[Ian Iveson]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 May 2009 01:15:12 +0100, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

flipper wrote:

Obviously, and equally true were HT simply raised
by
the
same 100V.

Nope.

Nope what? Nope its not obvious, or nope it would not
be
equally true if HT were raised by the same 100V?

If the latter, then that is the crux of the biscuit,
I
feel.
Are you suggesting that, if screen and anode are both
increased by 100V, the appropriate bias voltage would
be
less than 44V?

That would lead to the interesting conclusion that if
you
apply 500V to both screen and anode and a certain
current
results, then as you reduce Va, current will
increase.

Or are you just quibbling with "equally"?

My view is that changing Va wouldn't have much effect
because screen mu is so dominant. That's the main
reason
why
I wondered if the design is a joke: it would be much
simpler
to increase Va and Vs by the same amount, than to
increase
Vs alone, obviously.

You still don't get it.

How would you know?

He knows because you keep making the same faulty
suggestion "it would
be much simpler to increase Va and Vs by the same
amount."

But that is true.

It's 'true' to the extent it's 'simple' to red plate a
tube. It's also
'simple' to break with a hammer but neither are of any
practical
value.

What I questioned originally was whether
that would take it out of its SOA.

A half truth.

You didn't understand how the thing could work, suggesting
it was a
'joke', and, from what you continue to argue, still don't
get it.

What you said was "The ensuing screen meltdown could be
avoided by
increasing the anode voltage by the same amount, I.e. by
simply
increasing the HT and discarding the extra screen
supplies."

Except the case is exactly the opposite. Elevated screen
is common
but, in this case, increasing both Va and Vs will red
plate the thing.

And it doesn't matter how many times you dance a jig it
isn't "much
simpler to increase Va and Vs by the same amount" unless
your goal is
to melt plates or set fire to something.

Your SOA 'question' was "Perhaps that takes the valve out
of it's
SOA?" but you immediately followed with "Not so far as
does setting Vs
Va, surely?" That's not the kind of 'questioning SOA'
that you imply
but ass covering nonsense akin to "if my 'much simpler'
solution has a
problem then his is worse."


You should make an effort
to read properly rather than pursue your own pet
principles
regardless.

I've not only read properly but know how it works and if
you gave a
tinker's dam for anything but asinine word games you'd pay
attention.

And just coz you think you know doesn't answer my question
of how Patrick would know. You have more formal structure
to
your thinking, presumably as a result of some education.
Patrick is comparatively clueless.

He may be, in your opinion, 'clueless' about a lot of
things but one
thing he knows is tubes and that's how I know he knows.


Go ahead, keep increasing them until you hit max PDA.
Then
you can get
more Po if you increase Vs in 'boosted triode'.

You can't read, or entertain a
structured thought process.

Ea has little effect on Ia where Eg2 is kept constant.

Va has little effect on Ia whether Vs is kept constant
or
not, above the knee.

Not true in triode operation and neither is there a
blooming knee in
triode operation.

So "blooming" what? "Eg2" isn't constant in a triode
either.
So what mode do you suppose Patrick was talking about?

That raising Va doesn't accomplish the goal of increasing
Ia but
increasing Vs does.

Er, that was *my* point...glad you've seen the light...but
you've dodged my question.

And, again, if you gave a tinker's dam you'd try to
understand what
Pat says instead of playing asinine word games.

Still dodging my question.

Saying "where Eg2 is kept constant" simplifies things so
the
fundamental principle is clear. Once you get that part
then adding
signal to screen can be evaluated but it remains the case
as, even
with 'things changing', Ia is a function of Vs (and Eg1),
not Va.

None of which answers my question. You're dodging and
squirming is so obvious even you must be feeling at least a
little bit sheepish?

With normal triode connection with Ea = Eg2 = 350V and
say
Ia at 80mA,
with Ig2 at say 6mA, then you'd have total Pda + Pdg2
=
30W.
From this we'd expect to see 7.5W of triode class A PO
at
25% triode
efficiency.

Now, suppose we drop Ea to 250V, but keep Eg2 at 350V,
while ac coupling
the screen to anode for triode operation.
If the Ia was say 75mA, and and Ig2 maybe 10mA, then
the
total Pda +
Pdg2 = 19W + 3.5 = 22.5W, and we could get the anode
to
make the at
least the same swing but probably a bit more so you'd
get
9W, same swing
and get get 40% efficiency.

Obviously,

If it's so obvious then why do you persist in claiming
the
same thing
can be done by raising B+.

If I've said "the same thing can be done by raising" HT, I
didn't intend to. Where did I say that? Where have I
persisted?

Babble, game, babble, game.

Pot, kettle. You're quite rude when you're riled. Chill,
relax.

You haven't 'intended' to do ANY thing so why are you
speaking at all?

I've explained that but you've got yourself too angry to see
anything through the red mist.

What does "much simpler to increase Va and Vs" mean? How
is it 'much
simpler' when you don't intend to do anything?

Eh? Why should my intention effect how simple it is? I don't
even know what edge you've gone over.

Babble, game, babble, game.

Haven't you already said that?

and efficiency wasn't the issue until I raised
it.

You never raised efficiency at all and pondering where
the
'lost'
100Vs goes has nothing to do with it.

Porky, pure and simple. You replied to the very paragraph
in
which I raised it.

I was questioning the legitimacy of the particular
circuit, which was introduced as a way of increasing
power.

The principle works.

Sigh...I was questioning the legitimacy of the particular
circuit. Once mo

***everyone knows the "principle" works***

***the "principle" has never been disputed***

Then why do you keep saying "much simpler to increase Va
and Vs?"

Coz it's true.

Let it go, you're chasing your own red herring, and you've
got Patrick following you down the path of idiocy.

You're damn right I'm going to 'let it go' because your
asinine word
games are a waste of time and I don't give a flying fig
whether you
ever get it or not.

So shush.

If we raised Ea and Ia and increased the grid 1 bias
so
that Pda + Pdg2
= 30W, if the efficiency was 40% we could get 12W.

Just how much Eg2 needs to be above Ea is not known
for
all tubes.

But you're the ****ing expert on ****ing simulation,
so
why have you
****ing not worked it all out for us??????

Maybe I would if you asked nicely, maybe not, although
not
through simulation because I wouldn't trust my 6L6
screen
model at low Va,

Don't try modeling a TV horizontal amp then.

You neither. Your model is no better than mine, but just
in
case it is, I think you should post a copy, thanks.

and it won't tell me where the energy goes
anyway.

You got no means to measure I and A?

Measuring tells me it's gone, but doesn't say where to.

It vanishes into your dialectic.

No it doesn't...vanishing is anathema to a materialist...and
the dialectic isn't mine. Everyone's involved.

Anyway, I like to encourage the group to progress in a
spirit of social endeavour.

Telling everyone the answers is what you think you're
here
for. I don't need to do that to make a living. I just
raise
issues, mostly, and cultivate conversation, just like as
if
it were an amateur newsgroup.

Here I am, bright eyes and bushy tail, eager to leave no
stone unturned, while you strut, puffed chest and stern
brow, keen to impress your stupid-rich patrons and sell
more
of your antediluvian hardware.

It could have been a symbiotic relationship, but you
turned
out to be too much of a ****.

Pat can sometimes wander all over the place and be
stubborn enough to
make a mule look down right flexible but you give him a
good run on
both counts and you meandering over everything except
the
circuit's
principle is an example of it.

But the principle was established at the outset, silly.
Your
first post wasn't about the principle.

The hell it wasn't.

You said the complexity wasn't worth the power. Where's the
principle in that, Mr Porky-pie?

The only reason
you've been banging on about it is because you want to
think
I don't understand it,

Because it's obvious you don't by continually saying "much
simpler to
increase Va and Vs by the same amount" and when it's
explained
insisting "but it's true."

It *is* simpler. Since when does "simpler" mean "not
hotter"?

for reasons perhaps you haven't yet
grasped, despite my posts that make the contrary clear. I
am
generally on topic, raising pertinent issues as I have
done
here.

You may argue that the dialectic, for example, is not
pertinent, but I know otherwise and hope that some may see
that sometime, or honestly ask me why.

Your mangling of the dialectic into nonsensical babble is
the worst
recommendation it's ever had.

As if you would know. But what I say is not intended to be a
recommendation. If you wan't to know, this can't be the
place to find out. If anyone were to ask, I could point them
in some useful directions. It takes some pretty serious work
though. Not something you can grasp with the analytical
tools you already have, of course, so a little humility is
also necessary.

I don't wish to discuss Patrick's record. I don't read
much
of his stuff because it is cringingly embarassing,
numbingly
tedious, or bullying, in various combinations, and I don't
go to his site because I assume it's more of the same.

He doesn't need you to defend him, either. He's
insensitive
to all input.

He's certainly going to be 'insensitive' to the nonsense
you've been
arguing.

Actually that's only half true. He's quite happy to
entertain all sorts of nonsense. What upsets him is me, or
anyone else, questioning his products or ancilliary
pronouncements. I don't blame him...it's nothing
personal...his livelihood is at stake, after all. How can he
admit to overselling a mediocre, or sometimes poor,
amplifier? Not his fault he's on a sticky wicket: I doubt he
dreamed of being an audio technician when he was a lad. But
like I said, I don't really want to discuss him. Or me. Or
you, for that matter. This is an audio newsqroup, not a
psychiatrist's couch.

In any tube operated triode mode your max Po is limited
by
the plate's
PDA but you can get more Po if you use 'boosted triode'
mode (within
screen limits). That's all there is and the rest is
simply
'showing
it'.

All there is for you, maybe, but there is much of interest
to discuss for those with curious and open minds.

In particular, there is the absolutely key question of how
it sounds.

It sounds louder because there's more watts Po.

sigh...

That inherently means your efficiency is better, is
'why'
it works,
and why Pat mentioned it.

It was me who first introduced the issue of efficiency,
and
who first pointed out that efficiency is improved. I
raised
the issue, typically, in the form of a question.

Your supposedly 'just as easy' suggestion to raise both
Va
and Vs
won't work because you increase PDA. Raising Vs alone
does
not.

I thought I said it was *easier*. And so it is. I also
questioned whether it would take the valve out of its SOA.
I
also questioned at the same time whether the "boost"
(horrible and useless term) would also take it out of its
SOA.

No, you said "surely" the triode boost would be worse.

Followed by a question mark, Mr Porky Pie. Then followed by
data to the contrary, to make clear my supposition was
false.

But like I said, enough about me. Glad you got the point.

You don't seem to be in a very positive frame of mind. It's
a shame to see you so upset.

Now everyone else knows the answers to my questions,
IFAICS, and won't forget. Much better than the wet blanket
of a definitive pronouncement, I always think. The penalty
of having smart-arses yapping at my ankles is a small
price
to pay for world domination.

ROTFLOL

Happy to cheer you up a little, at last.

Where the 'lost' electron energy goes might amuse you
but
it's
irrelevant to the circuit as it's analyzed the same as
any
other
circuit.

Not irrelevant to the circuit, but only to your narrow
mind.
Not off topic, either. I thought it might be a question
that
interested someone, particularly because the answer
explains
why the anode doesn't get so hot, just in case someone was
wondering, or should have been. But maybe the connection
between heat and energy is lost on you?

It gets precisely Va x Ia 'hot' like it does with any
other circuit.

Certainly not like any other circuit. Mostly, heat results
from the electrical resistance of a material, but a valve
anode doesn't have much resistance in the common sense.
Unlike the screen. The common explanation is that the heat
comes from being struck by electrons. The more energy they
have, and the more there are, the hotter it gets. The upshot
is that the energy lost by the valve as a whole is largely
dissipated by the anode, even though it is the electrode
with the lowest resistance.

So the question of what happens to the energy they had when
they passed the screen is a bit interesting, but easy to
answer. 100V-worth of their kinetic energy is converted back
into potential energy before they arrive.

Which raises the question of why the principle is not
extensible all the way to Vak = 0, which on the face of it
is the voltage at which the electrons would run out of
kinetic energy before they arrived, and "fall" back to the
screen.

So how was the knee pushed to the left, and why couldn't it
go further? How much is due to geometry, and how much to
other matters? Is there anything that modern materials and
production techniques could contribute?

Whether the author's example is 'practical' might be a
question for
builders but it's irrelevant to the principle and you
weren't going to
build one anyway. Nor does it seem anyone else is as all
comments, so
far, have been on the order of "not worth it."

Seems a shame to decide it's not worth it without
considering its contribution to the sound.

I did and also said why I didn't think it was worth the
effort.

I mean quality of sound, not quantity, as I'm sure you know.

Two other possible ways of achieving the same effect have
been suggested.

And since you just pretended to ponder what it's
"contribution to the
sound" was just what 'effect' are you talking about?

I was wondering that myself, as I said, but I'd need to
gather and examine comparable datasheets. Considering no-one
seems interested, I'll do it in my own time. Response to
overdrive is one obvious place to look, and some view of how
the characteristics wriggle as they slide leftwards would be
another.

Are they not relevant either,

Yours isn't because I'm not interested in melting tubes.

My suggestion, unlike increasing Va, won't melt the valve.
Why would it?

according to
your mind? Are they also not worth it, in your mind?

Yours isn't because I'm not interested in melting tubes.

You've really missed the positive posts of others, haven't
you? Too busy fawning to Patrick and strutting your
pronouncements to notice anything useful that anyone else
might say.

Both suggestions are alternative methods of raising screen
voltage. We got beyond your small thoughts ages ago.

Maybe it's just too small.

Certainly not as swelled as your pompous ass.

Pompous? Moi?

I can help, if you let me.

No thanks. I like mine normal size.

That's understandable.

To sum up. I took your original post in a favorable light
explaining
why his circuit raises Vs and why raising both would not
work.

And you've been babbling nonsense ever since so I am done
with you.

But I've only just begun to enjoy myself...

The more the efficacy of propaganda is denied, the more
effective it is. I feel proud to have convinced you, and I'm
sure you'll appreciate it when it sinks in.

Ian

[Ian Iveson]

Ian wrote:

What does "line output" mean? Why does it qualify to be a
class? Perhaps it's intermittent with a short duty cycle?
How come two such different setups are both in the "line
output" class?


Isn't 'line out' something to do with TV line scanning
drivers??

Probably. I seem to remember that, like series pass devices
in regulated power supplies, TV line drivers, or whatever
they're called, benefit from being "low drop". Don't know
why, in the case of TVs. Efficiency is perhaps more of a
straightforward issue, as it is in many power supplies. Or
maybe they are short of HT current capacity?

The 13E1 (intended for PS use IIRC) seems to be used in
similar ways to the 6L6 or 6550 in hi-fi amps...particularly
with distributed load. Good for wide bandwidth and low
output impedance for driving modern speakers I think. I also
think the topologies that make full use of them have their
downsides.

Ian

[Patrick Turner]

Ian Bell wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

snip
Have a nice sunday Ian. When your'e finished thinking I am a "****"
which means "****" in australian english, perhaps you'd be so kind to
simulate something useful for us all. I apologise to any females reading
the group if I have offended any, but its unlikely any females are
present. I have not seen any post here by any F for years, so perhaps
when I do swear, its merely a man to man thing.

Patrick Turner.

That's a bit sexist isn't it Patrick? I thought women were supposed to
be our equals now so they should expect to sworn at just like us blokes
are ;-)

They more equal than us.

I'm sure 1% of them are unoffended by the words men use to describe
things in terms of women's sexual entertainment areas.

The other 99% would be grossly offended and mince off in a huff at the
kinda talk us blokes come out with at times.

Ya can't win mate.

Patrick Turner.

Cheers

Ian

[Patrick Turner]

Ian Iveson wrote:


snip lots,



I don't wish to discuss Patrick's record. I don't read much
of his stuff because it is cringingly embarassing, numbingly
tedious, or bullying, in various combinations, and I don't
go to his site because I assume it's more of the same.

He doesn't need you to defend him, either. He's insensitive
to all input.

I take your point Ian. But I am a practical man, and have to design real
amps that have to work.

I don't feel that being here is a popularity contest.

We all would welcome some real and worthwhile analysis you may wish to
make about Boosted Triode.

It means you'd have to at least present some figures after you have done
the simulations which you constantly and confidently say lead you to the
truth of any circuit matter.

So where are the figures and your informed conclusions about BT?

Am I an insenstive bully because I ask a reasonable question?



Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Ian Iveson wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:22:02 +0100, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 15 May 2009 00:31:14 +0100, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

flipper wrote:

snip

But why not simply increase the HT by 100V? I really
don't
see the point of all this jiggerypokery.

Because you'd red plate.

His example is a class A amplifier and you'd need
the
75mA
idle at the
higher B+. The plate can't handle it.

Good, thanks. That's my first question dealt with,
assuming
you are right about the anode's max power.

I see from this and your second post you're now off on
whether 75mA is
the 'actual max power'...

Off? Not me, I know power is measured in Watts.

You're off on whether 75mA at 400V are the 'right
numbers'
for the
blooming tube, as if it made any difference to
explaining
his circuit.

Off? Not me, I was correctly remarking on the actual
circuit
posted, not your concept of some general principle.

So you were asking why not increase B+ another 100V on a
circuit you
already consider to be red plating.

Clever.

Indeed. Now you see it...

It doesn't matter if his example using 75mA is
precisely the 'max power', the principle remains.

What principle? I can't see that you've introduced one,
so
how can it remain? Was it here before we arrived? Tell
me
what and where it is and I'll do my best to address it.

The principle of boosting the blooming triode mode to
get
more power
out of the thing.

If you mean that, as a general rule,

As a general technique. That *is* his point.

Who's point? How do you know? What point anyway? What are
you on about?

more power can be
extracted from a pentode or beam tetrode if the screen
voltage is increased,

It's being operated triode mode, not pentode or tetrode
mode.

Getting desperately silly now. It's still an example of a
pentode or beam tetrode. If you went to a shop and asked for
a triode, they would be quite correct in saying they didn't
have one for sale, if all they had in stock were 6L6.

than that seemed too obvious to be
worth discussing, but go ahead if that's what you want to
do.

If it was so 'obvious' to you then why were you asking
about
increasing B+?

To raise the issue. What's obvious to me is not necessarily
obvious to others. It was not immediately obvious that
raising the HT would result in a red anode, anyway, until I
went to look at, and post, 6L6 data. I could have looked at
the datasheet first, of course, but I'd rather raise the
issue. It all worked out quite nicely, allowing you display
your knowledge, which seems to be what you like to do. Is
this getting through to you yet? I'm getting a bit bored
now, and would rather talk about the circuit. I'm not keen
on discussing me. I'm a private and quite secretive kind of
chap when it comes to newsgroups.

But you make some appalling clangers and puff extremely large amounts of
hot air at people to read.

One purpose of using the BT connection is to lower Ea, and keep Eg2
above Ea to thus lower Pda and mildly increase Pdg2, and also get a
wider Va swing AND Vg2 swing, and hence get nearly full pentode power
but with triode character entirely.


Why some want to give it the name "boosted", as if it is
a different mode of operation, I really don't know.
Neither
can I see what "principle" is involved that is peculiar to
the posted circuit, which conforms to the usual operating
rules.

Because it's triode mode and not, as you suggest, the
'typical'
pentode operation where you simply stick a fixed V on the
screen.

Suggested what? Where?

Pentode operation often depends on *not* having a fixed V on
the screen, incidentally. There's another opportunity for
you to learn something. My amps modulate the screen in order
to operate in pentode mode, when I want them to, which isn't
very often because my knees are too far to the right and I
risk early screen and grid current, and the extra power
isn't worth having. That's why I was considering changing to
6L6, as I have been saying for some time.

McIntosh also use a "modulated" screen voltage. The terms need to be
clarified. Eg2 is the constant voltage potential between cathode and
screen. Vg2 is a signal voltage at g2 usually in reference to 0V and if
it is the same as the Vk also in reference to 0V, then the signal
voltage between k and g2 = 0Vac and the voltage potential between k and
g2 always = Eg2 and the tube is working in real pentode.
In Quad-II, one could indeed supply the each KT66 screen with a choke
feed from a B+ supply and thus establish Eg2. Then you could bypass each
screen to its local cathode, and you have real beam tetrode op with
cathode FB. Walker realised there was no need to use the extra parts. He
sure had his reasons.

McIntosh have the screens of the outputs fed from the anode connections
of the opposite sided tube where the wanted signal is equal to the
cathode of the particular screen side. and also the wanted Eg2.
Its an elegant solution. One could in fact take the screen to a fixed
voltage like in Quad-II, so that for example you'd have +120Vac at the
anode, -120Vac at the cathode, about -24Vac between cathode and grid,
making the grid input = -144Vac (with all gross Vac referenced to 0Vac.)
meanwhile the screens could be at say +470Vdc, and there would be 120Vac
betaeen screen and cathode.

The internal tube gain considerations are the same as having 50% UL
connection. But 1/2 the a to k voltage is fed back as CFB to introduce
two paths of NFB, one into the grid and the other into the screen. It
turns out that where the screen is made to ride along with the same
signal as the cathode in the same tube then the screen NFB is removed
entirely, and the screen signal feed be considered positive FB because
the internal gain will rise a lot, as it does between using plain old
50% UL or true beam tetrode.

One could concievably push things further along by having the screens ac
connected to the anodes instead of the cathodes, and with their supply
Vdc above the anode Vdc supply. And you could still have the McIntosh
connection. You will find that because triode gain is so low that there
is not a great deal to be gained by having 50% of CFB as McIntosh does
it. The grid drive signal becomes rather huge, and so plain triode
connection without the CFB but with the BT connection to entice higher
efficiency will be a way to be exploited if you wish a simpler OPT.





To me, the real issues here are about the safe
operation of a particular valve, the details of a
particular
circuit, and the principle of what sounds best.

Fine. So I'll amend the answer to it's a lousy idea to
suggest
increasing B+ another 100V on a circuit you think is
already red
plate.

I was asking why not. That's not the same thing as
suggesting you do it.

Can't you run a simulation instead of bickering?




What makes you think "100V" is energy?

I don't. I asked where the "100Vs-worth" of energy goes.
Since the electron-volt (eV, I think) is a unit of energy, I
hoped you would know what I meant. You replied in terms of
acceleration. I'm telling you that doesn't answer my
question about energy, sigh...

Acceleration is where the energy comes from.

Er...maybe, maybe not. Could be a very misleading statement,
and I can't see where it would be a useful one without
qualification. If you think about it, acceleration doesn't
come from, or go to, anywhere, does it? But energy must
always go somewhere, and come from somewhere, mustn't it?
That's why there is a principle (something you're fond of,
yes?) of conservation of energy, but not a principle (I'll
say it as often as I can if it pleases you) of conservation
of acceleration. There you are, more education for your
efforts. Keep 'em coming!

Regardless of velocities and accelerations, we measure enegies that
concern us in watts, ie, V x I.
If you raise Eg2 well above Ea, then expect to find Ig2 goes high.
The Pdg2 rises considerably. There's the missing energy.




This was the question:

"Now what I'm wondering is where all that energy goes. The
electrons, to put it crudely, arrive at the anode having
lost 100Vs-worth of energy since they passed the screen.
What happens to it?"

Same place it goes in an audio amp when the screen is
fixed at 300V
and the anode swings to 200V, or to 100V, or to 50V. Or,
in other
words, the entire negative half of every sine wave.

But where does it go?

What you say about acceleration appears obvious to me, but
the question about lost energy rather less so, which is
why
I raised it.

Never bothered you before.

How would you know?

The energy gained/lost due to the electrostatic field
comes from the
electrostatic field.

Hmm...getting warm. Where does it go to?

See above.



If you now want claim you were daft enough to propose
increasing B+ in
a circuit that you already considered to be red plate, not
to mention
one you had no intention of building, then so be it.

I never proposed it. I asked a question. As you have already
remarked, it was a clever question, amongst others.

But enough of my cleverness, what about the sound?

Red plates and or screens muck up the sound badly.

Patrick Turner.

Ian

[Patrick Turner]

Ian Iveson wrote:

Ian wrote:

What does "line output" mean? Why does it qualify to be a
class? Perhaps it's intermittent with a short duty cycle?
How come two such different setups are both in the "line
output" class?


Isn't 'line out' something to do with TV line scanning
drivers??

Probably. I seem to remember that, like series pass devices
in regulated power supplies, TV line drivers, or whatever
they're called, benefit from being "low drop". Don't know
why, in the case of TVs. Efficiency is perhaps more of a
straightforward issue, as it is in many power supplies. Or
maybe they are short of HT current capacity?

The 13E1 (intended for PS use IIRC) seems to be used in
similar ways to the 6L6 or 6550 in hi-fi amps...particularly
with distributed load. Good for wide bandwidth and low
output impedance for driving modern speakers I think. I also
think the topologies that make full use of them have their
downsides.

Ian

I know 13EI fairly well. They were made made to operate with a quite low
Eg2 of 200V while the Ea could be 800V.

They do work OK in triode UL but they can't take Ea = Eg2 more than
about 375V.

So for really high power with these tubes you use them in PP with Ea =
800V and because Ia can be as high as 0.8A, then the RL a-a can be as
low as 4k and you an get nearly 250W in mostly class B.

Of all the tubes I can think of, the 13E1 would be least likely to be a
good choice for BT opp because Ig2 becomes excessive when its too high.

6DQ6, 6CM5 and perhaps 6CD6 are other examples.

I am negotiating a deal with a customer at present to build a pair of PP
amps with 13EI but they will be used in the acoustical connection where
they really shine well because you can still have a low fixed Eg2, which
means the Ek is only maybe 25V, and with Ea at about 500V and cathode
biasing I can get a delicious 45W of class A with about 75W in AB1.

My SE32 at http://turneraudio.com.au/monobloc-se32-13ei-cfb.html shows
the 13E1 with CFB in an SE amp for 32 watts in pure class A.
Two could be made to give 64W of class A in PP and with much less THD.

But with PP and two tubes you don't need to have the Pda at 72W at idle;
50W is plenty.

Patrick Turner.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

McIntosh also use a "modulated" screen voltage. The terms need to be
clarified. Eg2 is the constant voltage potential between cathode and
screen. Vg2 is a signal voltage at g2 usually in reference to 0V and if
it is the same as the Vk also in reference to 0V, then the signal
voltage between k and g2 = 0Vac and the voltage potential between k and
g2 always = Eg2 and the tube is working in real pentode.
In Quad-II, one could indeed supply the each KT66 screen with a choke
feed from a B+ supply and thus establish Eg2. Then you could bypass each
screen to its local cathode, and you have real beam tetrode op with
cathode FB. Walker realised there was no need to use the extra parts. He
sure had his reasons.

McIntosh have the screens of the outputs fed from the anode connections
of the opposite sided tube where the wanted signal is equal to the
cathode of the particular screen side. and also the wanted Eg2.
Its an elegant solution. One could in fact take the screen to a fixed
voltage like in Quad-II, so that for example you'd have +120Vac at the
anode, -120Vac at the cathode, about -24Vac between cathode and grid,
making the grid input = -144Vac (with all gross Vac referenced to 0Vac.)
meanwhile the screens could be at say +470Vdc, and there would be 120Vac
betaeen screen and cathode.

The internal tube gain considerations are the same as having 50% UL
connection. But 1/2 the a to k voltage is fed back as CFB to introduce
two paths of NFB, one into the grid and the other into the screen. It
turns out that where the screen is made to ride along with the same
signal as the cathode in the same tube then the screen NFB is removed
entirely, and the screen signal feed be considered positive FB because
the internal gain will rise a lot, as it does between using plain old
50% UL or true beam tetrode.

One could concievably push things further along by having the screens ac
connected to the anodes instead of the cathodes, and with their supply
Vdc above the anode Vdc supply. And you could still have the McIntosh
connection. You will find that because triode gain is so low that there
is not a great deal to be gained by having 50% of CFB as McIntosh does
it. The grid drive signal becomes rather huge, and so plain triode
connection without the CFB but with the BT connection to entice higher
efficiency will be a way to be exploited if you wish a simpler OPT.

If you wish a simpler OPT why not use the Circlotron connection which
essentially makes the OPT an impedance matching device?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Patrick Turner]

John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

McIntosh also use a "modulated" screen voltage. The terms need to be
clarified. Eg2 is the constant voltage potential between cathode and
screen. Vg2 is a signal voltage at g2 usually in reference to 0V and if
it is the same as the Vk also in reference to 0V, then the signal
voltage between k and g2 = 0Vac and the voltage potential between k and
g2 always = Eg2 and the tube is working in real pentode.
In Quad-II, one could indeed supply the each KT66 screen with a choke
feed from a B+ supply and thus establish Eg2. Then you could bypass each
screen to its local cathode, and you have real beam tetrode op with
cathode FB. Walker realised there was no need to use the extra parts. He
sure had his reasons.

McIntosh have the screens of the outputs fed from the anode connections
of the opposite sided tube where the wanted signal is equal to the
cathode of the particular screen side. and also the wanted Eg2.
Its an elegant solution. One could in fact take the screen to a fixed
voltage like in Quad-II, so that for example you'd have +120Vac at the
anode, -120Vac at the cathode, about -24Vac between cathode and grid,
making the grid input = -144Vac (with all gross Vac referenced to 0Vac.)
meanwhile the screens could be at say +470Vdc, and there would be 120Vac
betaeen screen and cathode.

The internal tube gain considerations are the same as having 50% UL
connection. But 1/2 the a to k voltage is fed back as CFB to introduce
two paths of NFB, one into the grid and the other into the screen. It
turns out that where the screen is made to ride along with the same
signal as the cathode in the same tube then the screen NFB is removed
entirely, and the screen signal feed be considered positive FB because
the internal gain will rise a lot, as it does between using plain old
50% UL or true beam tetrode.

One could concievably push things further along by having the screens ac
connected to the anodes instead of the cathodes, and with their supply
Vdc above the anode Vdc supply. And you could still have the McIntosh
connection. You will find that because triode gain is so low that there
is not a great deal to be gained by having 50% of CFB as McIntosh does
it. The grid drive signal becomes rather huge, and so plain triode
connection without the CFB but with the BT connection to entice higher
efficiency will be a way to be exploited if you wish a simpler OPT.

If you wish a simpler OPT why not use the Circlotron connection which
essentially makes the OPT an impedance matching device?

Then you need two floating power supply B+ rails.

The circlotron isn't a bad circuit, and Electrovoice proved it a long
time ago.

But it also needs to have a high grid drive voltage and the distortion
you tend to minimise with the OPT CFB is countered by the distortion
involved with having to make such a high drive voltage, plus you need an
extra drive stage.

Ordinary CFB with about 20% of the total primary turns devoted to a
cathode winding is by far the best option afaiac.

But the OPT should never be designed by bean counters.

Patrick Turner.



--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

McIntosh also use a "modulated" screen voltage. The terms need to be
clarified. Eg2 is the constant voltage potential between cathode and
screen. Vg2 is a signal voltage at g2 usually in reference to 0V and if
it is the same as the Vk also in reference to 0V, then the signal
voltage between k and g2 = 0Vac and the voltage potential between k and
g2 always = Eg2 and the tube is working in real pentode.
In Quad-II, one could indeed supply the each KT66 screen with a choke
feed from a B+ supply and thus establish Eg2. Then you could bypass each
screen to its local cathode, and you have real beam tetrode op with
cathode FB. Walker realised there was no need to use the extra parts. He
sure had his reasons.

McIntosh have the screens of the outputs fed from the anode connections
of the opposite sided tube where the wanted signal is equal to the
cathode of the particular screen side. and also the wanted Eg2.
Its an elegant solution. One could in fact take the screen to a fixed
voltage like in Quad-II, so that for example you'd have +120Vac at the
anode, -120Vac at the cathode, about -24Vac between cathode and grid,
making the grid input = -144Vac (with all gross Vac referenced to 0Vac.)
meanwhile the screens could be at say +470Vdc, and there would be 120Vac
betaeen screen and cathode.

The internal tube gain considerations are the same as having 50% UL
connection. But 1/2 the a to k voltage is fed back as CFB to introduce
two paths of NFB, one into the grid and the other into the screen. It
turns out that where the screen is made to ride along with the same
signal as the cathode in the same tube then the screen NFB is removed
entirely, and the screen signal feed be considered positive FB because
the internal gain will rise a lot, as it does between using plain old
50% UL or true beam tetrode.

One could concievably push things further along by having the screens ac
connected to the anodes instead of the cathodes, and with their supply
Vdc above the anode Vdc supply. And you could still have the McIntosh
connection. You will find that because triode gain is so low that there
is not a great deal to be gained by having 50% of CFB as McIntosh does
it. The grid drive signal becomes rather huge, and so plain triode
connection without the CFB but with the BT connection to entice higher
efficiency will be a way to be exploited if you wish a simpler OPT.

If you wish a simpler OPT why not use the Circlotron connection which
essentially makes the OPT an impedance matching device?

Then you need two floating power supply B+ rails.

Four for stereo, but look at all the power supplies the Boosted Triode
circuit requires.

The circlotron isn't a bad circuit, and Electrovoice proved it a long
time ago.

True enough.

But it also needs to have a high grid drive voltage and the distortion
you tend to minimise with the OPT CFB is countered by the distortion
involved with having to make such a high drive voltage, plus you need an
extra drive stage.

You were talking about the McIntosh circuit, the Circlotron drive
requirements are no greater than the Mcintosh.

Ordinary CFB with about 20% of the total primary turns devoted to a
cathode winding is by far the best option afaiac.

As you say that's your opinion.

But the OPT should never be designed by bean counters.

Perhaps not but a good bean counter on the design team can be quite
helpful in keeping pointless excess out of the design.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Patrick Turner]

John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

McIntosh also use a "modulated" screen voltage. The terms need to be
clarified. Eg2 is the constant voltage potential between cathode and
screen. Vg2 is a signal voltage at g2 usually in reference to 0V and if
it is the same as the Vk also in reference to 0V, then the signal
voltage between k and g2 = 0Vac and the voltage potential between k and
g2 always = Eg2 and the tube is working in real pentode.
In Quad-II, one could indeed supply the each KT66 screen with a choke
feed from a B+ supply and thus establish Eg2. Then you could bypass each
screen to its local cathode, and you have real beam tetrode op with
cathode FB. Walker realised there was no need to use the extra parts. He
sure had his reasons.

McIntosh have the screens of the outputs fed from the anode connections
of the opposite sided tube where the wanted signal is equal to the
cathode of the particular screen side. and also the wanted Eg2.
Its an elegant solution. One could in fact take the screen to a fixed
voltage like in Quad-II, so that for example you'd have +120Vac at the
anode, -120Vac at the cathode, about -24Vac between cathode and grid,
making the grid input = -144Vac (with all gross Vac referenced to 0Vac.)
meanwhile the screens could be at say +470Vdc, and there would be 120Vac
betaeen screen and cathode.

The internal tube gain considerations are the same as having 50% UL
connection. But 1/2 the a to k voltage is fed back as CFB to introduce
two paths of NFB, one into the grid and the other into the screen. It
turns out that where the screen is made to ride along with the same
signal as the cathode in the same tube then the screen NFB is removed
entirely, and the screen signal feed be considered positive FB because
the internal gain will rise a lot, as it does between using plain old
50% UL or true beam tetrode.

One could concievably push things further along by having the screens ac
connected to the anodes instead of the cathodes, and with their supply
Vdc above the anode Vdc supply. And you could still have the McIntosh
connection. You will find that because triode gain is so low that there
is not a great deal to be gained by having 50% of CFB as McIntosh does
it. The grid drive signal becomes rather huge, and so plain triode
connection without the CFB but with the BT connection to entice higher
efficiency will be a way to be exploited if you wish a simpler OPT.

If you wish a simpler OPT why not use the Circlotron connection which
essentially makes the OPT an impedance matching device?

Then you need two floating power supply B+ rails.

Four for stereo, but look at all the power supplies the Boosted Triode
circuit requires.

Ah, but you could have a CT choke feed to the screens on a BT PP amp.
Then cap couple the screens to anode for triode working.
The CT of the choke is taken to a higher B+ than the B+ used for the
anode supply.



The circlotron isn't a bad circuit, and Electrovoice proved it a long
time ago.

True enough.

The OPT for the circlotron can have half the P turns and with thicker
wire for lower losses than the OPT for a UL OPT used conventionally for
the same pair of tubes. All the P turns are used all the time even in
class AB.



But it also needs to have a high grid drive voltage and the distortion
you tend to minimise with the OPT CFB is countered by the distortion
involved with having to make such a high drive voltage, plus you need an
extra drive stage.

You were talking about the McIntosh circuit, the Circlotron drive
requirements are no greater than the Mcintosh.

Both require a high drive voltage to each output grid equal to 1/2 the
Va-k in each tube plus the wanted Vk-g to get the internal gain, ie,
about 0.6 Va-k.



Ordinary CFB with about 20% of the total primary turns devoted to a
cathode winding is by far the best option afaiac.

As you say that's your opinion.

Indeed my opinion.

But the OPT should never be designed by bean counters.

Perhaps not but a good bean counter on the design team can be quite
helpful in keeping pointless excess out of the design.

Well, one man's frugality is another man's excess....

Usually bean counters dumb down a good design to the lowest common
denominator.

Market competition nearly always leads to simularity of products doing
the same job, and nobody can afford to offer more quality for less.

Fisher looked at what Scott was doing, and Scott looked at Fisher.
Sansui and Sanyo were looking everywhere, and finally they were able to
import without the high tarrifs. The marketting always seemed to lead to
dumbing things down. Solid state came in and and at first the music went
south in a big way, and the public was slayed yet again. Solid S got
better, especially TV sets and FM tuners, and nothing was ever permanent
or really well perfected because the models being marketted couldn't
remain vaiable for very long.

I'm over simplifying of course, but after 1960 it was difficult to sell
a class A triode amp of any kind.

Patrick Turner.





--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Patrick Turner]

flipper wrote:

On Wed, 20 May 2009 08:09:18 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

McIntosh also use a "modulated" screen voltage. The terms need to be
clarified. Eg2 is the constant voltage potential between cathode and
screen. Vg2 is a signal voltage at g2 usually in reference to 0V and if
it is the same as the Vk also in reference to 0V, then the signal
voltage between k and g2 = 0Vac and the voltage potential between k and
g2 always = Eg2 and the tube is working in real pentode.
In Quad-II, one could indeed supply the each KT66 screen with a choke
feed from a B+ supply and thus establish Eg2. Then you could bypass each
screen to its local cathode, and you have real beam tetrode op with
cathode FB. Walker realised there was no need to use the extra parts. He
sure had his reasons.

McIntosh have the screens of the outputs fed from the anode connections
of the opposite sided tube where the wanted signal is equal to the
cathode of the particular screen side. and also the wanted Eg2.
Its an elegant solution. One could in fact take the screen to a fixed
voltage like in Quad-II, so that for example you'd have +120Vac at the
anode, -120Vac at the cathode, about -24Vac between cathode and grid,
making the grid input = -144Vac (with all gross Vac referenced to 0Vac.)
meanwhile the screens could be at say +470Vdc, and there would be 120Vac
betaeen screen and cathode.

The internal tube gain considerations are the same as having 50% UL
connection. But 1/2 the a to k voltage is fed back as CFB to introduce
two paths of NFB, one into the grid and the other into the screen. It
turns out that where the screen is made to ride along with the same
signal as the cathode in the same tube then the screen NFB is removed
entirely, and the screen signal feed be considered positive FB because
the internal gain will rise a lot, as it does between using plain old
50% UL or true beam tetrode.

One could concievably push things further along by having the screens ac
connected to the anodes instead of the cathodes, and with their supply
Vdc above the anode Vdc supply. And you could still have the McIntosh
connection. You will find that because triode gain is so low that there
is not a great deal to be gained by having 50% of CFB as McIntosh does
it. The grid drive signal becomes rather huge, and so plain triode
connection without the CFB but with the BT connection to entice higher
efficiency will be a way to be exploited if you wish a simpler OPT.

If you wish a simpler OPT why not use the Circlotron connection which
essentially makes the OPT an impedance matching device?

Then you need two floating power supply B+ rails.

The circlotron isn't a bad circuit, and Electrovoice proved it a long
time ago.

But it also needs to have a high grid drive voltage and the distortion
you tend to minimise with the OPT CFB is countered by the distortion
involved with having to make such a high drive voltage, plus you need an
extra drive stage.

Ordinary CFB with about 20% of the total primary turns devoted to a
cathode winding is by far the best option afaiac.

But the OPT should never be designed by bean counters.

I have yet to see a 'bean counter' who designs anything.

But they manage to do it indirectly.

Some smart arse CEO and a bean counter called Bruce takes a look at the
product of a competing company and they see that they produce more power
using smaller OPT in a smaller neater package. The two are vitally
interested in profits. The two have a chat, and Bruce says he will be
talking to George the design engineer that he has to make the OPT
smaller and get the design to make more watts, because otherwise there
will be no Xmas bonuses, sales will falter, and people will be laid off.
George holds his tougue, thinking Bruce is a right git, and proceeds to
redesign the OPT for less P turns, thinner wire, less interleaving, and
thus the amp moves more into AB. The B+ is raised and RLa-a reduced.
One bias pot for all 4 tubes is used instead of nice individual biasing.

Another fuctard product is launched at the unsuspecting public.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

flipper wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 12:44:25 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



flipper wrote:

On Wed, 20 May 2009 08:09:18 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

McIntosh also use a "modulated" screen voltage. The terms need to be
clarified. Eg2 is the constant voltage potential between cathode and
screen. Vg2 is a signal voltage at g2 usually in reference to 0V and if
it is the same as the Vk also in reference to 0V, then the signal
voltage between k and g2 = 0Vac and the voltage potential between k and
g2 always = Eg2 and the tube is working in real pentode.
In Quad-II, one could indeed supply the each KT66 screen with a choke
feed from a B+ supply and thus establish Eg2. Then you could bypass each
screen to its local cathode, and you have real beam tetrode op with
cathode FB. Walker realised there was no need to use the extra parts. He
sure had his reasons.

McIntosh have the screens of the outputs fed from the anode connections
of the opposite sided tube where the wanted signal is equal to the
cathode of the particular screen side. and also the wanted Eg2.
Its an elegant solution. One could in fact take the screen to a fixed
voltage like in Quad-II, so that for example you'd have +120Vac at the
anode, -120Vac at the cathode, about -24Vac between cathode and grid,
making the grid input = -144Vac (with all gross Vac referenced to 0Vac.)
meanwhile the screens could be at say +470Vdc, and there would be 120Vac
betaeen screen and cathode.

The internal tube gain considerations are the same as having 50% UL
connection. But 1/2 the a to k voltage is fed back as CFB to introduce
two paths of NFB, one into the grid and the other into the screen. It
turns out that where the screen is made to ride along with the same
signal as the cathode in the same tube then the screen NFB is removed
entirely, and the screen signal feed be considered positive FB because
the internal gain will rise a lot, as it does between using plain old
50% UL or true beam tetrode.

One could concievably push things further along by having the screens ac
connected to the anodes instead of the cathodes, and with their supply
Vdc above the anode Vdc supply. And you could still have the McIntosh
connection. You will find that because triode gain is so low that there
is not a great deal to be gained by having 50% of CFB as McIntosh does
it. The grid drive signal becomes rather huge, and so plain triode
connection without the CFB but with the BT connection to entice higher
efficiency will be a way to be exploited if you wish a simpler OPT.

If you wish a simpler OPT why not use the Circlotron connection which
essentially makes the OPT an impedance matching device?

Then you need two floating power supply B+ rails.

The circlotron isn't a bad circuit, and Electrovoice proved it a long
time ago.

But it also needs to have a high grid drive voltage and the distortion
you tend to minimise with the OPT CFB is countered by the distortion
involved with having to make such a high drive voltage, plus you need an
extra drive stage.

Ordinary CFB with about 20% of the total primary turns devoted to a
cathode winding is by far the best option afaiac.

But the OPT should never be designed by bean counters.

I have yet to see a 'bean counter' who designs anything.

But they manage to do it indirectly.

Nope

Bean counters have one function: count beans.

They don't establish budgets, they're told what it will be or is. They
then count what goes in and out, tally the total, and give you the
results. And that's whether you are the CEO, marketing, sales,
production, design, building maintenance, or any other department or
project.

Some smart arse CEO and a bean counter called Bruce takes a look at the
product of a competing company and they see that they produce more power
using smaller OPT in a smaller neater package. The two are vitally
interested in profits. The two have a chat, and Bruce says he will be
talking to George the design engineer that he has to make the OPT
smaller and get the design to make more watts, because otherwise there
will be no Xmas bonuses, sales will falter, and people will be laid off.
George holds his tougue, thinking Bruce is a right git, and proceeds to
redesign the OPT for less P turns, thinner wire, less interleaving, and
thus the amp moves more into AB. The B+ is raised and RLa-a reduced.
One bias pot for all 4 tubes is used instead of nice individual biasing.

Pure fantasy.

Perhaps you have not witnessed the "office behaviour styles" of
businesses around you.

Basically the *******s in the office hate the guys on the factory floor
and vice versa, and the engineers hate everyone, and everyone hates the
engineers.

Guy in white shirt enters the factory floor area at considerable risk to
pride, ego, and the cleanliness of his white shirt.

"What the **** do you ****in want" is what the workers are thinking.
The bean counters, marketting dude, CEO and anyone in that damn office
are all the same, lazy good for nothings.

But work gets done.

The public gets had.


'Bruce' doesn't give a tinker's dam how you meet budget or even IF you
meet budget. That's your problem, pal.

It's obvious you've never been involved with decision making in a
'real' company because the process is infinitely more complex than you
are aware and, as just one example, the CEO isn't usually concerned
with such 'minor details' as product design. They're concerned with
the bigger picture and expect marketing, sales, production, service,
procurement, and design to work out those things, things for which
they were hired.

In a big company, maybe your scenario is typical where the left hand
hasn't a clue in what the right hand is doing.

Only a ****in idiot CEO is not concerned about 'minor details' like
product design.

He should be vitally concerned about such MAJOR things like product
design because the fist thing the public sees in the shop is the design.

Poor design leads to poor sales.

But in little companies, the CEO is ALSO concerned about the cost of
stocking the toilet with loo paper.
He will buy soap for the wash room at the lowest possible price and
abuse the apprentice if he's caught pilfering it.

The accountant may have the job of explaining how costs of production
can be reduced. He's the money man, right, so he has to understand how
things are to be done and what the cost will be, and which way is the
cheaper way. He's always a worried hassled man.
The engineers like to dream up expensive solutions and the bean counter
has to earn his wage by saying "no, you can't have that" and reducing
the costs. Often, after several battles with others, the bean counter
gets the engineer to tailor his dreams to affodability.



Another fuctard product is launched at the unsuspecting public.

And the public has a choice of whether to buy 'another fuctard
product' or save up for the rest of their life so they can listen to a
$150,000 amp on their death bed.

Or they can chose from any of the nearly infinite number of
alternatives a free market provides.

Most of these are generic lowest common denominator crap.

I raise my hat to the combined efforts of the existing mass crap
production expertology.

At least it gives me a chance to build something better.

Fortunately, a few people can tell the difference between the mass mades
and the hand crafted.

I can't afford to employ a ****in bean counter.

Not enough beans.

Patrick Turner.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 22 May 2009 00:29:06 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Fortunately, a few people can tell the difference between the mass mades
and the hand crafted.

Oh yes indeed! The product coming off a production line that is
working at 100% yield is better than the hand-crafted (read bodged)
item by a million percent. It is better for several reasons. First
because the surrounding yield means that it is being put together
well, with good soldering and reliable components. Secondly if the
line is delivering 100% yield, the basic design is also good, and no
"hand tuning" is needed to get it through final test.

Hand-crafted? Gimme a break - you can keep your failures, poor designs
and bodges for yourself, thank you.

d

[Ian Iveson]

Patrick Turner ignorantly wrote a lot of rubbish including:

He should be vitally concerned about such MAJOR things
like product
design because the fist thing the public sees in the shop
is the design.

No. Look at people buying things. First they recognise of
the category of product, then they look at the price tag.
Depending on the price tag, they may look at the quality of
design. Folk who are just looking for quality are window
shopping or stupidly rich.

Go to an electrical goods supplier and ask an assistant to
recommend a product of some kind. "What price range have you
got in mind?" is almost inevitably the first response. Same
for most things.

Stupid rich people buy from artisans or from special shops
for stupid rich people, where it's assumed that if you have
to ask the price, you can't afford it.

Poor design leads to poor sales.

So why are your sales poor? When you're whinging about the
rubbish people buy instead of your wondrous products, you
say the opposite.

But in little companies, the CEO is ALSO concerned about
the cost of
stocking the toilet with loo paper.
He will buy soap for the wash room at the lowest possible
price and
abuse the apprentice if he's caught pilfering it.

Australia sounds like a ********. No wonder all you're
educated professionals leave for Europe, Japan and the US.

The accountant may have the job of explaining how costs of
production
can be reduced. He's the money man, right, so he has to
understand how
things are to be done and what the cost will be, and which
way is the
cheaper way. He's always a worried hassled man.
The engineers like to dream up expensive solutions and the
bean counter
has to earn his wage by saying "no, you can't have that"
and reducing
the costs. Often, after several battles with others, the
bean counter
gets the engineer to tailor his dreams to affodability.

The myth of the bean counter is commonly promulgated by
artisans, and by lowly engineers in large companies who wish
to be artisans but daren't take the risk.

For the artisan, it's a marketing ploy designed to deflect
attention from the fact that he's doing his own
bean-counting, in his head right now while he's trying to
charge you a fortune for a lash-up.

For the lowly engineer it's a symptom of alienation. They
feel their creativity is enmeshed by constrained by cost,
and imagine someone must be responsible for the ensuing
angst.

In large companies outside of strange places like China,
Russia, and Australia by the sound of it, the decision about
price point is led by the Marketing function, because
they're supposed to know what price punters will pay and
what they'll expect to get for their money. Decisions about
cost of design and manufacture of a product to be sold at a
particular price is led by the Accounting function. The
Design, Procurement and Production Engineering people look
at what can be made at that cost, that matches projected
competitor products, and adds a unique selling point or two.

Whatever the details of the organisation, this process is
iterative, so everyone has to meet together to thrash out
the conflicts by bargaining. The meetings that make the
important decisions are chaired by the MD, or CEO in the US
and its dominions, or perhaps in larger companies by
divisional heads.

Ultimately the company as a whole, through all this
structured communication, decides what will be made and what
the price will be.

The managers go back to their lowly minions, and that's when
the engineers are told "I did my best, lads, but we've been
shafted by the bean counters again. Those current mirrors
and bias protection circuits have got to go."

The truth is that there's no point in making stuff that
no-one wants to buy.

Or they can chose from any of the nearly infinite number
of
alternatives a free market provides.

Depending on what they can afford, which for many people is
bugger all.

Most of these are generic lowest common denominator crap.

I raise my hat to the combined efforts of the existing
mass crap
production expertology.

There you go. Remember when you said "Poor design leads to
poor sales."?

At least it gives me a chance to build something better.

Fortunately, a few people can tell the difference between
the mass mades
and the hand crafted.

Everyone can, and most people choose the mass made products.
Stupid rich people buy hand-made alternatives. Like the MP
here who claimed expenses for a floating duck house,
money-no-object hardwood and tiled roof, complete with
glazed windows. His stupid rich friends were very impressed
but the ducks, who know that foxes can swim and like to keep
a low profile, won't go near it. They like the proven,
discreet homes mass produced for those islands in park
ponds.

I can't afford to employ a ****in bean counter.

I can't imagine why.

Not enough beans.

Crocodile tears.

Ian

[Patrick Turner]

flipper wrote:

On Fri, 22 May 2009 00:29:06 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



flipper wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 12:44:25 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



flipper wrote:

On Wed, 20 May 2009 08:09:18 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

McIntosh also use a "modulated" screen voltage. The terms need to be
clarified. Eg2 is the constant voltage potential between cathode and
screen. Vg2 is a signal voltage at g2 usually in reference to 0V and if
it is the same as the Vk also in reference to 0V, then the signal
voltage between k and g2 = 0Vac and the voltage potential between k and
g2 always = Eg2 and the tube is working in real pentode.
In Quad-II, one could indeed supply the each KT66 screen with a choke
feed from a B+ supply and thus establish Eg2. Then you could bypass each
screen to its local cathode, and you have real beam tetrode op with
cathode FB. Walker realised there was no need to use the extra parts. He
sure had his reasons.

McIntosh have the screens of the outputs fed from the anode connections
of the opposite sided tube where the wanted signal is equal to the
cathode of the particular screen side. and also the wanted Eg2.
Its an elegant solution. One could in fact take the screen to a fixed
voltage like in Quad-II, so that for example you'd have +120Vac at the
anode, -120Vac at the cathode, about -24Vac between cathode and grid,
making the grid input = -144Vac (with all gross Vac referenced to 0Vac.)
meanwhile the screens could be at say +470Vdc, and there would be 120Vac
betaeen screen and cathode.

The internal tube gain considerations are the same as having 50% UL
connection. But 1/2 the a to k voltage is fed back as CFB to introduce
two paths of NFB, one into the grid and the other into the screen. It
turns out that where the screen is made to ride along with the same
signal as the cathode in the same tube then the screen NFB is removed
entirely, and the screen signal feed be considered positive FB because
the internal gain will rise a lot, as it does between using plain old
50% UL or true beam tetrode.

One could concievably push things further along by having the screens ac
connected to the anodes instead of the cathodes, and with their supply
Vdc above the anode Vdc supply. And you could still have the McIntosh
connection. You will find that because triode gain is so low that there
is not a great deal to be gained by having 50% of CFB as McIntosh does
it. The grid drive signal becomes rather huge, and so plain triode
connection without the CFB but with the BT connection to entice higher
efficiency will be a way to be exploited if you wish a simpler OPT.

If you wish a simpler OPT why not use the Circlotron connection which
essentially makes the OPT an impedance matching device?

Then you need two floating power supply B+ rails.

The circlotron isn't a bad circuit, and Electrovoice proved it a long
time ago.

But it also needs to have a high grid drive voltage and the distortion
you tend to minimise with the OPT CFB is countered by the distortion
involved with having to make such a high drive voltage, plus you need an
extra drive stage.

Ordinary CFB with about 20% of the total primary turns devoted to a
cathode winding is by far the best option afaiac.

But the OPT should never be designed by bean counters.

I have yet to see a 'bean counter' who designs anything.

But they manage to do it indirectly.

Nope

Bean counters have one function: count beans.

They don't establish budgets, they're told what it will be or is. They
then count what goes in and out, tally the total, and give you the
results. And that's whether you are the CEO, marketing, sales,
production, design, building maintenance, or any other department or
project.

Some smart arse CEO and a bean counter called Bruce takes a look at the
product of a competing company and they see that they produce more power
using smaller OPT in a smaller neater package. The two are vitally
interested in profits. The two have a chat, and Bruce says he will be
talking to George the design engineer that he has to make the OPT
smaller and get the design to make more watts, because otherwise there
will be no Xmas bonuses, sales will falter, and people will be laid off.
George holds his tougue, thinking Bruce is a right git, and proceeds to
redesign the OPT for less P turns, thinner wire, less interleaving, and
thus the amp moves more into AB. The B+ is raised and RLa-a reduced.
One bias pot for all 4 tubes is used instead of nice individual biasing.

Pure fantasy.

Perhaps you have not witnessed the "office behaviour styles" of
businesses around you.

I dare say I've 'witnessed' more of it than you have and participated
as well.

This would probably be true since I have not worked for any company
since 1980.

But I did work for only one building company and the bean counters were
always trying to find ways of cheapening the cost structures.
They seemed in concert with management. Back then all the people in the
office often were hopeless workers on the building sites except the
supervisors who were foremen who were promoted. I was a foreman for
years and had to always count ****in beans. I was expected to worry abot
costs, how much work came out of a worker, how much waste of material
went on and trying to keep on schedule. It was a never ending battle to
function properly because there was always some bean counter smart arse
who was higher up then me who would insist on using the worst cheapest
sub-contractor, and re-using formwork too many times so the subbie would
complain and leave the job. On one two year project which should have
taken a year, we went through 3 form workers and 3 steel fixers, and
could never keep men employed. They'd just get a better deal up the road
somewhere. I watched how other companies were putting up 4 stories while
we only did one floor. Instead of hiring a rock boring machine they's
have me and 3 unwilling other workers going down 3ft dia holes with
jack-hammers and a bucket on a rope to get a depth into the bass rock.
Putting in 40 pier holes took 5 months, Other places where they knew the
meaning of spending $3 to earn $6 would have done the job in a month.

I got tired of the shenanigans and became my own boss and worked
directly for the owners of buildings.

I recall Chrysler once made half decent cars, then they'd cheapen things
up and the bottom line would suffer so theu'd get bailed out then they'd
re-cycle the same idea.



Basically the *******s in the office hate the guys on the factory floor
and vice versa, and the engineers hate everyone, and everyone hates the
engineers.

You're projecting your own prejudices.

And you?


People are people, meaning they have their own egos, self interest,
and, occasionally, you get malcontents and trouble makers but there is
no general 'hatred', except among the latter. Specifically, 'know it
all' malcontents who blame everything on 'fuctards'.

I didn't meet too many workers who liked the bosses.

I had to because I became one afteer serving an apprenticeship, but then
I also enjoyed seeing a lot of work being done efficiently.
The company rewarded my zeal with a few extra pennies, and I gained
autonomy where I worked. So I liked my job most of the time and i got on
well with management. In 1978 or therabouts, company bean counters, or
bosses who thought like bean counters prevented the foremen from
receiving a 7% pay rise while everyone else got it. We felt robbed. But
they knew we wouldn't go on strike.


Guy in white shirt enters the factory floor area at considerable risk to
pride, ego, and the cleanliness of his white shirt.

Speak for yourself. I've been on both sides of that fence in multiple
organizations and never had a problem one way or the other.

Basically, the dirty worker on a shop floor of a factory doesn't want
much to do with some fancy man talkin to him unless he's offering a pay
rise. He only wants fair treatment from the foreman and leading hand.

I have, however, been 'disliked' by unscrupulous suppliers irritated I
expected them to honor the terms of contract.

Ha, try the building industry. The subbies are difficult to control.
They always think they are finished before they are. They think their
work is perfect. I lost count of the arguments I had with
sub-contractors and suppliers.

But that's all off the sub-topic of penny pinchers or bean counters, or
boosted triode.

"What the **** do you ****in want" is what the workers are thinking.
The bean counters, marketting dude, CEO and anyone in that damn office
are all the same, lazy good for nothings.

As I said, your own prejudices.

I witnessed young apprentices who were dead useless on the hammer and
saw or concrete barrow. Carpenter's apprentices were expected to to be
masters at all the hard yacca trades. The year I joined my company they
hired 75 apprentices. Some couldn't or wouldn't work. Some had the
gilded toungue and nothing else. They would end up in the office where
they either continued being useless or flourished as estimators and
quoters. Or pay clerks, although that was usually women's work.


But work gets done.

The public gets had.

As I said, your own prejudices.

'Bruce' doesn't give a tinker's dam how you meet budget or even IF you
meet budget. That's your problem, pal.

It's obvious you've never been involved with decision making in a
'real' company because the process is infinitely more complex than you
are aware and, as just one example, the CEO isn't usually concerned
with such 'minor details' as product design. They're concerned with
the bigger picture and expect marketing, sales, production, service,
procurement, and design to work out those things, things for which
they were hired.

In a big company, maybe your scenario is typical where the left hand
hasn't a clue in what the right hand is doing.

I didn't say a thing about "the left hand hasn't a clue in what the
right hand is doing." What I described is people being hired to do a
job and doing that job.

You strongly implied it in "CEO isn't usually concerned with such 'minor
details' as product design" The right hand manages, the left hand
designs. But the manager should be very interested in everything he sees
going on around him.

If I employed a CEO, I'd expect a ****in lot, because I'd be paying him
a lot.


Only a ****in idiot CEO is not concerned about 'minor details' like
product design.

Which just goes to show you have no idea what a CEO's job is.

Chief Executive Officer. Big bwana fella. BOSS. Big wig doer.

And he should be well informed, and quick on his feet and have a good
sense of the company mission plan and be just as good at doing any job
below his own status. On the building site I was foremen and I had to be
able to do anything that went on if called to do it.
And I had to watch everything, make decisions, hire and fire and do all
the **** the workers didn't have to care about.

It helped if I could last a few hours in the pub with the blokes every
month.



He should be vitally concerned about such MAJOR things like product
design because the fist thing the public sees in the shop is the design.

Design is the job of the design department. See, that's why the job
titles have different names, they do different things.

But someone has to have a bit of control over what the departments of a
company do. A company cannot succeed for long if it isn't united within
and people don't have any pride in the product or service.

Poor design leads to poor sales.

Not according to you.

I don't know how you make this conclusion. Take Quad for example. The
Quad-II amp was a lovely chic neat product for the 1950s. It was
tubatious elegance. The ESL57 was a follow up. Do you think for a minute
the Quad CEO of the time didn't care about design?



According to you most products made by the
majority of companies are done by '****tards' and the consumer is
universally 'had'.

Well, its rather true too often. I have to work to repair the ****e of
the fuctards. The Fs like to think their ****e don't stink, and that
they are god's gift to electronics engineering. Well their ****e does
stink and they are nobody's gift, OK.

But in little companies, the CEO is ALSO concerned about the cost of
stocking the toilet with loo paper.
He will buy soap for the wash room at the lowest possible price and
abuse the apprentice if he's caught pilfering it.

That's not a CEO, that's a small business owner. Been there too.

I am CEO, designer, labourer, solderer, metal worker and chief cook and
bottle wash in my illustrious small business.

A small business owner, either by necessity or because they fancy
themselves all knowledgeable, end up wearing multiple hats but that's
why so many fail, because very few people are 'expert' in all things
and when 'one person' wears all the hats their predilection tends to
over rule all other concerns.

I'd love to employ more people than I do. But there just ain't enough
beans to pay them because what I love to make and sell is undercut by
solid state and Chinese labour that costs -50dB under Oz wages.

When I become Prime Minister of the future World Parliment, I will
probably have to become Dick Tator, and one of the first things I will
decree will be that equal wages be paid for equal work all around the
world. This will simply mean that the billions of ppl now in slavery for
the pittance of $20 per week will henceforth be paid USD $400, and
overnight the entrepreneurs around the world will then consider it
profitable to build factories in the US or Oz just as favourably as they
would exploit Chinese slaves as they do now.


Why you think stealing is acceptable is any one's guess.

I don't like thieves. But as the billions of have nots toil all week for
$20, who is robbing who?

Anyway, with such slavery in full swing, its difficult to employ people
to make a bean or two that could be counted.


The accountant may have the job of explaining how costs of production
can be reduced. He's the money man, right, so he has to understand how
things are to be done and what the cost will be, and which way is the
cheaper way. He's always a worried hassled man.

Nope. Ultimately the CEO is the 'money man' but, in reality, all
department heads are 'money men'.

All worried, hassled, and no blisters on their hands, but they watch
their rears and they have to compete....

And without sunshine, in tedious grey office buildings that jail their
souls.

What the 'bean counter' understands is how to count beans and his
knowledge of what you call "how things are to be done" comes from all
the other department heads responsible for "how things are to be
done." To wit, the cost of that OPT you keep whining about comes from
either procurement, if purchased, or production, if built in-house,
and those numbers are influenced by the sales volume projected by
marketing, presuming the agreed to performance, features, and cost
target of the product. The 'bean counter' just puts the blooming
number in.

Maybe but trying to save beans, or have 2 beans left over after spending
3 beans means success. Some companies are large enough the bean counters
only count beans without having any input about how many are left over.
OK, but bean counter thinking in terms of always trying to cheapen the
cost of production by reducing the steps taken to produce something is
dangerous practice, and has led to a demise of some companies. If they
all do it, the bottom quality is reached by all and without the public
realizing. You start off with a nice solid dugout canoe in which the
family can be taken safely across the river. Soon its length is reduced.
Then the freeboard, opps, watch that wave, maybe we get swamped, then
some nerd begins to use sticks and hides, and the canoe shrinks, then
rots. Some idiot sells a paper and wax model. Oh how the beanly profits
roll in. Someone finds slaves to build it for nothing, but the price is
the same. The slaves grow a poweful nation and fund their left over
beans into the canoe paddler's companies.
The canoeist invests in terrible economic products ppl can't undertsand
that causes a world wide recession and a big reduction of canoeing.

Bean counting is all about seeing pie in the sky without workin fo it.

Its all a crazy system.



The problem is you've apparently never been involved in designing a
'product' and, instead, do 'one of' custom designs where someone wants
a 'whiz bang', you tell them how much it will cost, and the 'one
person' you're talking to decides if they'll buy it. But a company
making a 'product' has to *predict* how many will buy, at what feature
set and cost, then ante up a bucket of money to design and build
before they discover how good the estimate is.

Yes I know all that. My game is a different one to the mass marketting
company game.

The engineers like to dream up expensive solutions

Close. Engineers like to dream up 'warp drive', which tends to be
expensive. They also like toys.

Those are the 'good' engineers. Others just want to 'get by' and don't
like having to dream up 'new ideas'. They like to copy wheels and are
the "can't be done" folks when you come in wanting a new 'whiz bang'.

In domestic use tube gear of the 1950s, there was little inovation in
audio gear.


Actually, it's a little more complex than that. The 'dreamers' also
tend to not have budget responsibility and can, therefore, 'afford' to
dream up warp drives, and blame the lack of warp drives on
'****tards', while the "can't be done" folks often say so because they
have budget responsibility and see the new 'whiz bang' costing a ton
of money and/or screwing up their well laid manpower/project
schedules.

Indeed, and I don't expect ARC or CJ or Jadis to hire me any time soon.

Meanwhile I repair their junk....

I know because I've been the 'warp drive' engineer told, that's nice,
now go deign what was asked for, had to deal with the "can't be done"
department heads, and been in the position of telling my boss what he
asked for flat ass won't work.

I only have to talk to myself. Simple.

I'm lucky my discussions are productive because many people's worst
enemy is themself.

and the bean counter
has to earn his wage by saying "no, you can't have that" and reducing
the costs. Often, after several battles with others, the bean counter
gets the engineer to tailor his dreams to affodability.

The 'bean counter' couldn't care less. His job is to count beans and
whether you are over/under budget is your problem and you're a classic
case of blaming the messenger for telling his boss nothing more than
how the beans add up.

Depends. Not always the case.

I know because I've also dealt with plenty of 'bean counters' and not
one has ever even tried to tell me how to design something but I've
saved procurement's ass more than once.

Indeed.

Another fuctard product is launched at the unsuspecting public.

And the public has a choice of whether to buy 'another fuctard
product' or save up for the rest of their life so they can listen to a
$150,000 amp on their death bed.

Or they can chose from any of the nearly infinite number of
alternatives a free market provides.

Most of these are generic lowest common denominator crap.

I raise my hat to the combined efforts of the existing mass crap
production expertology.

That's your opinion from an 'engineer' who likes to design 'warp
drives'

Call it "Tube amp with real content", eg, 40Kg power supply for a total
of 120W of audio power.

The fact of the matter is, given the choice between a $300 billion
'warp drive' and a $15,000 car the vast majority of people will chose
the $15,000 car for the plainly practical fact they don't have $300
billion, so the 'fuctards' making $15,000 cars do society a great
service despite your predilection to design 'warp drives'.

I quite like my 1986 Ford Laser. I don't want anything else, and I am a
terrible horrible consumer who doesn't do anything bean counters or
marketing officers want me to do, ie, watch their fuctard adds on TV,
and earn money to buy their horrible Warp Drive model SUV and Dish
Washer, and keep on doing it regularly to prop up a wasteful greed
driven economy.

While everyone else around me moves house and replaces cars and washing
machines often, i just don't. Some change wives often as well.

Some small percentage are very fussy about their audio gear. OK, they,
like the guy who owns a yacht, like to spend a little money on what they
really enjoy.


At least it gives me a chance to build something better.

Proof of the pudding.

People find out I will give them a very nice feed of good music.

Fortunately, a few people can tell the difference between the mass mades
and the hand crafted.

And to hell with everyone else, right?

I have no intention to be a mass market maker. And its impossible at my
age, and without partners with finance. But Halcro seemed to succeed.
Bruce Candy had friends who were into finding silver and gold deposits.
That was extremely profitable and Halcro amps became a reality as a side
activity to other main activities. They invetsed millions and then
priced their amps at about 50 grand a pair. Its start of the art class
AB analog. I don't know any wealthy people at all. I think I went to the
wrong school. I know this factoid, and I don't worry about the fuctards.


Don't get me wrong. I think it's great you like to build 'warp
drives'. The problem is your arrogance in declaring everyone else
'fuctards'.

Well, they **** people with ardor, without them feeling anything. "Here
sir, consider this amp", then another unsuspecting punter is given the
sales spiel and soon the money is paid but none of the defects and
shortcomings explained. I recall marrying a really feckless shiela once.
"Here sir, consider this bride", and soon a punter about my size fetched
a ring and went to a church. But the bride wouldn't be a wife, and she
didn't explain her shortcomings. There was no repair service, no
warranty, and off she went late one night. Even I got conned, such is
the power of pussy. I realised how little power I had over anything.

So I quickly became the world's worst consumer.

I read books about how to build audio gear, and built my own gear.

The companies also read the same books about how to build audio gear but
they removed the quality, then conned the masses. Its called Capitalism.



I can't afford to employ a ****in bean counter.

Not enough beans.

Exactly

Well, you now know why.

But I don't mind. I'm happy, I don't worry.

I'm actually alive.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Fri, 22 May 2009 00:29:06 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Fortunately, a few people can tell the difference between the mass mades
and the hand crafted.

Oh yes indeed! The product coming off a production line that is
working at 100% yield is better than the hand-crafted (read bodged)
item by a million percent. It is better for several reasons. First
because the surrounding yield means that it is being put together
well, with good soldering and reliable components. Secondly if the
line is delivering 100% yield, the basic design is also good, and no
"hand tuning" is needed to get it through final test.

Hand-crafted? Gimme a break - you can keep your failures, poor designs
and bodges for yourself, thank you.

Yes, there are those who would say that all the time about people like
me.

But my amps last very well, measure very well and sound very well.

Since begining to make amps in 1996, not one has needed to be returned
for warranty work due to my poor trademanship.

I even instal active protection to prevent russian made and NOS tubes
from ruining my reputation.

ARC and CJ and Manley Labs don't keep their circuits simple, and they
don't have active protection.

Part of my living is from repairing piles amd piles of mass produced
junk, some hi-end, but most low end made on production lines where the
product was designed by an idiot with a simulator and without any
concern about how easily it may fail or be repaired.
There is so much ****in junk I have to employ someone to repair it
because I don't have enough time.

Its often like cleaning toilets.

Patrick Turner.


d

[Patrick Turner]

Ian Iveson really comes in like the blithering idiot.

Just what has Ian Iveson ever made?

There is no point to read his post here.

Patrick Turner.

Ian Iveson wrote:

Patrick Turner ignorantly wrote a lot of rubbish including:

He should be vitally concerned about such MAJOR things
like product
design because the fist thing the public sees in the shop
is the design.

No. Look at people buying things. First they recognise of
the category of product, then they look at the price tag.
Depending on the price tag, they may look at the quality of
design. Folk who are just looking for quality are window
shopping or stupidly rich.

Go to an electrical goods supplier and ask an assistant to
recommend a product of some kind. "What price range have you
got in mind?" is almost inevitably the first response. Same
for most things.

Stupid rich people buy from artisans or from special shops
for stupid rich people, where it's assumed that if you have
to ask the price, you can't afford it.

Poor design leads to poor sales.

So why are your sales poor? When you're whinging about the
rubbish people buy instead of your wondrous products, you
say the opposite.

But in little companies, the CEO is ALSO concerned about
the cost of
stocking the toilet with loo paper.
He will buy soap for the wash room at the lowest possible
price and
abuse the apprentice if he's caught pilfering it.

Australia sounds like a ********. No wonder all you're
educated professionals leave for Europe, Japan and the US.

The accountant may have the job of explaining how costs of
production
can be reduced. He's the money man, right, so he has to
understand how
things are to be done and what the cost will be, and which
way is the
cheaper way. He's always a worried hassled man.
The engineers like to dream up expensive solutions and the
bean counter
has to earn his wage by saying "no, you can't have that"
and reducing
the costs. Often, after several battles with others, the
bean counter
gets the engineer to tailor his dreams to affodability.

The myth of the bean counter is commonly promulgated by
artisans, and by lowly engineers in large companies who wish
to be artisans but daren't take the risk.

For the artisan, it's a marketing ploy designed to deflect
attention from the fact that he's doing his own
bean-counting, in his head right now while he's trying to
charge you a fortune for a lash-up.

For the lowly engineer it's a symptom of alienation. They
feel their creativity is enmeshed by constrained by cost,
and imagine someone must be responsible for the ensuing
angst.

In large companies outside of strange places like China,
Russia, and Australia by the sound of it, the decision about
price point is led by the Marketing function, because
they're supposed to know what price punters will pay and
what they'll expect to get for their money. Decisions about
cost of design and manufacture of a product to be sold at a
particular price is led by the Accounting function. The
Design, Procurement and Production Engineering people look
at what can be made at that cost, that matches projected
competitor products, and adds a unique selling point or two.

Whatever the details of the organisation, this process is
iterative, so everyone has to meet together to thrash out
the conflicts by bargaining. The meetings that make the
important decisions are chaired by the MD, or CEO in the US
and its dominions, or perhaps in larger companies by
divisional heads.

Ultimately the company as a whole, through all this
structured communication, decides what will be made and what
the price will be.

The managers go back to their lowly minions, and that's when
the engineers are told "I did my best, lads, but we've been
shafted by the bean counters again. Those current mirrors
and bias protection circuits have got to go."

The truth is that there's no point in making stuff that
no-one wants to buy.

Or they can chose from any of the nearly infinite number
of
alternatives a free market provides.

Depending on what they can afford, which for many people is
bugger all.

Most of these are generic lowest common denominator crap.

I raise my hat to the combined efforts of the existing
mass crap
production expertology.

There you go. Remember when you said "Poor design leads to
poor sales."?

At least it gives me a chance to build something better.

Fortunately, a few people can tell the difference between
the mass mades
and the hand crafted.

Everyone can, and most people choose the mass made products.
Stupid rich people buy hand-made alternatives. Like the MP
here who claimed expenses for a floating duck house,
money-no-object hardwood and tiled roof, complete with
glazed windows. His stupid rich friends were very impressed
but the ducks, who know that foxes can swim and like to keep
a low profile, won't go near it. They like the proven,
discreet homes mass produced for those islands in park
ponds.

I can't afford to employ a ****in bean counter.

I can't imagine why.

Not enough beans.

Crocodile tears.

Ian