john curl said:
Yeah, we've seen that excuse before.
What is it with these so-called physicists who sell stuff to audiophiles who never seem to want to explain anything? I mean, that's ultimately what physicists do is explain things. Why is it that once they start selling to audiophiles, they suddenly get out of the explaining business?
se
thylantyr said:
You'd do even better to take lessons from The Amazing Randi. You'll see some spooky similarities between the charlatans he exposes and the audio frauds like the guy with the magic ceramics, the guy with the magic goop, and the guy with the jar full of rocks.
An excellent topolgy can sound mediocre, a mediocre topology can sound excellent and of course, how it should be: vice versa!
Therefore, I strongly believe: The sonic quality of any product/design depends on how seamless every single aspect (topology, components, power supply, casing etc.) has been integrated and adjusted.
advance
Therefore, I strongly believe: The sonic quality of any product/design depends on how seamless every single aspect (topology, components, power supply, casing etc.) has been integrated and adjusted.
advance
You people are ignorant on this subject. These are minerals that have special properties, just like many specific minerals have in many applications. For example, MICA is a mineral, it is also a 'rock'. We make caps with mica, but not necessarily with any rocks that lie around.
Steve's minerals are put in a container of some kind to contain them. Maybe a sandwitch bag would do, but a jar might be more stable and even more attractive.
I know a number of inventive people, who often have strong backgrounds in mathematics or physics. Engineers seem to be too biased to reach out for anything that might work in a particular situation. They usually need the support of a textbook explanation, to use anything new.
This is probably why we often say that engineers are 'trained' and physicists are 'educated'.
Steve's minerals are put in a container of some kind to contain them. Maybe a sandwitch bag would do, but a jar might be more stable and even more attractive.
I know a number of inventive people, who often have strong backgrounds in mathematics or physics. Engineers seem to be too biased to reach out for anything that might work in a particular situation. They usually need the support of a textbook explanation, to use anything new.
This is probably why we often say that engineers are 'trained' and physicists are 'educated'.
john curl said:
Gee, John, you say that Geoff doesn't want to explain anything about the subject and then you tell people they're ignorant on the subject. Rather a Catch-22 there isn't it? Or do you just like calling people ignorant?
So? Peter Belt sells foils and creams and pens which have "special properties" too. Hell, a booger has special properties. So what? Anyone can invoke the phrase "special properties."
Steve's? I thought they were Geoff's?
And physicists just swallow anything that's fed to them without question? And we're supposed to swallow anything without question just because someone claims to be a physicist?
se
SY said:
Well it seems that Geoff likes to explain things after all. Here's the "white paper" on the "Brilliant Pebbles."
Brilliant Pebbles - Theory of Operation
Enjoy.
se
Steve Eddy said:
There's no explanation at all there, no theory of operation. Just a rather garbled and incorrect "explanation" of thermal vibrations in crystals followed by some unsupported assertions. I'll poke around the site a bit more, but I have limited patience for this sort of nonsense.
EDIT: I ran a quick search at USPTO for Geoff or Geoffrey Kait. No results- he's apparently never patented anything.
Pjotr said:Com’on Steve,
Not so sour, here is a brilliant and “solid scientific” explanation:
Brilliant Pebbles - Theory of Operation
Ummmm, Pjotr, take a look three posts above yours.
se
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.