the definition of damping, or the general
principles of electronics which are applied in my post. Where did you
say you got your diploma from again, Poopie? And how much was it,
besides the six off-brand cola caps you also had to send in?

Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an
explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when
multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20]

Prove that I made a single unnecessary assumption. Again, you cut away
the evidence in your dumb attempt to prove your foolish lie. Now I'm
calling you on it. Prove it or apologize, Poopie. (Well, I'm going to
kick slack, fat arse around the houses anyway, so don't bother trying
to apologize. It's too late.)

Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or
highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the
superficial trappings of science.[21]

Nope, just plain, straighforward English that anyone who graduated high
school can understand. You cut away the evidence, Poopie, to make your
dumb lie stand up. Now you must prove that a single sentence of mine in
that post is "obscurantist". That's more than just "obscure" (meaning
that a retard like you won't understand it); you must prove for
"obscurantist" to stand up that there is also the intention to baffle.
Bend over, Poopie, your ignorance of a noble language has again stuffed
you painfully!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Another appeal to dubious authority!

Also.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience

Yet more appeals to dubious authority!

Hey, Poopie, I've been wondering as I read the years and years of
mindlessly grinding, totally unenlightening soundbites from you, what
it is that you think with. Now I know. You think with ****. That's why
you are called Poopie.

Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in particular
where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the scientific method
entirely.

I know more about the scientific method than you ever will, and in
particular about placebo tests, what you pretentiously call ABX tests.
But, again, you cut away the evidence in an effort to make your lie
stand up. Prove that a single sentence or other statement of mine from
that post is "anti-scientific". Again, you have to prove volition, and
that doesn't just mean that I am openly contemptuous of you and your
little certificate, and of the other diplomaed quarterwits who come on
RAT to shout down the tubies; it means you have to prove contempt for a
principle of science or for an engineer of achievement. Of course you
can't -- so you cut away the evidence of what I actually said.

Graham

You're not only a public liar and a fool, Poopie, you're a public
convenience of a liar and a fool.

Why don't you tell us why you're called Poopie. At least that will be
worth a laugh.

Andre Jute
No mercy for the enemies of science