Glad to see it could be retreived off of the database.

MSL

Once Mike said he tried unsuccessfully to divine the secrets of one of the Dynaco TX's by unwinding it. Upon later cmparison to his acquired drawings, there were mistakes made during the unwind. Therefore it was not possible to do( unwinding a TX ) to the degree of accuracy he claimed to be required for such exacting craftsmanship of *HIS* output tx's.

So he has the drawings, I know how to hire folks with NC winding machines and even more highly skilled craftsmen( craftsmen who can successfully and accurately unwind the moderately complex things we know as output tx's ).

I have a few more cool bits of vintage output Iron on my shelf in singles awaiting the perfect project. S230, S235, S240, S242, S250....and those are just part of the Peerless 20-20's. Some old WE, Langevin, RCA, Chicago and even Dynaco is also sitting on those shelves.

The thing about selling these things is that all somebody has to do is take one apart and the coil wind is no longer an unknown. I have not taken apart any of the modern original designs from the current crop of winders. If I wanted what they wind, I can just buy it. If I want an old one, specially modified for E-Linear use I can just decide which one comes closest and start unwinding the poor thing.

Even if it somehow turns out that Mike does own the rights to the Peerless name, he damn sure does not own the rights to the half-century old designs....even if he had to buy the drawings to figure out how to copy them for himself.

There once was a time when I was willing to assist Mike in his pursuit of Ironic perfection. At least one is archived in AA, along with my measurements of the newly developed item. Also archived is his later denial that I had anything to do with its design and that out of the goodness and generousity of his golden soul he had given me details of the design as explanation of my knowlege of its construction details...along with an accusation of breaking my word to him never to share them with anybody( which I never gave surrounding that project ). There is further detail posted in AA which proved fairly conclusively that he had no idea how the design did ( or in his case did *NOT* work ) work and why it needed work and improvement.

And then he goes and publishes my private and emails on his MQ site( after editing them and making some other claims ).

I am still willing to forgive him and even if he is not willing to take part in the hatchet burying ceremony, I am...
regards,
Douglas

Several other folks jumped in with math and other examples and it was shown conclusively that Mike was indeed mistaken. In public. There was a little bit of name calling going on. Things like: I can't believe you're such an ignorant fool. and a bit worse. Most of it got deleted.

The RAT wars were before my time. I am sure of one thing: it takes *TWO* lunatics to produce that sort of destruction. One of them is still around and goes by the name Mike LaFevre.

It happened again over a different yet very similar topic and there were more people jumping in and learning like mad whilst they constructed their arguements to show Mike. It was not a pretty thing. Mike painted himself into a corner and then expected us to walk through the paint, carry him out and then go back and fix the painted surface. There is more of course, but it is speculative and I'm not putting it down in public.
cheers,
Douglas

Actually, when I measured my copy at school, it was in a few critical areas like capacitance better than the original.

You brought up your model of the idea competitor. I find it curious that you think it shyster-ish to produce modern copies of older designs, seeing as you seem so successful at it. I suppose it is the methods by which the winding instructions are attained. And that must of course be from the original creator of said designs? Wait a minute! you have already done that....nice circular logic which allows you to label any competition with such nasty and insulting terms. I am not buying it. There are several other winders who advertise the ability to make all sorts of cool Iron. At least one posts a list...Acrosound, Dynaco, McIntosh, Chicago, Peerless....

I would of course invite you to offer your bid for the design. It stands at 16 pcs now. Of course I expect similar terms to what the folks at Heyboer give me. Payment *AFTER* recieving product is an important one. Speed is another. With a completed order delivered to you at the end of September, I'd like the Iron in my hand( and the rest of the customer's) by the end of October. Would you need more time than that?

Just remember Mike, I am only a customer. Until Labor Day a few years back, I would have been one of yours.
cheers,
Douglas

I would be really impressed to see you create a brand name, maybe Magnetone or something like that. Or maybe that's too close to Mike's name, just throwing something out there. Have custom winds made that are possibly compatible with early popular transformers, but superior. That part you already have down pat. Build brand recognition by using your iron in excellent amps and take 'em to shows. I think that would be excellent. People sure have responded favorably to your amp designs, and I think having your own transformers wound sets you apart and ahead. Sure could be coooool.

You keep wanting to engage me in a dialogue and further interaction with you. Of which I have no interest due to your behaviour. I don't care to discuss this with you publicly... as my hunch is that you thrive on the attention and being in the limelight. And that your most fervent desire is to engage me in your little world.

Many moons ago when you asked me to alter the original design of the S-265 to accomadate several intermittment taps on the primary... I carefully and fully explained to you why I would not do that on this particular design... again... to be clear... I am not stating this for further debate or to enjoin myself in a dialogue with you. As the owner of the design and the owner of Peerless... that's a decision I am entitled to make and it is of utmost import to me to retain the performance integrity of the original design. I actually consider it a duty.

Further, I have no obligation to explain to you our "philosophy" on design, winding, or building of transformers. Hence, I will pass on the bait regarding tear downs, reverse engineering, original blueprints, etc.

I will say this... you seem to have this viewpoint that if you acquire a product as a consumer that you have purchased the design rights to that design. And I could not disagree with you more.

Purchasing a pair of Pi Speakers is not a licence for you to reverse egineer the products, tear it down for duplication or anything like this (in my opinion). If you were to pay for all the engineering and the rights to use that proprietary engineering I am certain the price would be much greater than the retail price for a single pair of speakers. To purchase a pair of speakers, again in my opinion, with the sole intent of copying them, reverse engineering them and then wanting to compete with the designer\builder of that pair of speakers is nothing short of theft from my vantage point.

The speaker designer may have invested hundreds if not thousands of hours in the development and engineering of that product. Your buying one pair as a shortcut to doing your own development and your own engineering is, again, in my view, highly unethical.

Same goes for and applies even if (used only as an example) the owner of Pi Speakers had purchased the entire design from another company.
Still, they are paying for the engineering and the development of the product and selling you a pair of speakers for you to use and enjoy... not for you to copy their work and then go into competition against them.

end of my rant...

again... your free to respond to my comments above and I am sure you will. But you can also be sure that try as you might... you will not drag me into a great debate about these issues with you.

For the record... we do build the Peerless S-265 transformer with great fidelity to the original blueprints. So this is not a dusty old transformer design that had been "abandoned" or whose design has been put in the public domain. And we have no intentions of doing such at this time.

I believe that I have addressed all the issues that I care to with you.

msl

MSL:I carefully and fully explained to you why I would not do that on this particular design

no such explanation was ever given, let alone one done carefully.

MSL:As the owner of the design and the owner of Peerless

Just because you say it enough does not make it so. So far it looks like you own the special 'P'. I might at some point agree that you even own the whole name. That is a far different thing from owning the designs, and the rights to any control over their production. Besides, once I modified it in such a way as to be useful for a specific and original circuit, any possible or imagined protection would become a whole lot more open to interpretation.

MSL:you seem to have this viewpoint that if you acquire a product as a consumer that you have purchased the design rights to that design

No, I said I would acquire the design itself. If said design was in some way protected, that protection would be the instrument for preventing me from doing as I please with said design. In this particular case, that being the winding details of the Peerless transformer line, no such protection exists. What may exist is protection from selling them from the Peerless Transformer store. I can copy what ever of them it pleases me to. If you can convince me otherwise, I invite your discussion. I will not discuss anything privately though due to your propensity to publish editorialized and edited versions of said communication on your corporate website.

You claim your ignoring me is entirely due to my behaviour? what is behaviour is that? Telling you on a public forum that your analysis has holes in it? Discovering a way around your unimaginative production ideas? Offering said solution at a quarter of your wholesale price? All reasonable perhaps, but to accuse me of theft, and then retreat is not going to get me to see things your way, or leave you alone.

I welcome your civil discussion, as it appears that there are many misunderstandings between us which are doing neither of us any good. If you wish to carry on a RAT-wars sort of feud, you may also do that...why this would be your choice given the disasterous outcome of the last one is quite beyond me.

cheers,
Douglas