text:
Last edited by Arashira
2 edition of Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 found in the catalog.
Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986
United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary
report (to accompany H.R. 3737) (including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office)
by United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary
Published 1986 by U.S. G.P.O. in [Washington, D.C.? .
Emigration and immigration law -- United States,
Fraud -- United States,
Marriage law -- United States
Series Report / 99th Congress, 2d session, House of Representatives -- 99-906
The Jews of Rhodes
Tertiary institutions in Nigeria, haven or coven?
Relative cost of carload and less than carload shipments and its bearing upon freight classification.
XMAS TOYS COLOR BK
2000 Import and Export Market for Mechanically-Propelled Work Trucks for Short Distance in Morocco
Solving ordinary differential equations with discontinuities
Fluid mechanics, with engineering applications
Factors affecting the permeability of HEMA/MMA microcapsules.
Towards inclusion
cave and the mountain
Psychology and common life
Stronger Federal direction needed to promote better use of present urban transportation systems
Common questions on the asbestos NESHAP
Organisation of care
Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 by United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary Download PDF EPUB FB2
The Marriage Fraud Amendments of ("IMFA") were enacted in response to a growing concern about aliens seeking permanent residence in the U.S. on the basis of marriage to a citizen or resident when either the alien acting alone, or the alien and his or her reputed spouse acting in concert, married for the sole purpose of obtaining permanent residence.
InCongress responded to this perception by enacting restrictions to deter sham marriages. Under the Immigration and Marriage Fraud Amendments (IMFA), spousal sponsorship—a centerpiece of family-based immigration policy—became a twostep process for some applicants.
Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a two-year conditional permanent resident status for alien spouses and their sons and daughters who become permanent residents through marriage or as immediate relatives.
Oct 10, · This bill was introduced in the 99 th Congress, which met from Jan 3, to Oct 18, Legislation not enacted by the end of a Congress is cleared from the books.
Legislation not enacted by the end of a Congress is cleared from the books. TOPN: Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of Laws acquire popular names as they make their way through Congress. Sometimes these names say something about the substance of the law (as with the ' Winter Olympic Commemorative Coin Act').
Sep 04, · (Measure passed House, amended) Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a two-year conditional permanent resident status for alien spouses and their sons and daughters who become permanent residents through marriage or as immediate relatives.
True to their name, the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of were primarily designed to deter sham marriages. The two year period promulgated thereunder should be an adequate deterrent against sham marriages at the threshold level, providing a warning to the parties that a short term marriage of convenience will no longer provide the simplest method for immigrating into this country.
Inas part of a major reformation of the immigration sys. tem, Congress enacted the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amend.
ments.9 Although Congress continues to emphasize and reward. familial unity,'° it has placed new restrictions on the benefits of mari.
8 U.S.C. § (a) ().Author: Eileen P. Lynskey. Apr 02, · Marriage Fraud: Marriage fraud has been prosecuted, inter alia, under 8 U.S.C. § and 18 U.S.C.
§ (a). The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments Act of amended § by adding § (c), which provides a penalty of five Continue reading →. Amendment by Pub. – effective as if included in enactment of Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments ofPub. 99–, see section 7(d) of Pub.
–, set out as a note under section of this title. Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of report (to accompany H.R. ) (including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). (not yet rated) 0 with reviews - Be the first.
Emigration and immigration law -- United States. Fraud -- United States. Marriage law -- United States. The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments Act of amended § by adding § (c), which provides a penalty of five years imprisonment and a $, fine for any "individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws.".
This Act may be cited as the "Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of ". SEC. DETERRING IMMIGRATION-RELATED MARRIAGE FRAUD. (a) CONDITIONAL BASIS FOR PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS BASED ON RECENT MARRIAGE.—Chapter 2 of title II of the Immigration and NationaUty Act is amended by adding at the end the following new section: Nov.
10, Immigration & Refugee Policy) ("I appreciate the thoughtful testimony [on increasing immigration marriage fraud]; it was well done. I think there is a need for legislation. We are going to begin to draft that."). s See Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of § 2(a), (d)(2).
q See United States v. Ortiz-Mendez, F.3d(5th Cir Author: Michael Virga. On information and belief, Ms. Omar has committed marriage fraud under 8 U.S.C. § and 18 U.S.C. § (a). The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments Act of provides a penalty of five years imprisonment and a $, fine for any "individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration.
Immigration Reform and Control Act of --Immigration Marriage Fraud Act of --Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of Responsibility: prepared by Lawrence B. Kleinman under the auspices of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.
Sep 21, · The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of (IMFA) Although less-well known than IRCA, this law aimed to prevent illegal marriages for "green cards.". (1) In Matter of Shirdel, 19 I&N Dec. 33, 35 (BIA ), the Board of Immigration Appeals stated that the factual basis for a possible finding of excludability under the first clause of section (a)(19) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
Under the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of ("IMFA"), an applicant whose marriage is less than 24 months old when he or she receives approval for a green card will receive only "conditional," not permanent residence. This status expires after another two years.
form and Control Act of and The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of60 OHio ST. B.A. REP.(); Drake, Zacovic, Wheeler & Poplowski, Sweeping Changes in Immigration Laws Affect Aliens' Rights to Work and Legalize Their Status, 21 CLEARINGHOUSE RV.
74, (). The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of annually limits the number. May 25, · If the permanent resident by marriage files an immigration petition for a new spouse within 5 years of receiving permanent residence by law (The Marriage Fraud Amendments of ) the former marriage by which he obtained permanent resident is presumed to have been entered into for immigration purposes without the intent to live together as.
immigration marriage fraud amendments of Public Law (Act of 11/10/86), which was passed in order to deter immigration-related marriage fraud. Its major provision stipulates that aliens deriving their immigrant status based on a marriage of less than two years are conditional immigrants.
Under the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments Act ofa U.S. citizen that is convicted of immigration marriage fraud would have to pay a penalty of up to $, and potentially serve a prison term for up to 5 years.
the validity of the marriage If the immigration officer determined that the marriage was entered into in good faith, the immigrant beneficiary qualified for unconditional permanent residence InCongress passed the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments (IMFA) to counter the perceived problem of immi-Cited by: 7.
y Immigration Reform and Control Act s r r ä u u w { y Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments s r r ä u w u y ò ó Key Immigration Laws and Policy Developments since Mar 27, · However, the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of8 U.S.C. § a, were designed, inter alia, to eliminate the Qaisi type loophole by establishing a two-year conditional status for alien spouses seeking permnt resident status, and requiring that an actual family unit still remain in existence at the end of the two year period.
Sep 05, · I Petition for Removal of Conditions on Conditional Residence, Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of Posted on September 5, by Mike Baker Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of I Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence on Permanent Resident Status. immigration context was a result of exaggerated estimates of marriage fraud and represented a departure from longstanding policies favoring familial reunification.
This divergence produced a piece of legislation, the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments ofwhich unnecessarily burdened newlywed couples with bureaucratic epapersjournal.icu by: 2. Michael Evans, The Status of Section 5 of the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of Since Smith v.
INS: No Relief from the Courts but a Hope for Amendment, BYU L. R ev. ().Author: Michael Evans. Nov 18, · The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments Act of (Public Law ) amended the Immigration and Nationality Act by adding section (8 U.S.C.
a) which provides conditional permanent resident status for certain immediate relative categories at the time of admission. Marriage Fraud Bill: An Argument for a Targeted Approach to Immigration Reform By David North on December 15, Most of the conversation about immigration policy reform these days involves the word "comprehensive", as if this is the best, if not the only, way to tackle the issue.
Marriage has been a means in some instances to acquire citizenship by getting a green card; the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of established laws to punish such instances. In, immigrants were admitted as spouses of United States citizens.
Dec 23, · The Immigration Act of was also created and helped to change the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of so that harsher penalties could be instilled upon criminals.
These penalties include: up to five years in prison, up to $, in fines, and most likely deportation. The Immigration Fraud Amendments attempted to eliminate benefits gained through a second preference petition as a result of a prior sham marriage. A permanent resident who immigrated through marriage to a prior spouse is prohibited from petitioning on behalf of a new non-citizen spouse for five years after attaining permanent resident status.
The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of attmepts to curb sham marriages for the sole purpose of obtaining citizenship. Immigration policies are implemented by granting or denying visas.
There are two types of visas: immigrant and nonimmigrant. Nonimmigrant visas are primary issued to tourists and temporary business visitors. A marriage of convenience is contracted for reasons other than that of relationship of love. Instead, such a marriage is entered into for personal gain or some other sort of strategic purpose, such as political marriage.
Some cases in which those married do not intend to live together as a couple, typically marry only for one of them to gain the right to reside in a country. The Immigration Reform & Control Act of (IRCA) and the Immigration Marriage Fraud amendments of (IMFA) provided drastic changes in the Immigration laws affecting aliens in this country or those wishing to gain admission to the United States as immigrants.
On information and belief, Ms. Omar has committed marriage fraud under 8 U.S.C. § and 18 U.S.C. § (a). The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments Act of provides a penalty for up of five years imprisonment and a $ ,00 dollars in fines for any "individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any.
INA See "Immigration and Nationality Act" IRCA See "Immigration Reform and Control Act of (IRCA)" Immediate Relatives Certain immigrants who because of their close relationship to U.S. citizens are exempt from the numerical limitations imposed on immigration to the United States.
is termed "one-sided marriage fraud."21 The Subcommittee concluded by urging Congress to enact tough, prophylactic measures to combat the abuse Congress responded a year later with the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of (Marriage Fraud Act) The thrust of the new legislation is to withhold permanent resi.
However, we will explain what constitutes a real marriage under U.S. immigration law, and outline the risks of entering into a fake marriage. Definition of Marriage Fraud A sham marriage is one that is entered into in order to get around ("evade") the U.S.
immigration laws.Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of (§ 1. Applies to - Spouses, sons, and daughters who receive LPR status as an IR, family-sponsored second-preference immigrant, or fiancé of U.S. citizen, by virtue of a marriage that's less than two years old.(a) epapersjournal.icu Marriage Fraud Amendments of ("IMFA") were enacted in response to a growing concern about aliens seeking permanent residence in the U.S.
on the basis of marriage to a citizen or resident when either the alien acting alone, or the alien and his or her reputed spouse acting in concert, married for the sole purpose of obtaining permanent residence.
epapersjournal.icu - Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 book © 2020


text:
The incident led to widespread discussion in the media and among players, fans, and the public, about the racist and insulting comments Black players regularly receive from white fans, and what to do it about it – as well as larger issues of racism. It also led Kyle Korver, a white NBA player with the Utah Jazz, to publish, a month later, a thoughtful essay entitled "Privileged," which went viral. In his essay, Korver reflects on the level of racism in the NBA and in our society at large; white privilege, including his own; and the responsibility that he and other white people have to counter racism.
Part 1: A Courtside Confrontation and Its Aftermath
Students consider tweets about Westbrook's confrontation with the white fan (which include some profanity). They discuss the statement from Westbrook following the incident about what prompted the confrontation and how he views it. They consider the racial context of the incident. Then they read and discuss a timeline of events that occurred after the confrontation.
Part 2: An Essay about the NBA and White Privilege
Students read and discuss two excerpts from Kyle Korver's essay "Privileged,"and consider a series of quotes from the essay.
Part 2: An Essay about White Privilege
Invite students to look at the following tweets and ask them if they know what they are in reference to. Then ask the questions below:
Who is Kyle Korver?
What is "the elephant in the room" that he refers to in his tweet?
What do LeBron James and others want us to listen to?
Elicit and explain that Kyle Korver is an NBA player with the Utah Jazz. On April 8, 2019, Korver published a personal and revealing essay entitled "Privileged" in The Players Tribune, in which he discusses his white privilege.
The essay appeared almost a month after a courtside incident in Salt Lake City, Utah, received national attention. Visiting player Russell Westbrook of the Oklahoma Thunder, who is Black, got into a verbal altercation with a white Utah fan who had been taunting him with racially charged language from the stands.
In the essay, Korver describes this and an earlier racist incident, involving Black players and teammates, that have made him reflect on racism and the privilege he enjoys as a white man, in the U.S in 2019. He writes that he's come to the realization that "It's about understanding on a fundamental level that black people and white people, they still have it different in America. And that those differences come from an ugly history..... not some random divide."
Privileged, by Kyle Korver
Invite students to read the first segment of Kyle Korver's essay Privileged, below, and in this handout. Then ask them some or all of the following questions:
Why did Kyle Korver cringe when writing about his response to the news that police had arrested his friend and teammate Thabo Sefolosha, throwing him in jail for the night and leaving him with a season-ending injury?
What was his discomfort about?
Why do you think he felt he let his friend down?
Why do you think he felt he let himself down?
When the police break your teammate's leg, you'd think it would wake you up a little.
When they arrest him on a New York street, throw him in jail for the night, and leave him with a season-ending injury, you'd think it would sink in. You'd think you'd know there was more to the story.
You'd think.
But nope.
I still remember my reaction when I first heard what happened to Thabo. It was 2015, late in the season. Thabo and I were teammates on the Hawks, and we'd flown into New York late after a game in Atlanta. When I woke up the next morning, our team group text was going nuts. Details were still hazy, but guys were saying, Thabo hurt his leg? During an arrest? Wait — he spent the night in jail?! Everyone was pretty upset and confused.
Well, almost everyone. My response was….. different. I'm embarrassed to admit it.
Which is why I want to share it today.
Before I tell the rest of this story, let me just say real quick — Thabo wasn't some random teammate of mine, or some guy in the league who I knew a little bit. We'd become legitimate friends that year in our downtime. He was my go-to teammate to talk with about stuff beyond the basketball world. Politics, religion, culture, you name it — Thabo brought a perspective that wasn't typical of an NBA player. And it's easy to see why: Before we were teammates in Atlanta, the guy had played professional ball in France, Turkey and Italy. He spoke three languages! Thabo's mother was from Switzerland, and his father was from South Africa. They lived together in South Africa before Thabo was born, then left because of apartheid.
It didn't take long for me to figure out that Thabo was one of the most interesting people I'd ever been around. We respected each other. We were cool, you know? We had each other's backs.
Anyway — on the morning I found out that Thabo had been arrested, want to know what my first thought was? About my friend and teammate? My first thought was: What was Thabo doing out at a club on a back-to-back??
Yeah. Not, How's he doing? Not, What happened during the arrest?? Not, Something seems off with this story. Nothing like that. Before I knew the full story, and before I'd even had the chance to talk to Thabo….. I sort of blamed Thabo.
I thought, Well, if I'd been in Thabo's shoes, out at a club late at night, the police wouldn't have arrested me. Not unless I was doing something wrong.
Cringe.
It's not like it was a conscious thought. It was pure reflex — the first thing to pop into my head.
And I was worried about him, no doubt.
But still. Cringe.
A few months later, a jury found Thabo not guilty on all charges. He settled with the city over the NYPD's use of force against him. And then the story just sort of….. disappeared. It fell away from the news. Thabo had surgery and went through rehab. Pretty soon, another NBA season began — and we were back on the court again.
Life went on.
But I still couldn't shake my discomfort.
I mean, I hadn't been involved in the incident. I hadn't even been there. So why did I feel like I'd let my friend down?
Why did I feel like I'd let myself down?
Invite students to read a second segment of Kyle Korver's essay Privileged. Then ask students some or all of the following questions:
Why might Korver feel upset and embarrassed when the full story about the fan using racially charged language with Russ Westbrook came out later that night?
Why might others on the team feel disappointment mixed with exhaustion? Why were some guys just sick and tired of it all? Why did they feel different from Korver?
Why does Korver say that the incident is about what it means to exist as a person of color in a mostly white space?
A few weeks ago, something happened at a Jazz home game that brought back many of those old questions.
Maybe you saw it: We were playing against the Thunder, and Russell Westbrook and a fan in the crowd exchanged words during the game. I didn't actually see or hear what happened, and if you were following on TV or on Twitter, maybe you had a similar initial viewing of it. Then, after the game, one of our reporters asked me for my response to what had gone down between Russ and the fan. I told him I hadn't seen it — and added something like, But you know Russ. He gets into it with the crowd a lot.
Of course, the full story came out later that night. What actually happened was that a fan had said some really ugly things at close range to Russ. Russ had then responded. After the game, he'd said he felt the comments were racially charged.
The incident struck a nerve with our team.
In a closed-door meeting with the president of the Jazz the next day, my teammates shared stories of similar experiences they'd had — of feeling degraded in ways that went beyond acceptable heckling. One teammate talked about how his mom had called him right after the game, concerned for his safety in SLC. One teammate said the night felt like being "in a zoo." One of the guys in the meeting was Thabo — he's my teammate in Utah now. I looked over at him, and remembered his night in NYC.
Everyone was upset. I was upset — and embarrassed, too. But there was another emotion in the room that day, one that was harder to put a finger on. It was almost like….. disappointment, mixed with exhaustion. Guys were just sick and tired of it all.
This wasn't the first time they'd taken part in conversations about race in their NBA careers, and it wasn't the first time they'd had to address the hateful actions of others. And one big thing that got brought up a lot in the meeting was how incidents like this — they weren't only about the people directly involved. This wasn't only about Russ and some heckler. It was about more than that.
It was about what it means just to exist right now — as a person of color in a mostly white space.
It was about racism in America.
Before the meeting ended, I joined the team's demand for a swift response and a promise from the Jazz organization that it would address the concerns we had. I think my teammates and I all felt it was a step in the right direction.
But I don't think anyone felt satisfied.
Reading 3: Quotes
Invite a group of volunteers to read the following quotes from Korver's essay, one at a time. Then ask students:
What was it like for you to listen to these quotes from Korver's essay?
What quote resonated with you and why?
Facilitate a classroom discussion using some or all of the following questions. (You might also ask students to pick one of the quotes to research and write about before your next class to inform the discussion.)
When Korver talks about "opting into" this conversation on racism, what is the point he's trying to make?
How does this relate to title of the essay "privileged" and the idea of "white privilege?" (Note: for more on this subject, refer students to the seminal essay by Peggy McIntosh White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack)
And how does this relate to the opening tweet by Exavier Pope: "Kyle Korver thank you for saying something many black people innately know and have screamed, marched, and died for but cannot translate to the untrained white ear who refuse to hear. May others follow your example to listen."
Korver speaks of two different kinds of racism, one that's "easier" to deal with, the other "harder." Why? What are your thoughts about that?
What does Korver say about "doing better," "pushing himself further," and "becoming part of the solution?"
Why is Korver drawing a line in the sand? What answers is he coming to? How do you feel about that?
Do you have any other realizations, answers, or things you/we could do in the context of Korver's essay?
Kyle Korver Quotes:
What I'm realizing is, no matter how passionately I commit to being an ally, and no matter how unwavering my support is for NBA and WNBA players of color….. I'm still in this conversation from the privileged perspective of opting in to it. Which of course means that on the flip side, I could just as easily opt out of it. Every day, I'm given that choice — I'm granted that privilege — based on the color of my skin.
And I know I have to do better. So I'm trying to push myself further. I'm trying to ask myself what I should actually do. How can I — as a white man, part of this systemic problem — become part of the solution when it comes to racism in my workplace? In my community? In this country?
I know that, as a white man, I have to hold my fellow white men accountable. We all have to hold each other accountable. And we all have to be accountable — period. Not just for our own actions, but also for the ways that our inaction can create a "safe" space for toxic behavior. And I think the standard that we have to hold ourselves to, in this crucial moment …. We have to be active. We have to be actively supporting the causes of those who've been marginalized — precisely because they've been marginalized.
And I guess I've come to realize that when we talk about solutions to systemic racism — police reform, workplace diversity, affirmative action, better access to healthcare, even reparations? It's not about guilt. It's not about pointing fingers, or passing blame. It's about responsibility. It's about understanding that when we've said the word "equality," for generations, what we've really meant is equality for a certain group of people. It's about understanding that when we've said the word "inequality," for generations, what we've really meant is slavery, and its aftermath — which is still being felt to this day. It's about understanding on a fundamental level that black people and white people, they still have it different in America. And that those differences come from an ugly history….. not some random divide.
It's about understanding that Black Lives Matter, and movements like it, matter, because — well, let's face it: I probably would've been safe on the street that one night in New York. And Thabo wasn't. And I was safe on the court that one night in Utah. And Russell wasn't.
But as disgraceful as it is that we have to deal with racist hecklers in NBA arenas in 2019? The truth is, you could argue that that kind of racism is "easier" to deal with. Because at least in those cases, the racism is loud and clear. There's no ambiguity — not in the act itself, and thankfully not in the response: we throw the guy out of the building, and then we ban him for life.
But in many ways the more dangerous form of racism isn't that loud and stupid kind. It isn't the kind that announces itself when it walks into the arena. It's the quiet and subtle kind. The kind that almost hides itself in plain view. It's the person who does and says all the "right" things in public: They're perfectly friendly when they meet a person of color. They're very polite. But in private? Well….. they sort of wish that everyone would stop making everything "about race" all the time. It's the kind of racism that can seem almost invisible — which is one of the main reasons why it's allowed to persist.
But if we're really going to make a difference as a league, as a community, and as a country on this issue….. it's like I said — I just think we need to push ourselves another step further. First, by identifying that less visible, less obvious behavior as what it is: racism. And then second, by denouncing that racism — actively, and at every level. That's the bare minimum of where we have to get to, I think, if we're going to consider the NBA — or any workplace — as anything close to part of the solution in 2019.
The NBA is over 75% players of color. …. People of color, they built this league. They've grown this league. People of color have made this league into what it is today. And I guess I just wanted to say that if you can't find it in your heart to support them — now? And I mean actively support them? If the best that you can do for their cause is to passively "tolerate" it? If that's the standard we're going to hold ourselves to — to blend in, and opt out? Well, that's not good enough. It's not even close.
This feels like a moment to draw a line in the sand. I believe that what's happening to people of color in this country — right now, in 2019 — is wrong. The fact that black Americans are more than five times as likely to be incarcerated as white Americans is wrong. The fact that black Americans are more than twice as likely to live in poverty as white Americans is wrong. The fact that black unemployment rates nationally are double that of overall unemployment rates is wrong. The fact that black imprisonment rates for drug charges are almost six times higher nationally than white imprisonment rates for drug charges is wrong. The fact that black Americans own approximately one-tenth of the wealth that white Americans own is wrong. The fact that inequality is built so deeply into so many of our most trusted institutions is wrong.
And I don't think I have all the answers yet — but here are the ones that are starting to ring the most true:
I have to continue to educate myself on the history of racism in America.
I have to listen. I'll say it again, because it's that important. I have to listen.
I have to support leaders who see racial justice as fundamental — as something that's at the heart of nearly every major issue in our country today. And I have to support policies that do the same.
I have to do my best to recognize when to get out of the way — in order to amplify the voices of marginalized groups that so often get lost.
Time for me to shut up and listen.
Invite students to share one take away from today's lesson.
Tweet Sources:
https://twitter.com/KyleKorver/status/1115247080501579776
https://twitter.com/KingJames?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
https://twitter.com/exavierpope/status/1115288087129722881
https://www.nba.com/jazz/news/nba-stars-respond-gratitude-and-support-kyle-korvers-essay-white-privilege-and-racism

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Solid State Power Amp Reviews
Bricasti Design M15 power amplifier Measurements
Sidebar 3: Measurements
I measured the Bricasti Design M15 using my Audio Precision SYS2722 system (see the January 2008 "As We See It"). Before I test an amplifier, I precondition it with both channels driving a 1kHz tone at one-third power into 8 ohms for an hour. At the end of that time, the Bricasti's top panel was warm, at 101°F (38.3°C), and its heatsinks were hotter, at 103.1°F (39.5°C). The M15 has sufficient heatsinking for its power rating.
The voltage gain at 1kHz from the speaker terminals into 8 ohms measured 26.9dB for both balanced and unbalanced signals, and both sets of inputs preserved absolute polarity (ie, were non-inverting). The unbalanced input impedance was 88k ohms at 20Hz and 1kHz, decreasing at 20kHz to 34k ohms. The balanced input impedance was 170k ohms at 20Hz and 1kHz, decreasing to 99k ohms at 20kHz. Though these impedances are somewhat lower than the specified 100k ohms unbalanced and 200k ohms balanced, they are still usefully high.
The output impedance, including a 6', spaced-pair speaker cable, was a very low 0.08 ohm at low and middle frequencies, rising to 0.1 ohm at the top of the audioband. As a result, the modulation of the M15's frequency response with our standard simulated loudspeaker was less than ±0.1dB (fig.1, gray trace). The Bricasti's frequency response is down by 3dB at 180kHz; as a result, a 10kHz squarewave was reproduced with very short risetimes (fig.2), and there was no overshoot or ringing with a resistive load.
Fig.1 Bricasti M15, frequency response at 2.83V into: simulated loudspeaker load (gray), 8 ohms (left channel blue, right red), 4 ohms (left cyan, right magenta), 2 ohms (green) (0.5dB/vertical div.).
Fig.2 Bricasti M15, small-signal 10kHz squarewave into 8 ohms.
The unweighted, wideband signal/noise ratio, taken with the inputs shorted to ground, was a very high 81.2dB in the left channel but slightly lower in the right, at 77dB. (Both ratios are ref. 1W into 8 ohms.) These ratios improved to a respective 84 and 78dB when the measurement bandwidth was restricted to 22Hz–22kHz, and to 86 and 83.4dB with an A-weighting filter in circuit. Spectral analysis of the low-frequency noise floor (fig.3) indicated that the AC supply–related harmonics were at 60Hz and its odd-order harmonics, suggesting that these are due to magnetic interference from the massive power transformer. They lay at or below –98dB (0.0011%), however.
Fig.3 Bricasti M15, spectrum of 1kHz sinewave, DC–1kHz, at 1W into 8 ohms (left channel blue, right red; linear frequency scale).
Bricasti specifies the M15 as outputting 125Wpc into 8 ohms (21dBW), 250Wpc into 4 ohms (21dBW), and 500Wpc into 2 ohms (21dBW). The amplifier comfortably exceeded its specified power even with both channels driven. With clipping defined as when the THD+noise in the output reaches 1%, I measured clipping powers of 290Wpc into 8 ohms (24.6dBW, fig.4) and 550Wpc into 4 ohms (24.4dBW, fig.5). However, I had some difficulty measuring the maximum output power, as the M15 went into protection several times, the red LED on its front panel flashing. And when I tried to measure the clipping power into 2 ohms, the amplifier turned off at 362W (19.6dBW). I doubt that this sensitivity will be a problem in real-world systems, but I was surprised by this behavior.
Fig.4 Bricasti M15, distortion (%) vs 1kHz continuous output power into 8 ohms.
To be certain that I was measuring actual distortion, I examined how the M15's percentage of THD+N varied with frequency at a fairly high level, 20V (equivalent to 50W into 8 ohms, 100W into 4 ohms, and 200W into 2 ohms). Even so, the THD+N was extremely low in the bass and midrange, and while there was the usual rise in the treble due to the decrease in open-loop voltage gain as the frequency increases, this was still not to a significant amount (fig.6).
Fig.6 Bricasti M15, THD+N (%) vs frequency at 20V into: 8 ohms (left channel blue, right red), 4 ohms (left cyan, right magenta), 2 ohms (gray).
The THD+N waveform at this level (figs. 7 and 8) indicates that the distortion is predominantly third-harmonic in nature, though at high powers into 4 ohms the second harmonic became the highest in level in both channels (fig.9). Tested with an equal mix of 19 and 20kHz tones, the Bricasti produced relatively low levels of intermodulation distortion, even at high powers into low impedances (fig.10), with the difference product at 1kHz lying at –100dB (0.001%), and the higher-order products at or below –84dB (0.01%).
Fig.7 Bricasti M15, 1kHz waveform at 50W into 8 ohms, 0.0012% THD+N (blue); distortion and noise waveform with fundamental notched out (red, not to scale).
Fig.8 Bricasti M15, spectrum of 50Hz sinewave, DC–1kHz, at 50W into 8 ohms (left channel blue, right red; linear frequency scale).
Fig.9 Bricasti M15, spectrum of 50Hz sinewave, DC–1kHz, at 100W into 4 ohms (left channel blue, right red; linear frequency scale).
Fig.10 Bricasti M15, HF intermodulation spectrum, DC–30kHz, 19+20kHz at 100W peak into 4 ohms (left channel blue, right red; linear frequency scale).
Its measured performance indicates that Bricasti Design's M15 amplifier is conservatively engineered, with low noise and distortion, though it is clearly less happy driving 2 ohms than it is higher impedances.—John Atkinson
NEXT: Manufacturer's Comments »
Bricasti Design, Ltd.
2 Shaker Road, Building J100
Shirley, MA 01464
www.bricasti.com
Associated Equipment
Manufacturer's Comments
"Cake by the Ocean" would be
Submitted by Bogolu Haranath on June 22, 2018 - 4:03pm
"Cake by the Ocean" would be more appropriate for listening at 10am ........ or, I got the "power" ...........
Could the anomalies in sound
Submitted by hifiluver on June 21, 2018 - 5:03pm
Could the anomalies in sound be caused by an impedance mismatch between power and tube pre amp?
Bricasti's Brian Zolner must feel like ...
Submitted by Ortofan on June 21, 2018 - 10:41pm
... the kid who got the new toy he desperately wanted for his birthday, only to open the package and find out that it's broken.
Despite Mr. Gramont's best efforts to provide an optimal set up, who would have guessed that the reviewer - an admitted "less-than-technical genius" - couldn't resist trying to "improve" it? Ah well, live by the subjective review, die by the subjective review.
Moving on, what does this $18K amp do that can't be done by a (much) less expensive Bryston 14B-cubed (let alone a 7B-cubed) or a McIntosh MC452 or a Parasound JC5 or a Rotel RB-1590?
Another overpriced "Me too" mediocre stereo amplfier.
Submitted by spacehound on June 22, 2018 - 12:20am
And they don't even 'engineer' it themselves.
With a salesman and a software guy in charge I don't suppose they know how, as the result seems to demonstrate.
Bricasti has always struck me as 'Big hat, no cows'.
Understating the 8ohm wattage for other than honest means.
Submitted by georgehifi on June 22, 2018 - 1:59am
Here again (not as bad as some) is another amp manufacturer that purposely understates the 8ohm wattage, to make the 4ohm wattage look like it's doubling, then the 2ohm doubling again, just to make the amp look like it's a real great current pusher for the evilest of speaker loads, when in fact it's not. When is this sort of deceit going to end?
Manufacturer spec:
Bricasti specifies the M15 as outputting
125Wpc into 8 ohms
500Wpc into 2ohms
Stereophile tested results: Far from doubling fo each halving of impedance.!!!!!!!!!!!!
362Wpc into 2ohms, before switching off.
Cheers George
in fairness to the poor
Submitted by hifiluver on June 22, 2018 - 4:50am
in fairness to the poor manufacturer, it does push out quite a lot of watts but it looks like it might be expedient for them to change some of their promotional literature?
What makes you say deceit?
Submitted by CG on June 22, 2018 - 7:02am
As you go lower in load impedance, eventually an amplifier's output power will be limited by the available current for a given output voltage. That's the doubling thing you refer to. It's based on Ohm's Law.
Higher load impedances require less current for a given output voltage. Again, Ohm's Law.
So, you end up with two forms of output power limiting.
One is the available current, which shows up at low impedances. This is usually due to either a control circuit or fuses limiting the output current to protect the devices or because of limited drive current for the output devices.
The other is the maximum output voltage, limited by the power supply rails and fixed voltage drops from various circuit elements, like the drivers. This shows up at higher load impedances where you normally aren't current limited.
For example, if you have bipolar power supplies of 56 Volts DC, that limits the maximum output voltage to 40 Volts RMS (.707 times the peak available voltage) in the case of a more-or-less conventional complementary push-pull transistor output stage that isn't of the "bridged-mode" variety. (That number gleefully presumes that there are no fixed drops due to base emitter voltages and that sort of thing.)
40 Vrms gives 200 watts into an 8 Ohm load, 400 into 4 Ohms, 800 into 2 Ohms, 1600 into 1 Ohm, 3200 into 0.5 Ohms, and so on. That's assuming there is adequate current available to get 40 Vrms into those load impedances. For example, 40 Vrms into 1 Ohm requires 40 Amperes of output current. For an 8 Ohm load, that's only 5 Amperes. Again, Ohm's Law.
So, at low impedances you're usually current limited for practical reasons and at higher impedances you're voltage limited.
But, all that plain ignores the realities of transistor behavior.
Very often, transistors display better linearity when run at higher voltages. There's a bunch of reasons for this, too involved to go into here - inspecting a few transistor data sheets would give you an idea as would doing some Spice simulations or device measurements. So, it's not at all uncommon to run devices above the absolute minimum required to attain the required rail voltages in order to get best linearity. A simple example of that is in preamps. Since the most output you ever need to clip almost every power amplifier in existence is about 2 Vrms, why not just run all preamps from 3 Volt rails? Performance!
Personally, I fail to see how an amplifier that operates to and above its specified output power is deceitful in any way. If anything at all, the manufacturer is being conservative and delivering more than they claim.
(No, I have no connection with Bricasti. I don't think I've even ever been in the same building as a Bricasti product, but I can't swear to the latter. I've certainly never seen or heard any of their products.)
Voltage limited
Submitted by prof on June 22, 2018 - 7:35am
I think you've made georgehifi's point.
There's a regime where the amplifier's power output is voltage-limited. That's the regime where halving the load impedance doubles the power output.
At low impedances, you leave that regime and enter a current-limited regime.
When driving a set of speakers, you'd like the amplifier to stay in the voltage-limited regime.
In reporting the power output as inversely proportional to the impedance, the manufacturer is implicitly claiming that their amp is in the voltage-limited regime from 8Ω all the way down to 2Ω. The actual measured power output belies that claim — with obvious implications for anyone contemplating using this amp to drive a "difficult" set of speakers.
We'll just have to disagree,
We'll just have to disagree, since I think you have that backward.
The voltage output is just the voltage output, at least until something limits the current and the output no longer approximates a true voltage source. The voltage output should be a (linear!) function of the applied input voltage signal.
I fail to see how the manufacturer is implying anything other than what output power the amplifier will maximally produce at some distortion level into a couple specified resistive load impedances. That it will do more than the specification at some impedances is not a failing of the amplifier. Just as producing lower distortion or noise than specified is a failure.
From all these comments, I'd have to conclude that Bricasti would have been more honest and better received if they had reduced the amplifier voltage rails to just barely above the minimum required to get 150 watts into 8 Ohms. They would have saved on heat sinking and perhaps on some other components due to reduced voltage ratings. Silly them! They must've had some reason to run the rails higher, wouldn't you say? I don't know for sure, but I tend to doubt that it was to inflame people commenting on a review.
I'd also point out that even 100 plus watts into difficult loads is a really, really loud sound level in most listening rooms inside people's houses. Even with our own speakers, which measure on the lower side in terms of efficiency, 100 watts output is brutally uncomfortable and hardly pleasant to listen to. (I've made the measurements) However, YMMV as they say.
If you examine the impedance plots for ...
Submitted by Ortofan on June 22, 2018 - 10:24am
... many of the speaker test reports, you'll note that at certain frequencies the impedance goes off the top of the chart above 20 ohms - let's suppose it may go as high as 24 ohms. In that case, your modified amp (with the power supply voltage reduced to the minimum needed to generate 150W into an 8 ohm load) will only be able output 50W.
To another comment, a continuous output of 100W may indeed result in a higher sound level than most can tolerate. However, if you listen to music with a sufficiently wide dynamic range then, even if the average sound level only requires just a few watts, well over 100W may be needed to avoid peak clipping. Also, you would need an SPL meter with a very fast response time and a peak hold function to accurately measure and display those peak levels.
Second thing first.
Submitted by CG on June 22, 2018 - 11:15am
What I did was to play a couple pieces of music as you describe. There's even a listing somewhere on the internet that tabulates measured dynamic range for a zillion recordings. I chose the best examples I had based on that listing.
While listening, I turned the volume up to beyond what we'd ever listen to. The music was too loud to be enjoyable. I then left the volume control at that point.
Then, I played a track with a tone that was generated at -12 dBFS and measured the voltage right at the speaker terminals at that volume level. BTW, that tone was REALLY loud, I must say.
Anyway, the voltage at the speaker terminal was about 6 Vrms. (I can't recall, exactly). That would mean that a 0 dBfs tone - as loud as it could possibly go - would be 24 Vrms. That's equivalent to 72 Watts into 8 Ohms, and scaled accordingly for other load impedances.
This test was done at a level considerably above even what an "enthusiastic" listening session might be, so I think there's plenty of useful headroom there. Probably far more than needed. I'd bet that a 15 Vrms maximum output amplifier (roughly 30 watts into 8 Ohms) amplifier would be more than enough in our situation here. Emphasis on "our". (That's presuming a lot, though, since lower power amplifiers often have much lower capacitance power supply filters and maybe fewer output devices in parallel - both also affect actual performance.)
This pretty much correlated with another observation. On most normal recordings, our volume control is run at somewhere between a preamp gain of -20 and -10 dB. (Max gain is zero.) If you do the numbers, that suggests that the maximum ever coming out of the amplifier was about 15 Vrms. (The higher gain settings are usually used for the few recordings where the peaks don't hit 0 dBfs)
Note that with phono based systems, you might have different requirements. Pops and clicks might cause extreme output levels from a phono preamp well beyond the highest of high musical levels you'll ever get. This can be mitigated through phono preamp design to a large degree, but it's still something that might be an issue in some cases. With a digitally based system, full scale is full scale and that's it.
For the first, almost all modern speakers are designed to be driven with amplifiers that approximate pure Voltage sources. So, while your point is accurate that the power drops with greater load impedance for a fixed Voltage, that ends up being irrelevant. The output Voltage will be whatever the input signal is times the gain of the amplifier as long as the amplifier is not being current limited. Unless there is a design fault with the loudspeaker, that won't affect the volume level at any one frequency.
So, this becomes a spec thing. If you use certain headphones, the load impedance can be 300 Ohms. What then?
What this really amounts to, for me, is that manufacturers design amplifiers that are close approximation to Voltage sources. (Most manufacturers, anyway) That's to match up with the loudspeakers. (Interesting question - which came first??) The way that's traditionally been used to spec amplifiers is to describe the output power supplied into a couple mostly arbitrary load resistances. That's what people more or less understand.
A better description might be, "Our UltraGreat (tm) amplifier acts as a Voltage source with an output impedance of no more than 0.2 Ohms from 20 Hz to 20 KHz. See the attached plot. The specified maximum output Voltage is 47 Volts rms, up to a maximum specified output current of 8.7 Amperes rms. At higher current demands, the output Voltage drops accordingly. Every amplifier will meet or exceed those performance parameters at an AC mains supply of 118 VAC or 236 VAC, depending on the input Voltage setting for the market.."
Personally, I think that would be better than using terms like damping factor and the rest. If individual examples beat those numbers, great!
This is a very funny discussion. It's like people getting worked up because the car they bought was only specified to attain 38 mpg on the highway and they're all getting between 48 and 56 mpg. Clear fraud on the manufacturers part.
What is the maximum power that ...
... your amplifier, with a 56V supply, can produce into a 24 ohm load?
Suppose your program material has a dynamic range of 22dB, instead of only 12dB as in your example. Then you would need at least 720W to avoid clipping with a 0dBFS signal. Even if the average level was 8dB lower, you'd still need over 100W for a 0dBFS input.
No, no, no, no, no....
Submitted by CG on June 22, 2018 - 2:19pm
I played music that many people measured having a high dynamic range.
I turned up the volume to way beyond the normal operating level. Just to be sure.
The -12 dBfs signal could have been anything whatsoever, as long as its level relative to 0 dBfs was known. This was just a simple value that wouldn't be unbearably loud when I crouched down next to the loudspeaker to make the Voltage measurement.
Knowing that -12 dBfs is 1/4 the voltage of full scale - by definition - that says the output Voltage level at 0 dBfs would be 4 times what I measured at -12 dBfs. Make sense?
How far above the "normal operating level" is ...
Submitted by Ortofan on June 22, 2018 - 4:13pm
... "way beyond" (in dB)?
What value of power output corresponds to your average "normal operating level"?
You haven't answered the question about the maximum power that your amplifier, with a 56V supply, can produce into a 24 ohm load.
Jeez, you got me.
I just reread your post and realized that I didn't answer your question. My apologies.
The answer is 66 watts.
The point is that it doesn't matter. My loudspeakers, like many (most?), are designed and built to be driven by Voltage sources. The acoustic output is a function of the Voltage applied at any frequency. Sure, the applied electrical power at any frequency is the square of the Voltage divided by the load impedance. All that means is that less electrical power is required at some frequencies to maintain the acoustic output level than at others. The same is true for very low impedances, but in the opposite direction. Just as it's not a given that loudspeaker impedance is uniform across the audio band, it's not a given that loudspeaker efficiency is uniform across the audio band with respect to applied electrical power.
Beyond that, I truly don't get what you're getting at here.
The original suggestion, since repeated, was that Bricasti and all these other manufacturers are a pack of deceptive liars because their amplifiers will produce higher output powers at 8 Ohm load impedances than they specify and that this behavior doesn't extend down to a very low load impedance. Hence, the amplifiers do not do what they claim or people infer that they claim. I didn't and don't support that position (which I now realize was a really stupid thing for me to do) because the amplifiers do what they say. (The jury is out on 2 Ohm load performance in the M15 due to the amplifier shutting down when driven to maximum power into that low an impedance. If that's a design problem, then the manufacturer's specifications are inaccurate.)
So, I suggested a reason why many amplifiers are able to produce greater than their specified output into an 8 Ohm load. My contention is that it's not due to some conspiracy, but because the amplifier linearity and/or noise performance may be improved when the Voltage rails are higher than absolutely required to meet the specified power output into 8 Ohms.
How this got twisted around into the need or desire for 720 Watts output into 24 Ohm loads is beyond me. So, I'm afraid I can't answer your question on the subject to your satisfaction.
As for what's "far above a 'normal operating level'", you'll just have to take my word for the idea that I turned up the volume control until a number of tracks, all measured to have very high dynamic range (as high as I could find), were painfully loud. Like so loud that the dogs ran out of the room, my wife came in to see what had happened, and I couldn't stand it much more. Then, I applied a track with a known level tone into the system and measured the Voltage at the loudspeakers while keeping the volume control unchanged. From that, I was able to calculate what power level is needed to blast our faces off on high dynamic range music material. Normally, we don't use the system in full face blast mode. In fact, this was the first time.
The full scale output of our DAC is 2 Vrms. The maximum gain of the preamp is unity (0 dB.) The power amplifier gain is 17 (just under 25 dB) as measured. That gives a maximum of just under 34 Vrms at the speaker terminals. (2 X 1 X 17). That's it - there ain't no more. During the test, the volume control ended up way below maximum. How much below maximum? Based on previous measurements, about 6 dB, but I admit that I did not measure this during this particular test. 17 Vrms into 8 Ohms is 36 Watts. And that was too loud for me.
I was curious what power we really needed and I answered the question to my own satisfaction. YMMV, as they say.
Submitted by Jason P Jackson on June 22, 2018 - 1:58am
200+ watts into 8ohms, 400+ into 4 with opamp-like distortion, I bet the Bricasti would sound fantastic with most speakers.
It would and you would do
It would and you would do just as well with a textbook topology amp costing a tenth of this one...
"..do just as well with a textbook topology amp costing a tenth.
True. Point taken. I'll be sticking to diy..
save for the tube rectification/regulation
Submitted by ok on June 22, 2018 - 11:47am
..Lamm L2.1 is a solid state preamp.
Happy Bricasti Owner
Submitted by PTman on June 22, 2018 - 12:09pm
At AXPONA in 2016 and this year, I felt the Bricasti room provided one of the best sounds at show. The pairing of Bricasti amp with Bricasti M1 (or the other DAC/preamp products) into Tidal speakers was exceptional.
Prior to the 2016 AXPONA, the Bricasti DAC/Amp combo (into Tidal speakers) at my dealer is what drove my decision to purchase the M1 Limited Gold (which I use with BMC monos driving YG Acoustics Carmel), that I've never regretted. It bested the dealer's prior MSB/D'Agostino combo (driving Raidho) that had been a sonic benchmark for me.
Additionally, I've always received stellar support from Brian Zolner, answering any questions promptly and professionally.
Not meant to be a defensive post; just trying to illustrate that different component combos can have different results, and (in my opinion) the quality of Bricasti is worth the price.
can't go through the same river twice
Submitted by ok on June 22, 2018 - 1:45pm
Years ago I happened to confront my own precious player/integrated combo along with some pricey speakers unknown at a local audio show and it sounded as awful as any system can be; even most shocking to me was the fact that the man in charge didn't seem to take the slightest notice of the monstrosity orchestrated. I left the room totally confused.
Questionable Stereophile ....
Submitted by allhifi on April 12, 2019 - 9:18am
A few years back, Stereophile unfavorably "reviewed" another Bricasti amplifer; M1 mono's ?
When I began reading this review, I thought for sure the previous review (as contentious as it was) would be brought forward -but was not. I then assumed it (previous Bricasti amp review) was another magazine. Until I read the Manufacturer's Comments and realized it WAS Stereophile.
Summing up, it's sloppy, indifferent (let's face it), shitty writing/ reviewing -on so many levels.
A note/message for Mr. Zolner: Why not simply inform Stereophile of the amps power bandwidth (open-loop bandwidth), slewing rate -and/or all other technical 'spec's' that suggests a competent (even exquisite) design ?
Throw in impressive 'subjective' interpretations realized at shows/via Bricasti owners etc. and a picture of incompetence is cast upon the unprofessional approach of Stereophile magazine operations.
Stereophile are doing themselves a great disservice by picking fights with manufacturer's as opposed to working together to find suitable common ground -that ultimately satisfies all concerns.
Both Stereofool (Bricastic amplifier) reviews "read" this way.
peter jasz
The Lamm is a hybrid preamplifier
Submitted by Jason Victor Serinus on June 22, 2018 - 1:35pm
It is a hybrid preamplifier, with tube voltage regulation. http://www.lammindustries.com/PRODUCTS/L21descr.html
For more on its power supply, see: http://www.lammindustries.com/PRODUCTS/L21spec.html
That would be an unconventional definition of ...
Submitted by Ortofan on June 23, 2018 - 9:50am
... a hybrid (pre-)amplifier. More typically, the term 'hybrid' would imply the use of both tubes and transistors directly in the signal path.
Of course, some will argue that the power supply is in the signal path.
Jason Victor Serinus (the 3rd?) lol
JVS: Why in the world would neither you, or Stereophile management not disclose the previous, contentious Bricasti M1? (mono-block) review ?
Did that (also crap) review sort itself out -unbeknownst to readers ?
I will say this, such slight-handed (and totally shit) "reviews" by such dinosaur 'print' publications is, mercifully, nearing its end.
Ampilifiers that wattage double.
Submitted by georgehifi on June 22, 2018 - 1:44pm
Don't get me wrong the Bricasti probably sounds great.
There has been a few that can do this doubling act, which usually means they can stay flat in frequency response no matter what the load even down to 1ohm, the old ML2 monoblocks come to mind at close to 25w 50w 100w and yes 200w at 1ohm, but it's becoming a bit of a hoax these days to understate the 8ohm wattage to make the amp look as though it can do the doubling act.
I guess you're not swayed by
I guess you're not swayed by the engineering argument presented above.
OK by me.
Mahler in the morning
Submitted by Gerardus on June 22, 2018 - 2:09pm
The symphonies of Mahler are not all about doom. In fact they are quite romantic for their time. Compare them to contemporary composers like Bruckner. I have no problem with Mahler at 10.00am.
by CG I guess you're not swayed
If you can't see what they're trying to "imply" what their amps can do, then that's OK by me too.
As too many now are using this "understating the 8ohm wattage" now to present a falsehood of the amp being able to double with each halving of impedance load. This has only crept in, in the last few years but it's growing, as it looks good on paper/ad specs
Well, I just looked at the
Well, I just looked at the published review of a Levinson Number 29 amplifier from April 1991. Guess what? It doesn't double its output power every time you halve the load resistance either. And since the measured output power into 8 Ohms was above what their specified value is (66 Watts versus 50 claimed), they must be (or were) promoting falsehoods, too.
So, this isn't new by any means.
My point is that that by the letter of what both manufacturers claimed, they met their specification. (With the exception of the M15 shutting down at very high power into 2 Ohms.) Both of these amplifiers do double output power every time the load impedance is halved as long as you operate them below their specified maximum (again, the M15 2 Ohm load thing applies here).
Here's the thing - neither manufacturer implied anything beyond what they said. I could be wrong, but in a quick search of the Bricasti literature, I saw nothing that said the M15 would produce even 126 Watts into 8 Ohms. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
So, if anybody is inferring anything, it's the readers of the review.
Also, look into the recent
Submitted by Bogolu Haranath on June 23, 2018 - 7:02am
Also, look into the recent measurements (and review) of Mark Levinson No.536 mono blocks ......... Somewhat similar type of measurement behavior like you describe ........... Unfortunately, measurements for Mark Levinson No.534 are not provided (to date) ............. Also, look into measurements of Progression mono blocks ................
I saw nothing that said the M15 would produce even 126 Watts int
Here as quoted by Stereophile for the manufacturer:
Bricasti specifies the M15 as outputting 125Wpc into 8 ohms (21dBW), 250Wpc into 4 ohms (21dBW), and 500Wpc into 2 ohms (21dBW).
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/bricasti-design-m15-power-amplifier-measurements#mLEJGT6KJqPp7YrE.99
And again in the Manufacturer Specs page:
Sidebar 1: Specifications
Description: Solid-state stereo power amplifier. Inputs: 1 unbalanced (RCA), 1 balanced (XLR). Outputs: 1 pair speaker binding posts. Power output: 125Wpc into 8 ohms, 250Wpc into 4 ohms, 500Wpc into 2 ohms (all 21dBW).
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/bricasti-design-m15-power-amplifier-specifications#gQQyxgYgsGhd2H9w.99
From the amplitude domain to the frequency domain
Submitted by 13DoW on June 23, 2018 - 4:57am
Great discussion on power output specs. Putting on my blue helmet, everyone is right! CG is absolutely correct in his analysis but George has a valid point because "doubling power into halving loads" is something that audiophiles think important, whether or not it is. So, a company massaging their numbers to imply it does fall somewhere in the continuum between "accentuating the positive" and "deceit".
Switching to the frequency domain. Brian Zolner told JVS that the amplifier is "flat to 800kHz". JA's Fig.1 shows that it is actually 200kHz (-3dB) and Fig.6 shows the open loop gain starts to roll off from 1kHz. I would be more impressed if the designer was more aware of the electrical performance than the casework.
13DoW
A considerable source of
A considerable source of distortion with transistors is capacitance that varies with applied signal voltage. Being capacitance, this non-linearity becomes more severe as you go higher in frequency. This alone can cause the distortion curve shape shown in Figure 6, even in amplifier designs that don't use overall loop feedback.
Your conclusion may well be accurate, but it's hard to say for sure.
As for the doubling thing, I think that's hard to pin on the manufacturer. They say that the M15 produces 125 Watts into 8 Ohms. It does that and more, but they only specify 125 Watts. (Not even 126 Watts.) At the power levels they specify, the M15 does double output power as the load halves - with the exception of the 2 Ohm thing. People can infer whatever they want into the spec, but that's on them, not the manufacturer. I don't think that's massaging of any sort.
You can certainly criticize Bricasti over the 2 Ohm issue as well as their flatness claim. The rest falls on the reader(s).
The whole doubling of power into halved loads is one of those urban legend things, at least to me. There's just so many reasons why an amplifier may have less apparent bass than another that you can't put it down to one measure. In many cases, what people call "greater dynamics" is actually just the opposite - the circuit design allows for signal compression, which makes it all sound louder. That approach has been used by guitar peddle builders since they started building pedals. The amplifier power supply often generates much higher noise levels when providing higher current, which can give the illusion of more bass as well.
Are either of these accurate reproduction? Nope. But, if it's pleasing to somebody's ears, it works.
Lots of people genuinely love the sound of SET amplifiers, which tend to compress and distort in a way similar to the way human auditory systems respond to ever louder sounds. There's something to be said for that approach, even if traditional measurements suggest that these amplifiers may not be so great.
The real unfortunate thing is that measurements as done today don't tell the potential customer (or designer!) enough. That's not because audio has some heretofore undiscovered physics behind it all. Instead, it's because the measurement techniques are really not very sophisticated, at least compared to other fields within electronics systems. In many cases, it's not even because the test gear is inadequate. It's because it's used in a way that's misleading or oversimplified. But, that's just the way it's done and has been done.
At this point, my bleating here is adding nothing to anybody's thinking and is just a waste of bits floating about the internet. So, I'm done. Good listening!
The associated equipment used
Submitted by Bogolu Haranath on June 23, 2018 - 10:27am
The associated equipment used with the amplifier(s) also makes a difference in the perceived sound quality ....... So, the moral of the story - "listen for yourself" ......... Of course, the measurements are very important ..............
Measurements must surely be
Measurements must surely be sophisticated enough in this day and age to determine if a good and true amplifier is doing its job i.e. amplify with little noise, alteration to source and do it with sufficient watts within a bandwidth. The basic audio amplifier has hit peak technology and done so for decades. What we're seeing are some manufacturers trying very hard to sell what is basically un-differentiable technology to a not so well informed public. I can sense the confusion and palpable frustration here. Confused customers hold back or they get burnt and it is so strange that those who lament impending doom to this industry are the ones who chart this path.
We have sites on the Web run
Submitted by dalethorn on June 24, 2018 - 5:29am
We have sites on the Web run by people who tear new phones apart and examine every piece, and they tell us as much as they can possibly glean from those observations, as well as any measurements they make. Wouldn't it be great if someone were taking apart expensive amps and speakers etc., and reporting on the quality of the parts and assembly, and whatever else they can discover?
I'll offer just one example of my thinking from the computer business. In 1985, HP introduced the second-generation laptop computer - the first edition being the "110" and the second gen being the "Portable Plus". It cost $3000 in 1985 dollars, or $5000 with 2 mb (not gb) of memory. Disk drives were separate. Mine failed, and spent nearly 3 months in HP's repair shop, while they "couldn't determine" what caused the failure.
We sold the same model to Steve Martin as he was just beginning to start heavy script writing. His also failed. Somehow we found one that worked to keep him up and running. I had good sources inside of HP in those days, and one particular engineer who worked on the project explained: "We had our design, and the bean counters decided that we could "tin-plate" a particular board rather than gold-plate it, and the voltages were low enough that the micro-corrosion was killing them."
So there's a lot that can be learned from tear-downs, especially if someone is using cheaper parts than need be in a high-priced component, on the premise that "it doesn't matter". We have enough good websites to report these teardowns too. But $18k amps, sold in handful quantities, aren't $900 cellphones sold by the millions, so we might never see this happen.
not a fair review
Submitted by Gravlund63 on September 27, 2018 - 4:23am
have just read the review and must say that I can't recognize any of what JVS noticed.
But then again Stereophile didn't like the M28 either ... so I think that the decision was already made before the listening.
So my comment to this review is that you can do better than this.
I'll say ....
Submitted by allhifi on April 12, 2019 - 10:18am
Gravlund63: It's far too generous to suggest Stereophile/fool reviewer's / magazine "can do better than this" (RE: Bricastic amplifier reviews) when in fact they "owe" readers, manufacturer's (the industry at large) a thorough, even-handed, educational/entertaining and sensible reporting.
Both Bricastic amp reviews failed all, equally alike. Just awful, biased and slanted observations that failed to even attempt further investigations and results.
Yet another nail in the coffin of such a flawed publication.
PS Audio Stellar M1200 monoblock power amplifier
Gryphon Essence Mono power amplifier
LKV Veros PWR+ power amplifier
Mark Levinson No.333 power amplifier
Classé Delta Mono monoblock power amplifier
Pass Laboratories Aleph 0 monoblock power amplifier
Parasound Halo JC 1+ monoblock power amplifier
Bel Canto e1X power amplifier
Classé Audio DR-3 power amplifier
Primare A35.2 power amplifier
Parasound Halo A 21+ power amplifier
darTZeel NHB-468 monoblock power amplifier
Accustic Arts Audio Mono II monoblock power amplifier
Schiit Audio Aegir power amplifier
Dynaco Stereo 120 transistor power amplifier
CH Precision M1.1 power amplifier
Recording of February 2021: Newvelle Records Season Five
Complicated Stories
Records to Die For 2021
Revinylization #13: Tone Poet, Analogue Productions, ERC reissues
Fostex M22RP/S M-S microphone
David Bowie: Curated
Analog Corner #290: The Haniwa LP Playback System
Re-Tales #4: Bring service back
January 2021 Classical Record Reviews
January 2021 Jazz Record Reviews
January 2021 Rock/Pop Record Reviews
McIntosh MAC7200 stereo receiver
We need a new word
Gramophone Dreams #44: Audio-Technica, Goldring, LP Gear phono cartridges
Cambridge Audio CXA81 integrated amplifier
Fleer's setup
TOWNSHEND ALLEGRI REFERENCE PREAMPLIFIER
Latest progress w/ room treatment
Tekton Ulfberhts w/ Two 4-10s
My Humble Vintage System
My Home Setup
My listening Room/Home Theater
My workstation audio setup
Acoustic Geometry Room treatments (before & after)
My system
My current and likely the last home audio setup
Mono R2R with the modern setup
Fascinating wiev by Verity Audio Sarastro
Recording of January 2021: Rainbow Sign
Stereophile's Products of 2020
Recording of December 2020: Christmas Vibes
Recording of November 2020: What's Next Vivaldi?
Recommended Components: Fall 2020 Edition
Recording of October 2020: Rough and Rowdy Ways
Recording of September 2020: Pick Me Up Off the Floor
Recording of August 2020: Live at Funkhaus Berlin
Recording of July 2020: Earth
Recording of June 2020: Ešenvalds: Translations


text:
You are here: Business > Technology, Media and Telecom >
Experts back commercialization of Vodafone's 5G network with Huawei as main supplier
People are seen at the booth of mobile company Vodafone at the 2019 Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona, Spain, Feb. 25, 2019. [Photo/Xinhua]
British telecommunications giant Vodafone's 5G rollout in Spain in cooperation with Chinese telecom company Huawei gained support from experts and industry insiders, who said the technology will revolutionize the way we live.
Huawei is the principal provider in the rollout which saw 5G become a reality in 15 Spanish cities from Saturday, making Spain one of the first European countries to have the ultrafast mobile network in Europe.
"5G means immediacy, high speed and low latency (which is the time that passes between the sending and reception of information)," explained Fernando Tricas, an assistant professor in the Department of Computer Science and Systems Engineering at the University of Zaragoza, which is one of the cities where 5G is now available.
"5G and its immediacy will be vital, for example, for a doctor who is carrying out an operation at distance. It will be as if you were there and 'hands on,'" he added.
Luis Furnells, executive president of Spanish technology group 'Oesia,' said: "We are entering a new era in which everything -- people, contraptions and objects -- are going to be connected at any place and any moment."
"This new situation is going to see digital technology providers open new mobility services, which will mean a big change and an important advance in society," he said.
Alicia Asin, co-founder and chief executive of Libelium, a Spanish company which makes technology for smart cities, told Xinhua that 5G has three main advantages over 4G.
"It's faster; there is a greater network density to allow better connectivity in cities, where there will be more devices, and thirdly, the latency time is lower," she said.
Asin explained that the low latency times will make real-time operations possible, which will allow for distance operations and other virtual reality applications.
On Vodafone's cooperation with Huawei, Tricas said there are "very few network providers which are in the vanguard and Huawei is one of them."
The idea is shared by Daniel Sarasa, a Smart Cities Program manager with Zaragoza's local authority, who said Huawei has "an excellent position in the infrastructure market in Spain."
"There is a great deal of protectionism in the measures the United States are adopting against Huawei, because Huawei is treading on their heels," Sarasa said, adding that "many telecommunications operators are still working with Huawei and that says something."
With the launch of commercial 5G mobile services, Vodafone has become the first operator to make 5G services available to Spanish customers.
Tricas said he expected the technology to be "more available in around a year."
"At the moment there are only four or five companies -- all of which are high end -- which have 5G compatible smartphones on the market, and that means only a few people can buy them because they are expensive," he said.
In Zaragoza, said Sarasa, the first areas where 5G is available are streets in the business district "where we predict there will be intensive users or 'early adopters.'"
It is expected that more phones will be become available in the near future, as clients become aware of the quantum leap in technology which is now available to them, experts said.


text:
Lambayeque megye Peru egyik megyéje, az ország északnyugati részén található a Csendes-óceán partján. Székhelye Chiclayo.

Földrajz
Lambayeque megye Peru északnyugati részén helyezkedik el, területének legnagyobb része partvidéki vagy pampákkal borított síkság vagy alacsony dombság. Délnyugaton a Csendes-óceánnal, északnyugaton és északon Piura, keleten Cajamarca, délen pedig egy rövid szakaszon La Libertad megyével határos.

Tartományai
A megye 3 tartományra van osztva:
Chiclayo
Ferreñafe
Lambayeque

Népesség
A megye népessége a közelmúltban folyamatosan növekedett:

Képek

Források

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Total Population 1881 to 1951: Population grew from 81 in 1881 to 196 in 1951.
F. Youngs, Local Administrative Units: Northern England (London: Royal Historical Society, 1991), p. 330.
HADSTON Preferred English F. Youngs, Local Administrative Units: Northern England (London: Royal Historical Society, 1991), p. 330.
HADSTONE Alternate English 1911 Census of England and Wales, Table 5, 'Registration Counties, Districts and Sub-districts with their constituent civil parishes. - Urban or Rural District in which each parish is situated; Area; families or separate occupiers, and population, 1901 and 1911; and population enumerated in Institutions, large establishments, and on vessels, &c., 1911'.
was succeeded by HADSTON EP Ecclesiastical Parish F. Youngs, Local Administrative Units: Northern England (London: Royal Historical Society, 1991), p. 330.
NORTHUMBERLAND Ancient County F. Youngs, Local Administrative Units: Northern England (London: Royal Historical Society, 1991), p. 330.
MORPETH PLU/RegD Poor Law Union/Reg. District 1866 F. Youngs, Local Administrative Units: Northern England (London: Royal Historical Society, 1991), p. 330.
MORPETH RD Local Government District 1955 F. Youngs, Local Administrative Units: Northern England (London: Royal Historical Society, 1991), p. 330.
MORPETH RSD Sanitary District F. Youngs, Local Administrative Units: Northern England (London: Royal Historical Society, 1991), p. 330.
MORPETH Wd Ancient District F. Youngs, Local Administrative Units: Northern England (London: Royal Historical Society, 1991), p. 330.
WARKWORTH CP/AP Parish-level Unit F. Youngs, Local Administrative Units: Northern England (London: Royal Historical Society, 1991), p. 330.
GB Historical GIS / University of Portsmouth, Hadston Tn/CP through time | Census tables with data for the Parish-level Unit, A Vision of Britain through Time.


text:
← CO2 and temperature don't correlate
Cameron's dilemma →
Busting the EU Myths
Posted on February 11, 2016	by rogeroffice
If you're undecided on the Brexit question, I hope this will help you to make up your mind. And if (as I hope) you're campaigning for Brexit, this may help with some of the most frequently-asked questions.
"If we leave, there'll be 3½ million jobs at risk". Not true. The jobs depend on trade, not membership, and the trade will continue. We buy far more from the EU than they buy from us – so if 3½ million UK jobs depend on EU/UK trade, it follows that five or six million continental jobs depend on it too. They need us. We should be worrying about the jobs we're losing now, as a result of EU membership. Ask the steel workers, who lost their jobs because of the EU's energy policies, and failure to counter Chinese dumping.
"We need to be in the Single Market for trade". Not true. The largest sources of imports into the EU are Russia, China and the USA. They're not members of the Single Market – they don't even have preferential trade deals. Yet they sell huge quantities of goods into the Single Market. Dozens of countries around the world trade successfully with Europe – and so will Britain after Brexit.
"Even if we leave, we'll still be subject to EU rules". Not true. Pro-EU campaigners constantly talk about "the Norwegian model". But Norway is a quasi-associate-member of the EU. After Brexit, the UK will be an independent nation, like Canada or the USA or China or South Korea. They don't obey EU rules. Nor will we.
"We need the EU because the UK is too small to negotiate trade deals alone". Not true. Little Switzerland and tiny Iceland have managed to set up their own trade deals with China – but neither UK nor EU has a China trade deal. The USA has bilateral trade deals with 20 countries, and every one of those countries has a smaller economy than the UK. As a G7 country, the UK is well able to make its own trade deals.
"The EU is vital for our security". Not true. The EU is the problem, not the solution. EU open borders have allowed terrorists and eastern European crime syndicates free access to our country. "Free movement of people" appears to include free movement of jihadists and Kalashnikovs. Security starts with proper border control.
"We'll lose the benefit of police cooperation in Europol". But the EU already extends police cooperation to 18 non-member countries. It is inconceivable that that would not extend to UK. And of course we still have Interpol.
"Even after Brexit, we won't be able to control immigration". Yes we will – as an island nation, we can control our borders. But if we stay in, we can expect Germany to give EU passports to a million migrants, who can come and live on a street near you. The EU is keen to admit Turkey, which would be the biggest and poorest EU state, allowing 75 million Turks the right to come to the UK.
"Business leaders say we should stay in". Many do – but many say the opposite. And many who say they want to stay in, like the big banks, are subject to EU commission influence and patronage.
Britain will be Better Off Out.
34 Responses to Busting the EU Myths
foxbarn says:
Spot on Roger, as always.
Mike Stallard says:
Dr Richard North, one of the most clued up commentators on the EU there is, wrote the 410 page Flexcit to describe how we can leave the EU painlessly, thoughtfully and without hurting ourselves – or the EU either.
Nobody has read it because
a.) it is far too long.
b.) Dr North is often quite abrasive on his blog.
I have written a digest which takes just 10 minutes to read and it does really clear the air.
Just e mail me. It is free to download.
stallard495@btinternet.com
The problem with North's solution, apart from it being much too long to digest easily, is that it would lead to the UK not actually seeing any changes in the main issues that most of those wanting to leave would want, such as the control on immigration. I think that Roger's arguments are spot on. We should negotiate from the strength that we undoubtedly have.
North's plan doesn't solve immigration. Therefore it's a non-starter, since immigration is the single biggest issue on the doorstep.
Ex-expat Colin says:
I wasn't undecided about joining an "EEC", but I missed the big trick. I am very decided about getting out of this EU mess though. I don't want to be better off(?) from what I give them…I'll just keep it and conduct my own lunches!
Chris Monckton today having asked 10 "climate cr*p" questions on WUWT:
Millions die worldwide every year because they do not have cheap, clean, continuous, low-tech, coal-fired electricity, to replace the wood, grass and animal dung fires they must use to cook their food and heat their homes. Given the growing and flagrant discrepancies between prediction and observation that we have revealed here for the first time, the moral case for defunding the profiteers of climate doom and redeploying the money to give coal-fired light and heat to the world's poorest people is overwhelming.
We are killing millions of parents and children today, based on a scientifically baseless goal of saving thousands who are not at risk "the day after tomorrow.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/10/the-profiteers-of-climate-doom/
The big issue is surely this: the EU isn't a secure, established structure that we can rely on (whether we like it or not). It's a process, a journey to a destination that gets less attractive with each year that passes. Staying in the EU is "a leap into the unknown". Independence, on the other hand, is well understood, and the natural condition for a great trading nation like the UK.
You saw QT last night Roger? The tory Stephen Crabb (SoS for Wales) tells us that whether we like it or not the world is on the move. Also, whether we have controlled or uncontrolled immigration Brexit will not solve the world "immigrating" problem. Well, its not tourism..is it? I was always under the impression that control meant…err..um control. Are we to expect the world to move to the West therefore? Sounds like it. With our newer living wage the worlds immigrants are not likely to stay in the permanently dead european southern states I'd say…see Greece for one.
Nigel was right about congestion…M25, M6 and of course since our manufacturing is fairly ruined the roads in Kent going north are rammed with european trucks. See the Highways Agency live map. Brexit won't solve this stuff in an instant but the drivers of these problems have to disabled starting with Brexit.
They keep on about immigrants benefiting the NHS… so what? Many of us benefit that and all other services/businesses both in UK and the World. We need an NHS, but not quite this one now.
Fortunately Nigel was there to emit common sense. 1 against 5, add the naive bunch in the audience?
I have taken the CBC here to task for never discussing the other side of the climate doom story, I'm taking a guess this is also never discussed on UK media either.
The Emperor's New Clothes syndrome is contagious to say the least.
No… its not. Is all on the least worry/don't care list. Probably got an EU High Representative floating about with some sort of weak hand wringing to do. Nothing happens!
catalanbrian says:
More tosh from the "out" brigade; those little Englanders who just don't like Johnny Foreigner and everything he stands for. I just dread the negative effects that exiting the UK will have on the UK.
ian wragg says:
As you don't live here no one is particularly bothered about what you think.
Your probably worried your funding from Brussels will dry up.
Are you a friend of Peter van Leuwen per chance.
Johnny Foreigner…WTF!! I'll certainly enjoy my multiple lunches once away from the EU. Europe…doubt any god can help that freaking mess!
Tosh, Brian? OK. Tell me where I got it wrong. Try some debate, instead of generalised abuse. If I don't like Johnny Foreigner, how come I work with foreigners today and hire foreigners to work in my office? How come I spent a dozen years in Asia, including four years running a business where I was the only Westerner? When will you recognise that your "Little Englanders" are, in fact, Greater Worlders — and that you are the Little European?
Jeff Taylor says:
Geography, England is a part of the UK and the initials 'UKIP' tells you what the party stands for- you should consult a map prior to issuing such garbage. As an aside, would you call members of the SNP little Scotlanders or members of Plaid Cymru little Welsh people?
catweazle666 says:
"Little Englanders…Johnny Foreigners…"
YAWN… that your best shot, you pathetic little troll?
Boring, boring, boring.
And utter unmitigated drivel to boot.
Brin Jenkins says:
What is tosh in your opinion Brian?
I think we will be much better off out if we survive the immigration crisis, and that I have grave doubts over now.
Ian Terry says:
Straight to the point Roger no misunderstanding.
Hopefully the out group will deliver the same co-ordinated approach
Common sense as always and all points made in an easily understood way. Well done Roger!
Good article, I hope to god we vote leave. I can't imagine anyone wanting to stay unless they have a personal vested interest – and those people must be very few in the population at large.
Your NHS:
A married human resources director who was called a "whore" and then sacked after she spurned the advances of her NHS boss was awarded more than £800,000 in compensation yesterday
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12153238/NHS-executive-who-was-sacked-after-turning-down-her-boss-is-awarded-832000-compensation.html
More arched against a wall,,,but who cares for ordinary people really? HR folk, no problem and no injury really! Its just a simple and large measure of contempt for the people of UK.
A lottery win. Outrageous.
Outrageous, this is money NOT being spent on caring for patients because you can bet your boots this moron of a 'boss' won't be made to cough up the dosh. I last worked in the NHS 16 years ago and during my twenty years working up the sharp end, on the wards, we were never valued any where near as much as those who pushed paper around all day. I dread to think what moral is like now.
pirate3012 says:
We need to be in the Single Market for trade. Not true … but is it sensible not to be in the EEA?
This link would advise against it and I agree. It is playing into the hands of the remains.
http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128
I don't care if the day after we leave looks exactly like the day before. The important thing is to win the referendum, step 1. We are more likely to win if we can offer a safe and sure exit plan. Once we are out we can consider step 2. But without a vote to leave we are stuffed and I think you should ensure the undecideds don't see leaving as a leap in the dark, which remaining undoubtedly is. All the arguments are on our side, the remains have only mood music.
But I could see a UK/EU free trade area gradually becoming a European free trade area (NOT a customs union) as more EU member-states opt to follow the UK move,
Why has UKIP failed to point up the fact Cameron's 4year benefit withdrawal cannot be imposed unless he gets EU permission to do so PLUS they and not our elected reps can call a halt to the emergency as THEY see fit?
NHS again:
"Whistleblower doctor wins £1.2mn in damages over false 'sex pervert' accusations by hospital bosses"
https://www.rt.com/uk/332292-whistleblower-doctor-damages-pervert/
Thats apart from:
PFI rip off
Procurement fraud
Anything else?..probably!
I'd certainly do something about their contracts…all of them. And particularly those that drew them up in the past.
"Kind hearted ex-Kidderminster bin man's retirement gift to charity"
http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/14274999.Kind_hearted_ex_Kidderminster_bin_man___s_retirement_gift_to_charity/
The last paragraph ..no Govt or Lottery money for Heli pads. And the EU? The Lottery is a con and was mentioned on QT last week…art galleries and the like? The hospitals and GP services are poor but never mind that…just milk it!
Pingback: EU Myth Buster | UKIP Richmond (Yorks)
I get the feeling that those of us male non believers need to be disposed of, because the daddy's and their medieval belief…believes so! Maybe not all…but enough to disrupt modern societies
Don't get this on the UK cr*p media do we?
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7423/germany-migrant-crisis
Oil and water will never mix.
These youngsters have been brainwashed since birth and I doubt they will change their views and this way of thinking will be passed on their children.
My comment above was in reply to Colin's video……
catweazle….that article makes depressing reading. People must soon rise and defend themselves and their way of life or they are doomed. Their so called leaders are traitors and must be tried as such.
Pingback: Daily debrief April 28th | Roger Helmer MEP
Pingback: Remain in EU gets increasingly desperate |


text:
Q: Limit of $n(1-U_{n:n})$. Let $U_{n:n}$ be n-th order statistic of uniform distribution on segment [0,1].
Let's think about $n(1-U_{n:n})$. I'm supposed to find its limit for n approaching $\infty$. And another question is: how it converges? By probability? Almost surely? I'd appreciate your help.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange