Don't resort to insults, or I will report your sorry malcontent ***.
Keep it clean.
I tend to enjoy my conversations with John, I'd like to keep it that way.
Please. Insults serve no one.
The way I see it is, I'm here, in this thread, as we like to learn new things. I'm here because Jon is, no other reason.
If John can teach me something new, something I can gain new insight with, then I'll put up with lots of crap. Even from him. (which he's pretty fair about handing out).
But I won't take spurious crap with no reasoning.
I hope to provide some insight for John, possibly. Not in the realm of the impossible. He wouldn't be here with the tone he uses - if that was not true, IMHO.
I like to share as well. As soon as the tone gets nasty, I'm gone. Not worth the headache.
Keep it clean.
I tend to enjoy my conversations with John, I'd like to keep it that way.
Please. Insults serve no one.
The way I see it is, I'm here, in this thread, as we like to learn new things. I'm here because Jon is, no other reason.
If John can teach me something new, something I can gain new insight with, then I'll put up with lots of crap. Even from him. (which he's pretty fair about handing out).
But I won't take spurious crap with no reasoning.
I hope to provide some insight for John, possibly. Not in the realm of the impossible. He wouldn't be here with the tone he uses - if that was not true, IMHO.
I like to share as well. As soon as the tone gets nasty, I'm gone. Not worth the headache.
yep. that's what I thought. Interesting things can be done with mass.
Pardon my tone in the earlier post, I'm reluctant to get too deeply into such threads due to the nastiness that sooner or later emerges.
The point of asking the way I did is not an expression of ignorance, but an attempt to maybe hear it a different way. That can sometimes prove interesting.
You gave me the math, which in the greater context is an engineering consideration. Not conceptual. The action is at the conceptual end of things. Visualization (an important consideration), for one.
The danger lies in allowing math to dictate propositions/conceptual considerations/explorations in forward thinking. Math is a point that comes well after, and is a descriptor of 'things found', it is not actually 'things found'.
Pardon my tone in the earlier post, I'm reluctant to get too deeply into such threads due to the nastiness that sooner or later emerges.
The point of asking the way I did is not an expression of ignorance, but an attempt to maybe hear it a different way. That can sometimes prove interesting.
You gave me the math, which in the greater context is an engineering consideration. Not conceptual. The action is at the conceptual end of things. Visualization (an important consideration), for one.
The danger lies in allowing math to dictate propositions/conceptual considerations/explorations in forward thinking. Math is a point that comes well after, and is a descriptor of 'things found', it is not actually 'things found'.
fizzard said:
I use HF as a frequency which causes lots of skinning, so that the internal inductance has dropped.
Using audio hf, there is not much skinning.. Even at 20Khz, the exact solution for a 1.5 mm diameter wire has the center current at about 72%, so that's not much reduction. (the exponential approximation solution has it at 20%, which is way too much.
For purposes of discussion, I use HF as rf..Mhz type stuff. You can see the drop as you go out to a meg, but most don't test cables out there.
There is a disparity when prop velocity is discussed, because the instruments used to measure that are by design hf units, but prop velocity in the audio regime needs the internal inductance accounted for. Inductive measurements in the audio band provide that.
Cheers, John
Intermixing harmonics in audio can cause that frequency to go much higher, and the method by which the ear hears..creates a situation where the ear is notoriously sensitive to micro level displacements in those micro values of intermixing low level harmonics.
It's not the gross 100% signal that counts, weigh the measurements to the smaller components only (specifically transients, micro and macro, all of them), and that begins to exactly correlate with what the ear is paying attention to.
Like dark matter vs human observation and position in the greater scheme of 'reality', the numbers and math are not wrong, not at all. The weighing of the measurements is at fault - as it concerns the idea of correlation to the human condition.
It's not the gross 100% signal that counts, weigh the measurements to the smaller components only (specifically transients, micro and macro, all of them), and that begins to exactly correlate with what the ear is paying attention to.
Like dark matter vs human observation and position in the greater scheme of 'reality', the numbers and math are not wrong, not at all. The weighing of the measurements is at fault - as it concerns the idea of correlation to the human condition.
KBK said:
Inductance is defined as the relationship between the current in the system, and the energy that is stored within the system.
E = 1/2 L I squared.
L = 2E/I squared.
This applies under all conditions, AC, DC, and travelling wave.
In addition, for a travelling wave, the inductive energy storage equals exactly the capacitive energy storage.
1/2 LI*I = 1/2 C V*V
LI*I = CV*V
L/C = V*V / I*I
sqr(L/C) = sqr (V*V/I*I) = V/I = Cable Z
KBK said:
The proximity effect of multiple conductors and it's impact on current distribution is indeed a consideration for magnet design as well as transformers, even at 60 hz, but especially in the higher frequency regions. I have to worry about that for large magnets that operate at up to a 1000 hz, as the cooling budget can get rather large if the wrong aspect ration conductor is used for the design.
For audio frequencies with typical current densities and slew rates, proximity is not so much an issue.
Cheers, John
See if you can look up the results of the research on the $1M toroidal transformer that was made and experimented with, here at the RMC in Kingston, Ontario. It deals with taking theoretical considerations that may never make it to 'real life'..and actually takes it there. it is an actual real 'dream transformer' come to life, which is why it was so damned expensive to make. Each wrap was exactly cut to fill the whole gap. Perfectly formed single run of wire. Shaped for each individual point on the core. Perfect fill. You might get some neato ideas off of the results. Never know.
The idea with audio cables is that the 'cooling budget' that you have to deal with is not necessary in a well designed audio cable (maybe even if it was used to wind transformers-but I doubt it, different enough design considerations), if you get what I mean. Like transmission lines for high voltage AC power transmission having different core vs outer characteristics..but for a far more wideband and difficult issue.
And yes, audiophiles can hear those 'minuscule' considerations. This, once again, is due to the way the ear hears, and is not really directly correlated to linear 'whole signal' distortion figures.
The idea with audio cables is that the 'cooling budget' that you have to deal with is not necessary in a well designed audio cable (maybe even if it was used to wind transformers-but I doubt it, different enough design considerations), if you get what I mean. Like transmission lines for high voltage AC power transmission having different core vs outer characteristics..but for a far more wideband and difficult issue.
And yes, audiophiles can hear those 'minuscule' considerations. This, once again, is due to the way the ear hears, and is not really directly correlated to linear 'whole signal' distortion figures.
KBK said:
The math is completely conceptual, and can be used for visualization. For example,del . D = rho, del . B = 0, del X E = -dB/dt and del X H = J + dD/dt allow you to completely visualize what happens inside a cable.
I can visualize a parabola that a projectile will, neglecting wind resistance, follow, but it's pretty useless for aiming your canon without some numbers. While you're screwing around trying to hit the target the other guy that can do the math is going to get his right the first shot and you're dead.
Math is very much the "things found." It's not that a cable has propagation delay that's important, it's what the progagation delay is, and how much it varies that's important.
The point is, for me, that I can and have done the math, But I've set it aside. I was up to first and second year college calculus at one point, but I went to my strength, which is pure visualization, as I was getting good results. So I've not done math for, oh, 25 years, and have lost most of it. For me, the math does nothing as a conceptual aid. Not a weakness for me (the lack of math), but it does cause some communication errors.
jneutron said:
They might have dunked/cooled it, but I'm not sure. It was an enameled copper shaped wire, IIRC.
If you can't find it, I'm guessing that the info was a bit too proprietary. As you might imagine, efficiency and bandwidth was through the roof.
I can't see that info getting 'too old to be useful', so a deeper dig might be in order.
I'll see if I can get a name or two to look up, if you don't find anything. This was before the internet even existed. I might call a ex-RMC prof I know and see what he can tell me.
Edited for my own personal safety.
KBK said:
As an example from my own work, we have a problem that takes all of about 5 seconds to visualize. Do you think that visualization is useful at all? Needless to say I've studied two thick textbooks cover to cover and it's going on five weeks, and all I have is about 3 double sided pages of math directly relating to the problem at hand. The math has provided several conceptual results which have yet to be tested, while the visualization looks kind of cool tumbling around in the back of my head, but has provided no conceptual results.
jneutron said:
Heeeeeeyyy...I'm serious....
(actually, there's an experiment to look for that very thing. I think they're installing the detector this summer for the next physics run. They used a lot of mu metal to shield the detector..)
Cheers, John
The most compelling argument against magnetic monopoles is that the magnetic field forms closed loops. So a magnetic monopole would keep "falling" in circles, gaining kinetic energy and absorbing all the energy in the field, until it absorbs all the energy in the universe.
KBK said:
ie: imaginary
fizzard said:
Loops to what? South's to north's?
Apparently that argument is not compelling enough, as they've already built the detector. If the argument were a slam dunk, they wouldn't have gotten funding..
Kinda like antimatter. Blows everything up, so you can't confine it..Turns out ya can..
Cheers, John
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.