Nordic,
The surface area ratio may or may not be pertinent. In a cable carrying signal, only the outer surface of any wire is actually using the surrounding dielectric. The remaining internal wires and their surfaces, in a Litz bundle, are blocked from "seeing" that surrounding dielectric. This is true for bare copper wire. May be less true for a dielectric coated wire used in a Litz bundle, and no one that I have spoken to will hazard what might be true when the Litz bundle is used at or below ground potential for an aledged storage event.
Certainly the same "signal mirror" of the true ground plane is not occurring with the Litz. But, since a ground plane has motile electrons flying around on it, in opposition to the plus side signal events occurring next to it, there has to be an electron storage event gong on during these signal events.
True Litz is determined by it having a total surface area at least 10 times that found in a thermally equivalent solid core wire, using the common circular mils formula, so the 140 turns of # 40 I use, is thermally equivalent to #15 wire and it has 13 times the surface area. I don't know about rivaling a true poured instrument style ground plane for surface area though.
Bud
The surface area ratio may or may not be pertinent. In a cable carrying signal, only the outer surface of any wire is actually using the surrounding dielectric. The remaining internal wires and their surfaces, in a Litz bundle, are blocked from "seeing" that surrounding dielectric. This is true for bare copper wire. May be less true for a dielectric coated wire used in a Litz bundle, and no one that I have spoken to will hazard what might be true when the Litz bundle is used at or below ground potential for an aledged storage event.
Certainly the same "signal mirror" of the true ground plane is not occurring with the Litz. But, since a ground plane has motile electrons flying around on it, in opposition to the plus side signal events occurring next to it, there has to be an electron storage event gong on during these signal events.
True Litz is determined by it having a total surface area at least 10 times that found in a thermally equivalent solid core wire, using the common circular mils formula, so the 140 turns of # 40 I use, is thermally equivalent to #15 wire and it has 13 times the surface area. I don't know about rivaling a true poured instrument style ground plane for surface area though.
Bud
Greg,
An even more curious suggestion, would be a tripartite ground plane, composed of lead, copper and titanium.
Slow, medium and fast electrons!!!!!
Then you could use tapes made of differing dielectrics and widths and "tape to taste".
IIIIIIEEEEEeeeee!!!!!!!!!
Actually a center pole piece covering sheet of copper, connected to the negative speaker terminal, with a voice coil made from Nomex would be suitable, shorting or non shorting, and no taping to taste.
Ah well, we all knew the foolishness underlying all of this would get loose sooner or later.....
Bud
An even more curious suggestion, would be a tripartite ground plane, composed of lead, copper and titanium.
Slow, medium and fast electrons!!!!!
Then you could use tapes made of differing dielectrics and widths and "tape to taste".
IIIIIIEEEEEeeeee!!!!!!!!!
Actually a center pole piece covering sheet of copper, connected to the negative speaker terminal, with a voice coil made from Nomex would be suitable, shorting or non shorting, and no taping to taste.
Ah well, we all knew the foolishness underlying all of this would get loose sooner or later.....
Bud
Bud P:
nope Moray was
to all: regarding the books I recommended, understanding basic electro-statics is a must prior to understanding basic electro-dynamics. And unless you have a couple of university level intro courses to Calculus, pretty much impossible to mathematically "figure out". And the solutions don't have much meaning in a "macro" sense, only a "micro" sense, so providing examples from everyday life may not be the most suitable.
I'd urge any who want some basic guidelines and a good physics overview look for "Halliday and Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics. A great book, not neccessarily all Calculus based. A description is here
ok, too much thinking...not enough music....
nope Moray was
to all: regarding the books I recommended, understanding basic electro-statics is a must prior to understanding basic electro-dynamics. And unless you have a couple of university level intro courses to Calculus, pretty much impossible to mathematically "figure out". And the solutions don't have much meaning in a "macro" sense, only a "micro" sense, so providing examples from everyday life may not be the most suitable.
I'd urge any who want some basic guidelines and a good physics overview look for "Halliday and Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics. A great book, not neccessarily all Calculus based. A description is here
ok, too much thinking...not enough music....
Dave, et al...
I wasn't trying to behave like a "math snob" 'cause I'm not.
But vector calculus and 3rd order partial differential equations can be a handfull for many who have been educated in them. I was only trying to point out that besides an "understanding" of the physics, some serious mathematics is required to actually attempt to solve some of the equations and problems in E-M theory. That's all. And I'm certainly not an authority on any of it, other than taking the cources and actually passing them.
for any that are interested, the texts I had suggested are very good, particularly the Halliday and Resnick, as you can start with "nothing" in a physics education and end up with a pretty profound understanding of classical mechanics, an idea of what quatntum mechanics is, the symmetry of some systems, elctrostatics and electrodynamics.
as a point of interest have a look at the attached image
I wasn't trying to behave like a "math snob" 'cause I'm not.
But vector calculus and 3rd order partial differential equations can be a handfull for many who have been educated in them. I was only trying to point out that besides an "understanding" of the physics, some serious mathematics is required to actually attempt to solve some of the equations and problems in E-M theory. That's all. And I'm certainly not an authority on any of it, other than taking the cources and actually passing them.
for any that are interested, the texts I had suggested are very good, particularly the Halliday and Resnick, as you can start with "nothing" in a physics education and end up with a pretty profound understanding of classical mechanics, an idea of what quatntum mechanics is, the symmetry of some systems, elctrostatics and electrodynamics.
as a point of interest have a look at the attached image
Attachments
Nanook,
I certainly benefit from your illumination of the math and physics. I have included Halliday and Resnick to the short list of references to add to my library. A search has shown many used copies available at what I consider must be bargain prices. Thanks for all.
I face the same challenge trying to understand Geddes' basis for the waveguide.
I certainly benefit from your illumination of the math and physics. I have included Halliday and Resnick to the short list of references to add to my library. A search has shown many used copies available at what I consider must be bargain prices. Thanks for all.
I face the same challenge trying to understand Geddes' basis for the waveguide.
Re: Dave, et al...
No intention of my suggesting that was intended...
I have found it interesting that 2 forum members, in completely unrelated posts have said outright that the usual treatment of Maxwell's work in engineering texts is simplified to the point that some subtle consequences are completely missed.
(a math problem will often be simplified to make it solveable). An aside to that is that for the last 300+ years practical math & engineering have been using "approachable" math that only deals with some small fraction of real-world events. It has only been in the last 30 years or so that mathematical tools have started to be developed that deal with the majority of reality.
dave
Nanook said:
No intention of my suggesting that was intended...
I have found it interesting that 2 forum members, in completely unrelated posts have said outright that the usual treatment of Maxwell's work in engineering texts is simplified to the point that some subtle consequences are completely missed.
(a math problem will often be simplified to make it solveable). An aside to that is that for the last 300+ years practical math & engineering have been using "approachable" math that only deals with some small fraction of real-world events. It has only been in the last 30 years or so that mathematical tools have started to be developed that deal with the majority of reality.
dave
Nanook and Dave
I had a long conversation with Ed West at the Central show yesterday. He is someone whose credentials really do allow "math snobbery", though there is absolutely nothing snobbish about him. He was commenting about just how frustratingly shallow the usual lumped parameter, term limited, mathematical analysis is, for all of the derivations of Maxwell's work.
I had to agree. I am exploring four instances of some rather drastically unsimplified and previously lumped parameter assumptions in transformers, speakers, cables and ground side electrons. Now, I am not a particularly bright or scholarly intellect, so my hope is that these four investigations, that have real world consequences that are not at all subtle in manifestation, will open new layers of exploration for those whose intellects can see far deeper than mine.
That this appears to be happening just delights me no end and I cannot thank everyone who is participating enough. My forays are just scratches on the surface of new and far more subtle tools to come. So, math snobs or not, get your modeling tools brushed up and let's make these derivations messy and elaborate.
Bud
I had a long conversation with Ed West at the Central show yesterday. He is someone whose credentials really do allow "math snobbery", though there is absolutely nothing snobbish about him. He was commenting about just how frustratingly shallow the usual lumped parameter, term limited, mathematical analysis is, for all of the derivations of Maxwell's work.
I had to agree. I am exploring four instances of some rather drastically unsimplified and previously lumped parameter assumptions in transformers, speakers, cables and ground side electrons. Now, I am not a particularly bright or scholarly intellect, so my hope is that these four investigations, that have real world consequences that are not at all subtle in manifestation, will open new layers of exploration for those whose intellects can see far deeper than mine.
That this appears to be happening just delights me no end and I cannot thank everyone who is participating enough. My forays are just scratches on the surface of new and far more subtle tools to come. So, math snobs or not, get your modeling tools brushed up and let's make these derivations messy and elaborate.
Bud
math and stuff
Dave..., I wasn't taking the high road here, and I wasn't defending myself, more so I was trying to highlight that I'm no expert, but have been a little educated.
I know no one here has suggested this (that I'm a math snob), I'm trying to be proactive so that no one misintrepts my intensions (and although passing some courses, I've failed a couple too...).
The attached image in my last post is an example of the symmetry between F(orce) exerted by 2 charges on one another, and the F(orce) of gravity exerted by 2 bodies in a closed system. In science (particularly physics, but not limited to), the similarities in form (mathematically and physically) between what are seemingly different types of systems is one of the beautiful things in science.
Ed: the Geddes book appears as though it is excellent (based on the table of contents), and more focussed on our intrests here at diyAudio. Hmmm , wonder how I can sneak more $100 books into the house without the missus finding it or the bill...?
so many great books....so little time
Dave..., I wasn't taking the high road here, and I wasn't defending myself, more so I was trying to highlight that I'm no expert, but have been a little educated.
I know no one here has suggested this (that I'm a math snob), I'm trying to be proactive so that no one misintrepts my intensions (and although passing some courses, I've failed a couple too...).
The attached image in my last post is an example of the symmetry between F(orce) exerted by 2 charges on one another, and the F(orce) of gravity exerted by 2 bodies in a closed system. In science (particularly physics, but not limited to), the similarities in form (mathematically and physically) between what are seemingly different types of systems is one of the beautiful things in science.
Ed: the Geddes book appears as though it is excellent (based on the table of contents), and more focussed on our intrests here at diyAudio. Hmmm , wonder how I can sneak more $100 books into the house without the missus finding it or the bill...?
so many great books....so little time
BudP
Add me to your list of believers. Skeptical as I was, I have implemented your litz loop in several spots, and it definitely has the impact you describe.
I used 20 loops of 30 gauge magnet wire on the negative posts of both speakers. I also added a wire between the two negative posts on the amp with a loop in the middle. In the DAC which has all pure silver hard wired interconnects , I made a loop using 30 gauge pure silver at the negative output of the pcv. I can't say the silver was an improvement over copper as its just settling in.
What other tweaks do you recommend? I plan to EnABL the speakers. I have your litz loop. I like your approach. You seem to have done some interesting things based on empirical evidence rather than getting blind sided by engineering theory.
Add me to your list of believers. Skeptical as I was, I have implemented your litz loop in several spots, and it definitely has the impact you describe.
I used 20 loops of 30 gauge magnet wire on the negative posts of both speakers. I also added a wire between the two negative posts on the amp with a loop in the middle. In the DAC which has all pure silver hard wired interconnects , I made a loop using 30 gauge pure silver at the negative output of the pcv. I can't say the silver was an improvement over copper as its just settling in.
What other tweaks do you recommend? I plan to EnABL the speakers. I have your litz loop. I like your approach. You seem to have done some interesting things based on empirical evidence rather than getting blind sided by engineering theory.
wlowes
Consider yourself among the anointed, or perhaps annoyed.... that something this foolish has any effect at all. Other mad tweaks are available, but only built into commercial or quasi commercial devices.
Audio transformers of all kinds, including Guitar amp OPT's that are designed to mimic the characteristics found in specific amplifier brands.
Audio cables that have user controllable dynamic color, all the way from Brownian noise boring to circus band colorful, with the manipulation of simple to perform magic, of the lessor sort. Somewhere in the middle of those extremes, neutral, clear and non clinical extreme detail can be found.
Be sure to get your EnABL implements from Ed LaFontaine and practice on inexpensive victims before upgrading the quality of speakers you care about.
I have attached a text file that lists all known EnABL posts.
Bud
Consider yourself among the anointed, or perhaps annoyed.... that something this foolish has any effect at all. Other mad tweaks are available, but only built into commercial or quasi commercial devices.
Audio transformers of all kinds, including Guitar amp OPT's that are designed to mimic the characteristics found in specific amplifier brands.
Audio cables that have user controllable dynamic color, all the way from Brownian noise boring to circus band colorful, with the manipulation of simple to perform magic, of the lessor sort. Somewhere in the middle of those extremes, neutral, clear and non clinical extreme detail can be found.
Be sure to get your EnABL implements from Ed LaFontaine and practice on inexpensive victims before upgrading the quality of speakers you care about.
I have attached a text file that lists all known EnABL posts.
Bud
Hi all
Originally posted by planet 10:
Dave, may be this is the reason:
Oliver Heaviside
Ref. BudP Post#130 , readers of “Wireless World” will remember Ivor Catt :
According to this hypothesis, the insulation material surrounding electrical conductors will greatly influence the – slow - flow of free electrons in the conductors. (Actually the electric field between the conductors carries the information and the electrical conductors serve only as the boundaries of the electric field)
Regards
George
Originally posted by planet 10:
Dave, may be this is the reason:
Oliver Heaviside
Ref. BudP Post#130 , readers of “Wireless World” will remember Ivor Catt :
According to this hypothesis, the insulation material surrounding electrical conductors will greatly influence the – slow - flow of free electrons in the conductors. (Actually the electric field between the conductors carries the information and the electrical conductors serve only as the boundaries of the electric field)
Regards
George
Hi all
"Electromagnetism 1" by Ivor Catt
Please, allow me the speculation (I am not qualified to commend), but I think Catt’s (Heaviside’s) treatment, may be relevant to BudP investigations.
Regards
George
"Electromagnetism 1" by Ivor Catt
Please, allow me the speculation (I am not qualified to commend), but I think Catt’s (Heaviside’s) treatment, may be relevant to BudP investigations.
Regards
George
wlowes said:
First things first... I have tried loops much the same as you described and heard an improvement using approx 30 ga wire I had lying around. However, the REAL improvement came about when I invested in a reel of 38 ga copper litz and made loops of 100 strands. In the systems I tried these in loops using those number of strands were approaching the point of diminishing returns; i.e, adding another 100 strand loop only brought about a small improvement.
So before trying anything further please try beefing up the loops you are already using.
Regards,
Rob
Nice link George, Its a rainy day and I have a full cup of Jacobs Coffee, think I'm going to enjoy this one
"The usually accepted view that the conductor current produces the magnetic field surrounding it must be displaced by the more appropriate one that the electromagnetic field surrounding the conductor produces, through a small drain on the energy supply, the current in the conductor. Although the value of the latter may be used in computing the transmitted energy, one should clearly recognize that physically this current produces only a loss and in no way has a direct part in the phenomenon of power transmission. "
"The usually accepted view that the conductor current produces the magnetic field surrounding it must be displaced by the more appropriate one that the electromagnetic field surrounding the conductor produces, through a small drain on the energy supply, the current in the conductor. Although the value of the latter may be used in computing the transmitted energy, one should clearly recognize that physically this current produces only a loss and in no way has a direct part in the phenomenon of power transmission. "
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.