Inflated PMPO figures

[John Fields]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:44:21 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
pimpom wrote:

As an example, the amplified speakers I'm using for my computer
is a Kobian SW-1480 (reasonable sound for a USD20 equivalent
price tag). It's a 2.1 set using a TDA2030 for each of the woofer
and two satellites (4 ohms each), running from a common power
supply which is very close to the TDA2030's max rating of +/-18V
at idle. Even if the full 36V is squared and divided by 4ohms (an
absurd and totally irrelevant 'formula'), the total for all three
amps still falls short of 1000W. Yet the PMPO is claimed to be,
as the model number suggests, 1480W!! What really surprises me is
that similarly absurd figures are touted even by giant
multinational companies.

For some bizarre reason the US FTC considered this market under 'the
Amplifier Rule' and exempted it !

You'll probably find some obscure reasoning on their site

---
Although it's not explicitly stated, it's probably something like giving
the Chinks a break by letting them sell stuff here which doesn't quite
measure up to what they claim.

Pretty much the same as the license we allow you which doesn't say:
"Instead of just one, you should have bought two Jaguars so you'll have
one to drive while the other one's in the shop.

You can blame that on Ford then. Fix or repair daily isn't it ?

---
Hardly.

What you can blame on Ford is the invention of the assembly line. How
you use it to endlessly replicate errors is your own affair.

JF

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
pimpom wrote:

As an example, the amplified speakers I'm using for my computer
is a Kobian SW-1480 (reasonable sound for a USD20 equivalent
price tag). It's a 2.1 set using a TDA2030 for each of the woofer
and two satellites (4 ohms each), running from a common power
supply which is very close to the TDA2030's max rating of +/-18V
at idle. Even if the full 36V is squared and divided by 4ohms (an
absurd and totally irrelevant 'formula'), the total for all three
amps still falls short of 1000W. Yet the PMPO is claimed to be,
as the model number suggests, 1480W!! What really surprises me is
that similarly absurd figures are touted even by giant
multinational companies.

For some bizarre reason the US FTC considered this market under 'the
Amplifier Rule' and exempted it !

You'll probably find some obscure reasoning on their site

---
Although it's not explicitly stated, it's probably something like giving
the Chinks a break by letting them sell stuff here which doesn't quite
measure up to what they claim.

Pretty much the same as the license we allow you which doesn't say:
"Instead of just one, you should have bought two Jaguars so you'll have
one to drive while the other one's in the shop.

You can blame that on Ford then. Fix or repair daily isn't it ?

---
Hardly.

What you can blame on Ford is the invention of the assembly line. How
you use it to endlessly replicate errors is your own affair.

My father had several Jags and had minimal problem with them. I think he
positively adored his 3.8 Mk II (in metallic 'golden sand').

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:15:58 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
pimpom wrote:

As an example, the amplified speakers I'm using for my computer
is a Kobian SW-1480 (reasonable sound for a USD20 equivalent
price tag). It's a 2.1 set using a TDA2030 for each of the woofer
and two satellites (4 ohms each), running from a common power
supply which is very close to the TDA2030's max rating of +/-18V
at idle. Even if the full 36V is squared and divided by 4ohms (an
absurd and totally irrelevant 'formula'), the total for all three
amps still falls short of 1000W. Yet the PMPO is claimed to be,
as the model number suggests, 1480W!! What really surprises me is
that similarly absurd figures are touted even by giant
multinational companies.

For some bizarre reason the US FTC considered this market under 'the
Amplifier Rule' and exempted it !

You'll probably find some obscure reasoning on their site

---
Although it's not explicitly stated, it's probably something like giving
the Chinks a break by letting them sell stuff here which doesn't quite
measure up to what they claim.

Pretty much the same as the license we allow you which doesn't say:
"Instead of just one, you should have bought two Jaguars so you'll have
one to drive while the other one's in the shop.

You can blame that on Ford then. Fix or repair daily isn't it ?

---
Hardly.

What you can blame on Ford is the invention of the assembly line. How
you use it to endlessly replicate errors is your own affair.

My father had several Jags and had minimal problem with them. I think he
positively adored his 3.8 Mk II (in metallic 'golden sand').

---
Not quite in the same league, but I once owned an MGA that I dearly
loved.

JF

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:44:21 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Pretty much the same as the license we allow you which doesn't say:
"Instead of just one, you should have bought two Jaguars so you'll have
one to drive while the other one's in the shop.

You can blame that on Ford then. Fix or repair daily isn't it ?

Nah, Fords are great! Just keep oil in them, and they'll run forever. They
are kind of notorious for using oil, however ("Uh, fill up the oil and
check the gas...").

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Eeyore]

Rich Grise wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

Pretty much the same as the license we allow you which doesn't say:
"Instead of just one, you should have bought two Jaguars so you'll have
one to drive while the other one's in the shop.

You can blame that on Ford then. Fix or repair daily isn't it ?

Nah, Fords are great! Just keep oil in them, and they'll run forever. They
are kind of notorious for using oil, however ("Uh, fill up the oil and
check the gas...").

I think you're confusing them with Toyota ! ;~)

Oh, except Toyotas don't use oil.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:35:20 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

Pretty much the same as the license we allow you which doesn't say:
"Instead of just one, you should have bought two Jaguars so you'll have
one to drive while the other one's in the shop.

You can blame that on Ford then. Fix or repair daily isn't it ?

Nah, Fords are great! Just keep oil in them, and they'll run forever. They
are kind of notorious for using oil, however ("Uh, fill up the oil and
check the gas...").

I think you're confusing them with Toyota ! ;~)

Oh, except Toyotas don't use oil.

---
What then, graphite?

JF

 

On Oct 17, 12:35 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

Pretty much the same as the license we allow you which doesn't say:
"Instead of just one, you should have bought two Jaguars so you'll have
one to drive while the other one's in the shop.

You can blame that on Ford then. Fix or repair daily isn't it ?

Nah, Fords are great! Just keep oil in them, and they'll run forever. They
are kind of notorious for using oil, however ("Uh, fill up the oil and
check the gas...").

I think you're confusing them with Toyota ! ;~)

Oh, except Toyotas don't use oil.

Graham

Well, they can, especially if:

1. The Valve Cover is not on tight enough. (I took a 30mm socket and
tightened 'em myself, to stop an oil seep.)
2. The Distributor O-ring leaks. ('92 to '96 Camry)
3. Worn piston rings or valves

Don't forget the oil gelling (sludge) issues for '97-'01 Camry, and
Lexus... Google "toyota sludge", 175,000 hits

Michael

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

Pretty much the same as the license we allow you which doesn't say:
"Instead of just one, you should have bought two Jaguars so you'll have
one to drive while the other one's in the shop.

You can blame that on Ford then. Fix or repair daily isn't it ?

Nah, Fords are great! Just keep oil in them, and they'll run forever. They
are kind of notorious for using oil, however ("Uh, fill up the oil and
check the gas...").

I think you're confusing them with Toyota ! ;~)

Oh, except Toyotas don't use oil.

---
What then, graphite?

I should have been clearer and put the emphasis on *use*.

Graham

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Eeyore wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

Pretty much the same as the license we allow you which doesn't say:
"Instead of just one, you should have bought two Jaguars so you'll have
one to drive while the other one's in the shop.

You can blame that on Ford then. Fix or repair daily isn't it ?

Nah, Fords are great! Just keep oil in them, and they'll run forever. They
are kind of notorious for using oil, however ("Uh, fill up the oil and
check the gas...").

I think you're confusing them with Toyota ! ;~)

Oh, except Toyotas don't use oil.

Then explain the lawsuits against Toyota for oil problems with their
engines.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:01:36 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:56:23 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

It used to be "would you rather be hung or shot?" Nowadays it's "Would
you rather be disemboweled or boiled in oil?"

ISTM that nowadays it's "hanged", even though "hung" is what your
plastic surgeon recommends.

Heh. ;-) Actually, I knew that, I just wanted to go for the colloquial
form of the expression, more amenable to Joe Six-pack. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich