John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bcarso, last year at the same event that Scott attended this year, I caught Bob Pease badmouthing my colleague Ron Quan behind his back. Ron Quan was there, but Bob did not bother to address him with his questions. I took Bob Pease on directly, and told him that if he wanted to take anyone on, he should try me, because I am the guy who got Ron Quan started on his measurement quest, as he had first worked for me, when he was a student at UCB back in the 1970's. We have remained colleagues since that time. He also worked with other audio manufacturers, including Ampex, Sony, and Symmetry, and he has worked most of his career in video design, which gives him an interesting perspective on audio problems.
Well, Bob Pease backed down, and did not want a direct (intellectual) confrontation with me, and probably nobody else, either. He just wanted to be a bully behind the scenes. RIP Bob, I still read your articles (with a grain of salt). I like to give him credit where it is due.
 
Last edited:
diyAudio Member RIP
Joined 2005
Bcarso, last year at the same event that Scott attended this year, I caught Bob Pease badmouthing my colleague Ron Quan behind his back. Ron Quan was there, but Bob did not bother to address him with his questions. I took Bob Pease on directly, and told him that if he wanted to take anyone on, he should try me, because I am the guy who got Ron Quan started on his measurement quest, as he had first worked for me, when he was a student at UCB back in the 1970's. We have remained colleagues since that time. He also worked with other audio manufacturers, including Ampex, Sony, and Symmetry, and he has worked most of his career in video design, which gives him an interesting perspective on audio problems.
Well, Bob Pease backed down, and did not want a direct (intellectual) confrontation with me, and probably nobody else, either. He just wanted to be a bully behind the scenes. RIP Bob, I still read your articles (with a grain of salt). I like to give him credit where it is due.

John, I liked reading about his hiking adventures and particularly the ones in --- was it -- Tibet? I think he seemed the most human then. I bore him no particular ill will, but there was a lot of disappointment.

I was advised by one guy at NS I happened to get when I had a product question not to call RP on Friday afternoons, as that was the day he drank beer at lunch, and the effect on him was somewhat unpredictable --- but usually led to his becoming even more agitated and voluble than "normal". And normal was already pretty loquacious :D

Brad
 
Hi,

Although Pons and Fleischmann admit that they did a terrible job of publicizing their work and in the choice of terminology, the scientific establishment really did a hatchet job on them.

If you prefer to hear the story from one who has looked at both sides, as opposed to from one of the hatchet men of 20th century intellectual and scientific Inquisition, you may wish to read Robert Milton's Book "Forbidden Science":



Ciao T
 
Well, Benjamin was an excellent observer of lighting strikes, so he assumed what he saw was correct..and he got it wrong. bad coin flip on that one. Remembering that the ground is the source is always a good way of thinking when trying to grok the functionality shielding. Almost like dither, in one way of thinking. A covering noise for obscuration as opposed to shielding/blocking via absence or drain. Like a fish living in water, it is a reference for zero even though it is the exact opposite of that. Relativity comes to life in a ground reference. (just rambling out loud. You'se no dummy Scott, I'm not aiming anything at you)

As for the rest of my original post, here's a recent proofing. One of thousands, if one bothers to look.

Nanotechnology Now - Press Release: "Nanospire’s Cavitation Re-Entrant Jets Useful in Micro-Nano Fabrication"

Electric universe, elastic and mutable via loading and shift/delta. This involves extreme pressure and speed cutting jet designs:


This technology can be used in sectors such as photovoltaics, microsurgery, targeted delivery of drugs, micro/nano fabrication and low cost extraction of algae for biodiesel production.

The founder and CEO of Nanospire, Mr. Mark. L. LeClair examined the cavitation machining for jets in early 2004. He found a crystalline form of water created by cavitation. The faceted jets had enormous electrostatic charge. By applying electrostatic charge, the crystalline jets etched lengthy semi hexagonal trenches which resulted in increased removal of substances.

The crystals were accelerated due to their attraction towards the supersonic bow shock produced by the Casimir Force. This acceleration resulted in the relativistic speeds of crystals in extremely short distances. This phenomenon was called the LeClair effect. High elemental transmutation was witnessed due to the bow shock.

Using the patented LeClair effect, Mark LeClair produced a cavitation reactor in March, 2007. A hot water heater was a result of the experiments carried out during mid-2009, funded by a low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) advocate. Mark LeClair along with Serge Lebid, co-founder of EVP and Five Star Technologies, found that the reactor activated high transmutation, fission and fusion in water. The reactor heated 2.9kW of water by utilizing 840W of input. The output was 3.4 times higher than the input. While passing through the reactor, the temperature of water increased up to 32°F with temperature spikes of 50°F. The experiment was repeated 12 times.


78 different elements were detected.
I emailed NanoSpire in response to their press release seeking investors. They sent me email responses that just blew my mind. I've posted extensive due diligence on this page of my blog entitled, Cold Fusion, Comedy?
 
It is a shame that new ideas get ridiculed before they even come to light.
It is, of course, the same with audio.
We have known for more than 70 years that THD is a lousy way to measure for audio quality, unless you weight each and every harmonic before coming up with a single number. In fact, for a decade or two, we used SMPTE IM as our reference standard for amps and preamps, and a wave analyzer for analog tape recorders and loudspeakers, and avoided THD.
The return to THD was due primarily to Sound Technology, who made a cost effective, quality, auto-nulling, and very low distortion (for the time) instrument in the early 70's.
Then AP came in, about 1 decade later, and computerized the measurements. They also made even lower distortion measurements possible, BUT it was still THD without any subjective weighting of the harmonics. While it is nice, and sometimes convenient to measure THD, it is not an accurate measurement, AS A NUMBER, ALONE, and an FFT must follow the THD measurement to give a graphical rendition of the distortion to give it any real meaning. But STILL, this is not enough, because no weighting is placed on the harmonics to estimate their sensitivity by the human ear to being either detected or annoying.
I suspect that if you measured many amps, even with an AP, and added a proper weighting factor, you would be very surprised what you would find.
This would give THD more significance than it has today.
 
yeah right

78 different elements were detected.

Did anyone say whether this was before or after the experiments were run??:D:rolleyes::spin:

When I was at FWPCA b4 Ruckelshaus (now the EPA) we detected over 82 different elements in Philadelphia sewage treatment sludge!! They wanted to dump it in the Atlantic off the Delaware coast because they had so much of it. maybe that's where the water came from... HA!
 
Last edited:
I don't see why I would need such a tool. Except probably for QA to ensure quality of production, but even in such case I would prefer some specific tests valid for potential flaws of particular production.
Like, when I lost keys on parking lot I would go and search where I could drop them, instead of going to some specialized spot with bright lamp and a neon sign, "Search here" :D
 
Member
Joined 2002
Paid Member
Last edited:
It is a shame that new ideas get ridiculed before they even come to light.
It is, of course, the same with audio.

It's a shame that no one ever demonstrates actual audibility before proffering all these "new ideas." Because until you can, all you've got are solutions in search of problems. Of course they make for great marketing hype so even if not one photon of meaningful enlightenment is brought into the world, at least someone can make a buck from it.

se
 
Steve,

It's a shame that no one ever demonstrates actual audibility before proffering all these "new ideas."

Funny enough, they did, all the way from Olson to Geddes.

That is the sticking point and that where it becomes a religion, not science, when in the face of very solid contrary evidence the Witchhunters continue to proffer "But we have this THD test here" or "We have this ABX Ducking stool here, if you drown you are not a witch but dead, if you float you are a witch and we burn you to death"...

That is the sticking point.

Evidence ignored, brushed aside, ridiculed and avoided in any way possible and those presenting it demonised, all in order to avoid having to admit that some things do go bump in the night and that the theories everyone has been building their careers and reputations are after not all they cracked up to be.

This BTW does NOT only affect Audio, far from it.

"Am I the witness or am I the crime
A victim of history or just a sign of the times
Across my heart questions and shadows still fly" #

Ciao T

# From Johnny Clegg & Savuka "Women be my Country"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT4A0wbImFQ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.