That's been discussed quite a few times before, at least the Second Law part. His claim of increased electron velocities breaks the First Law prima facie. He's got a perpetual motion machine, no wonder it's classified!
While we're on the "breaks all known laws of physics" kick, his claims also violate the Pauli principle, Fermi statistics, and the Shannon theorem.
While we're on the "breaks all known laws of physics" kick, his claims also violate the Pauli principle, Fermi statistics, and the Shannon theorem.
I still have no idea why a single tone distortion test would replace or be easier than testing for dropouts of ALL signals below a certain attenuated level, be they noise, distortion, or fundamental tone. If you make such terse comments I'll never understand what you are getting at. Are we even talking about the same thing? I don't know.
It won't take you long to do the calculation. After all, if you can understand all that wonderful "quantized superconductivity" and "nanotube" and "ballistic tunneling" stuff, it should be trivially easy to see qualitatively what the solution looks like. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't just regurgitating some buzzwords you read somewhere.
Still following the thread with a great interest and amusement.
So much energy is spent to expose just another charlatan.
To add to the amusement I want to repost the link here. This is a excerpt from Langmuir's classic lecture at GE called "pathological science"
Takes 5 min to read, you would not be disapointed
Langmuir Talk - Middle Part
So much energy is spent to expose just another charlatan.
To add to the amusement I want to repost the link here. This is a excerpt from Langmuir's classic lecture at GE called "pathological science"
Takes 5 min to read, you would not be disapointed
Langmuir Talk - Middle Part
Let's stick to the subject OK. You were proving to me why the lab test I suggested would not be appropriate. I'm allowing you to show it not only to me but to everyone else here. Even if I understood what you were getting at, which I don't, I'm sure others here would also like an explanation they can understand. Think about explaining it for their benefit, if not for mine. You have the microphone. Proceed.
Sy,
It is hard to express it, but this round-about put a smile on my face.
On the other issues, I don't see how a claim to reduce noise violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, the excess energy should go to heat.
As to sorting out the noise and entropy decreasing re: the second law, that is to me a different issue.
As to the claim of increased velocity of propagation, that is easy to test. Time domain reflectometers (TDRs) would show the change. Lacking one a square wave with a fast scope would do.
The issue I have trouble with is people confusing circuit theory with reality. There is more than L, R and C if you look closely enough.
But the real burning issue is when listening to a Bybee device what wine goes best?
ES
SY, it seems silly that one has to bring in credentials when explaining something but I have presented a paper on quantum entanglement at a major engineering conference in 2005, attended by defense contractors and NASA. Not that it makes me an expert of course. But it sure seems dismissive of you to assume I'm just a wanna-be because I don't wear it on my sleeve like you do. I would say you now owe not only Mr. Bybee, but myself as well, an apology. But knowing your general disposition waiting for that would be the same as waiting for hell to freeze over.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.