Thanks, John. I love hearing such 'inside the industry' anecdotal stories. It would be great to hear more such personal stories from yourself and other long time insiders. It provides an interesting perspective as to how the history and culture of this hobby, if I may call it that, has developed.
That's my only real criticism of him. It's important to recant things when they are mistaken rather than let them hang out there after others have dismantled them.
Well you are not listening, his math was proved wrong. My take on what I read is that he attributed real information/power to purely imaginary parts of the solutions.
Last edited:
It might not be the maths, but the interpretation of the results of the maths. If I set up an equation, based on certain beliefs or assumptions, then solve that equation my solution may be perfectly correct as a solution of that equation but whether it models reality depends on the truth of my assumptions.
For example, I vaguely remember reading a Hawksford paper about noise in BJT bases. He calculated the noise, assuming that the discrete nature of electrons would create statistical fluctuations. His calculation may well have been perfect, but it was based on the false assumption that the electrons acted independently when in fact in a conductor or semiconductor they are reasonably well correlated. If not, we would get shot noise from wires and partition noise from circuit junctions! Apologies if I have remembered his argument incorrectly - it was a while ago.
For example, I vaguely remember reading a Hawksford paper about noise in BJT bases. He calculated the noise, assuming that the discrete nature of electrons would create statistical fluctuations. His calculation may well have been perfect, but it was based on the false assumption that the electrons acted independently when in fact in a conductor or semiconductor they are reasonably well correlated. If not, we would get shot noise from wires and partition noise from circuit junctions! Apologies if I have remembered his argument incorrectly - it was a while ago.
Here's a more simple example of that truth which I like to use. Ask a scientist, or any one with some formal math education the following question. If you have two apples and take away three apples, how many apples do you now have? After the suspicious look they will likely give you the answer invariable will be, negative one apple. Then, go and ask a five year old child this same question and they will likely give you an equally suspicious look, but the answer will be very different. A five year old will tell you that this is not possible. That you cannot take away more apples than you had to begin with.
That scientist, like most of us who are more than five years of age, has been taught to think abstractly while a five year old still thinks concretely. Of course, mathematically abstract thinking has enabled many new concepts, from engineering to finance (not all of them good). The problem is that reality doesn't care about such abstract notions developed by human beings. The five year old is right and the scientist is wrong. You cannot have a negative apple.
The notion of a negative apple, or a negative anything else, only exists as a human intellectual contemplation. Such human notions do not dictate reality, they can help to describe and predict reality, so long as we do not forget that the two are not one in the same and we become confused about whitch dictates the other. Too many scientists and engineers, IMHO, loose sight of this basic truth, particularly as the math being contemplated becomes increasingly abstract. A behavioral dynamic which seems apparent within the theoretical physics community today.
Last edited:
Again with that lie.
I have not criticised Malcolm Hawksford. I find his later works to be refreshingly brilliant.
You are confusing me with the plethora of scientists, professors, and physicists who actually called him some very derogatory things in print. And within that print, they did not even bother to correct the obvious flaws.
I on the other hand, detailed clearly and at length, his flaws in understanding, methodology, results, and conclusions. Step by step, item by item. You ignored them, as did he.
His essex echo article was full of errors. You in fact pointed out that his measurement attempt used a steel wire of permeability 100. Unfortunately, he neglected the increase in inductance within the conductors caused by that permeability, AND the fact that he used magnetic wire to achieve that bad waveform was not stated within the article. Without knowing that he used magnetic wire, a casual reader would not know of the fatal flaw.
I offered to him via e-mail, the possibility of re-doing the test with a better understanding of what it takes to perform high current slew rate measurements. At the time, I believe I even offered to construct another extremely low inductance current viewing resistor to assist in the endeavor...at that time I was able to construct 250 picohenry resistors, I've since improved on that.
His test setup had some very significant design flaws which I pointed out. To date, neither you nor him have acknowledged those errors, nor the methods to prevent them which are industrywide nowadays.
You do still, however, continue to create a new history which suits your inclinations.
Cheers, John
Last edited:
Different people come to different conclusions based on the same evidence. That happens here among PhD's as well.
Let me give a couple of examples:
Dr. Hawksford developed an elaborate theory on wires based on Maxwell's Equations.
In the end, he found a 'glitch' that could be created under some circumstances that would normally be ignored.
He modeled his theory of wires with Mat Lab or some such professional program and got the equivalent picture of what might look like an oscilloscope photo.
Then he proceeded to make an ELABORATE physical experiment that would MAGNIFY the 'glitch' to the point where it could actually be seen on an oscilloscope screen, AND he got virtually similar results as predicted by his theory and emulation.
What is the problem then? [we will leave that for further discussion]
Second, I make a series of DA in cap measurements using analog subtraction, and using instrumentation op amp designed by Scott Wurcer. Walt Jung and I published published our results in 1986 or so. Later, in print, Dr. L said about my work:
"(paraphrased) My math is correct, my measurements are correct, BUT my conclusions are NOT correct, because almost all caps sound basically the same with an ABX test."
This is science? Do measurements count? Does subjective hearing count? Or does 'objective hearing testing TRUMP both measurements and what people report hearing?
Let me give a couple of examples:
Dr. Hawksford developed an elaborate theory on wires based on Maxwell's Equations.
In the end, he found a 'glitch' that could be created under some circumstances that would normally be ignored.
He modeled his theory of wires with Mat Lab or some such professional program and got the equivalent picture of what might look like an oscilloscope photo.
Then he proceeded to make an ELABORATE physical experiment that would MAGNIFY the 'glitch' to the point where it could actually be seen on an oscilloscope screen, AND he got virtually similar results as predicted by his theory and emulation.
What is the problem then? [we will leave that for further discussion]
Second, I make a series of DA in cap measurements using analog subtraction, and using instrumentation op amp designed by Scott Wurcer. Walt Jung and I published published our results in 1986 or so. Later, in print, Dr. L said about my work:
"(paraphrased) My math is correct, my measurements are correct, BUT my conclusions are NOT correct, because almost all caps sound basically the same with an ABX test."
This is science? Do measurements count? Does subjective hearing count? Or does 'objective hearing testing TRUMP both measurements and what people report hearing?
Were there really numerous critics? I have to appologize in that I probably got my comment from one of them, and yes they didn't bother to explain much. Are your comments in print anywhere?
I think most scientists know the difference between apples and numbers. Sometimes these 'impossible' negative numbers have real meaning. That is how Paul Dirac predicted antimatter, when he found that solutions to his equation for the electron had an infinite number of negative energies. In effect, these were 'holes' but not in a semiconductor but the vacuum itself. We now call them positrons.
I suspect Hawksford had just 'discovered' the internal impedance of a wire. The energy storage he mentions is just internal inductance. The 'time smearing' is just the linear effect of a filter.
I suspect Hawksford had just 'discovered' the internal impedance of a wire. The energy storage he mentions is just internal inductance. The 'time smearing' is just the linear effect of a filter.
Yeah, but they're scattered all over the place. Would be nice if he could write it all down so it could be put in a single PDF that could be made readily available.
se
When I fit the measurements to Pease's model the fit could be made arbitrarily good, no one seemed interested in those results. In most cases a completely linear R-C network accounted for the measurements, and the in circuit frequency response deviations were far below a .1dB threshold.
People got attached to the concept of "memory" or "echo" caused by DA, and the rest is history.
Last edited:
Hi Scott, I HAVE a copy of your initial computer simulation, (more than 25 years ago) do you have it?
Of course, the MODEL, which comes from Dow, (or one of his colleagues) in the 1950's, not Pease (he just used it), is a LINEAR MODEL. That is why we normally do not measure any non-linear distortion from DA itself.
However, let us say that we have 10 stages in a reproduction system and each is cap coupled to each other in series. What if EACH cap has 5-10% DA? (Yes, I measured caps this bad) What would be the sonic result? Reverb? A special effect? '-)
Of course, the MODEL, which comes from Dow, (or one of his colleagues) in the 1950's, not Pease (he just used it), is a LINEAR MODEL. That is why we normally do not measure any non-linear distortion from DA itself.
However, let us say that we have 10 stages in a reproduction system and each is cap coupled to each other in series. What if EACH cap has 5-10% DA? (Yes, I measured caps this bad) What would be the sonic result? Reverb? A special effect? '-)
First, it is important to present the evidence. The article written provided no actual information which would have allowed anybody to duplicate the test.
The article as written should not be misconstrued as "evidence", it is not.
Actually, he used the planar wave equation to calculate the depth penetration of an em wave into a planar surface. He did not do so for a cylindrical conductor carrying current.
He built a test setup, and used a scope to look at the current. What he did not consider was the severe problems associated with very low impedance circuits and high dI/dt. Since he had no experience with such demanding tests, he was unaware of what he actually got as a waveform.
As I stated, I have encountered such a waveform myself using a 250 micro-ohm CVR, and detailed how to remove the field collapse generated voltage by way of symmetry.
problem?? no problemo...
1. Use of a planar wave equation to calculate the amount of energy returned to the system when the current is turned off INSTEAD of the calculation of the system inductance is incorrect. He attributed the inductive kick at the end to a storage mechanism within the wires as a result of a planar e/m wave equation. His more serious detractors stated that wave penetration into a conductor ends as losses, not energy that ends up kicking back like an inductor.
2. Use of a wire with a permeability of 100 instead of the copper wire alluded to in the article means that he neglected the internal inductance of the wire, that is 15 nH per foot times 100, or 1.5 uH per foot, 3 uH per foot for a wire pair as he described testing. For a meter long run, he will neglect about 10 uH of inductance. Fast turn-off of a sine will result in an inductive final kick EXACTLY as he showed on his scope photo. You know, the one with no indicators as to amplitude or timebase.
3. Measuring any high rate of change current in a very low impedance circuit requires attention to details. The most important aspect of a current viewing resistor is the field storage of the resistor, and whether or not the v taps see the field ala Faraday's law of induction. When the reactance of the viewed circuit at a slew rate swamps the resistive drop of the current, and is ignored, the results MUST be suspect.
It also doesn't help that the article was published in 1985, immediately duplicated by the magazine's owner (I believe this was JA's statement) with results which in NO way supported Malcolm's results. To this day, his poorly documented results have never been confirmed by any human.
It's what, 26 years now?
Cheers, jn
Antimatter??? Shirley you jest...sheer folly...next, it's angels and demons...
The Alpha collaboration at CERN is still going strong...so far, they've quenched their antimatter bottle over 10,000 times...the darn thing's like a timex watch...takes a licking but keeps on ticking...
I am confident in this assessment..
Whaddya expect...it was all written by a scatterbrain..
Way back in the day, I expressed my disdain at writing a honkin paper solely to discredit another individual's work..I prefer the individual revisit it, and expressed to malcolm my willingness to assist in that wherever I could. I only discuss the fatal flaws in that paper if and when somebody claims it as factual. In this particular case, JC also made a false statement about me, so I felt compelled to post to set the record straight.
Cheers, jn
ps. I have attached the test setup provided by Malcolm in the original article. Note where the difference is being taken from. Note the statement "external magnetic field".. and note that if there is 10 uH of inductance within the loop that is neglected, the output will not be null.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.