dave_gerecke said:
Hi Dave,
I work for a company that probably uses your equipment.
I'm also familiar with the applications. I just figure that building an enclosure that will hold a nitrogen purge with readily available connectors and mountings would be an interesting challenge.What type of equipment does your company build? I'm a sensor applications engineer and work in etch, films, cmp, wets... (diffusion, the backend, the list goes on.)
Regards, Mike.
john curl said:
Of course you have examined the possibility before condemning it? We have several sensitive test systems that require a constant dry nitrogen purge. Is operating a sensitive preamp circuit in a neutral atmosphere more far fetched than cryo treating resistors that are already ppm accurate? Let's be open minded and consistent.
john curl said:
Yes I am well aware of the difference. Do YOU know why heat treating of metals sometimes involves rapid and sometimes slow cooling? Or sometimes a constant temperature heat soak in molten salt? Or progressive heating? Do you know what case hardening or precipitation hardening are without googling? Do you know why these things aren't done at cryogenic temperatures? Here's a hint: Because it doesn't work. Maybe mercury of gallium might undergo heat treating at sub zero temperatures, but not copper or steal.
KBK said:
It's either harder or it's not.
hermanv said:
But alas it can be heard! (Just not in any credible test.) There's a $1 million prize out there somewhere, I'm sure it could be extended to cover the same cable in both cryo and non-cryo form.
MikeBettinger said:
I made a vase in elementry school by shaping really thin copper foil, and then electro-plating copper onto it. You can get the copper sulfate in a pet store (used for aquarium fungicide). It took a while to get around 5mm thick, it was ages ago so I don't remember exactly how long it took. If I ever make my own pre-amp I think I'll do something similar.
But alas it can be heard! (Just not in any credible test.) There's a $1 million prize out there somewhere, I'm sure it could be extended to cover the same cable in both cryo and non-cryo form.
The cable guy backed down, I hear. I figure there will never EVER be a test on neutral ground of any of these claims. I predict that BOTH sides will never agree to a test of these issues where there is a real possiblity that either will be proven wrong.
The cable guy backed down, I hear. I figure there will never EVER be a test on neutral ground of any of these claims. I predict that BOTH sides will never agree to a test of these issues where there is a real possiblity that either will be proven wrong.
(apologies Scott, I just grabbed your post as it was the first at hand)
Actually, I can get the link to you guys of the article where the scientific crowd, in general, specifically made a point of publically debunking Randi as a complete 'backside clown', with respects to his scientific priorities and testing/validation procedures. They are in no-way scientifically correct, nor even remotely valid, and not at all in line with the most basic validity and acceptance levels of statistics and statistical testing procedures. They want nothing to do with that doorknob. The scientific community has stated flat out, that the level of statistical proof in the testing he desires to 'see' (to allow the so-called 'million$' out of his 'hands') and will not back down from is..actually..impossible. On all valid testing fronts.
His educational background an expertise in the things and areas he attempts to 'debunk' is equivalent to a giant zero. His garbage is McCarthyism of the worst kind.
As I've said on another forum, I'm not obligated to tell you what I know, if I use that information to make money. I've no problem giving hints, but I will take it no farther than that. I'll point down the road but I won't do the work for anyone.
Like someone walking into Wilson's speaker shop and demanding to know exactly what Wilson's "X" material was made out of and exactly how it is made..I'd think they'd look at you like a freak and then proceed to open all the front doors with your face, and toss you onto the pavement outside. And this, in all common sense. Not that Dave Wilson would do such a thing, he's a nice guy. In all common sense, he's not going to tell anyone how he makes his products or the design implementations/considerations.
scott wurcer said:
Actually, I can get the link to you guys of the article where the scientific crowd, in general, specifically made a point of publically debunking Randi as a complete 'backside clown', with respects to his scientific priorities and testing/validation procedures. They are in no-way scientifically correct, nor even remotely valid, and not at all in line with the most basic validity and acceptance levels of statistics and statistical testing procedures. They want nothing to do with that doorknob. The scientific community has stated flat out, that the level of statistical proof in the testing he desires to 'see' (to allow the so-called 'million$' out of his 'hands') and will not back down from is..actually..impossible. On all valid testing fronts.
His educational background an expertise in the things and areas he attempts to 'debunk' is equivalent to a giant zero. His garbage is McCarthyism of the worst kind.
As I've said on another forum, I'm not obligated to tell you what I know, if I use that information to make money. I've no problem giving hints, but I will take it no farther than that. I'll point down the road but I won't do the work for anyone.
Like someone walking into Wilson's speaker shop and demanding to know exactly what Wilson's "X" material was made out of and exactly how it is made..I'd think they'd look at you like a freak and then proceed to open all the front doors with your face, and toss you onto the pavement outside. And this, in all common sense. Not that Dave Wilson would do such a thing, he's a nice guy. In all common sense, he's not going to tell anyone how he makes his products or the design implementations/considerations.
How about this, SY: We agree to back away from the Randi topic and all associated, as it has a serious capacity to devolve the thread further. Agreed? I'd say both 'sides' (if there be that) have said their bits, so leave it at that?
http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge
It is also obvious, that no human being or organization can rest in the realm of the relevant and or valid, if it's entire reason for existence, it's past, it's present, it's future and prestige in any way..rests solely on attacking others. That's a basic double negative, a fascism, if you will... of the worst kind.
http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge
It is also obvious, that no human being or organization can rest in the realm of the relevant and or valid, if it's entire reason for existence, it's past, it's present, it's future and prestige in any way..rests solely on attacking others. That's a basic double negative, a fascism, if you will... of the worst kind.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.