John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

[scott wurcer]

Originally Posted by john curl

The head that was measured had a self resonance of 57KHz.

John, I said add a capacitor till it's 10kHz.

[john curl]

DF96, you have taught me a hard lesson, that I will try to follow. It doesn't really matter what I say here, it is just how I say it.
Of course, I try to be reasonable, and it is quite a challenge, as I have had the same arguments with the same people, SY, SE, and JN for 8 years or more. I am rarely proven wrong, but that doesn't stop everyone from arguing the same points over and over. The same 'cheap shots', etc. It is like a formula.
Where are the other audio designers at my experience level? Where is Walt Jung and Charles Hansen? They are my colleagues, and we talk together often. Why don't they post here, anymore? Do you have any ideas or suggestions?

[jlsem]

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy

For the higher frequencies in the audio range there is the "skin effect," that is, the flux tends to concentrate on the
outer surface of the laminations, which accounts for the
fall in effective permeability, as shown in Fig. 16.[/i]

se

Then what accounts for a slight rise in permeability at higher inductions (even at 20kHz) in thin Mumetal laminations when the effect of eddy currents would presumably be at its strongest?

John

[scott wurcer]

Originally Posted by john curl

DF96, you have taught me a hard lesson, that I will try to follow. It doesn't really matter what I say here, it is just how I say it.
Of course, I try to be reasonable, and it is quite a challenge, as I have had the same arguments with the same people, SY, SE, and JN for 8 years or more. I am rarely proven wrong, but that doesn't stop everyone from arguing the same points over and over. The same 'cheap shots', etc. It is like a formula.
Where are the other audio designers at my experience level? Where is Walt Jung and Charles Hansen? They are my colleagues, and we talk together often. Why don't they post here, anymore? Do you have any ideas or suggestions?

John, in this case no one is trying to prove you wrong. We are discussing amongst ourselves details of this phenomena and how to measure it.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally Posted by jlsem

Then what accounts for a slight rise in permeability at higher inductions (even at 20kHz) in thin Mumetal laminations when the effect of eddy currents would presumably be at its strongest?

Can you cite an example of this so I can take a look at what you're talking about?

se

[Steve Eddy]

Originally Posted by scott wurcer

John, in this case no one is trying to prove you wrong. We are discussing amongst ourselves details of this phenomena and how to measure it.

Preferably in a realworld transformer, not a recording head.

se

[DF96]

John, some of the cheap shots were fired by you. I seem to remember remarks about professionals vs amateurs, apprentices vs graduates, and international prize winners? It was clear to a relative newcomer (on this forum) like me that there was some 'history' between those in the argument. This meant that many people seem predisposed to be more aggressive than they usually are. Your apparent reluctance to offer a simple physics explanation did not help.

Even now, you are talking about "my experience level". Remarks like that do not win friends. Scientific argument must be settled on the science, not the eminence (real or imagined) of the people involved. There is no room for gurus in science!

[jneutron]

Originally Posted by DF96

Freq dependent resistance is the correct way. This is not a fiddle - you can actually measure the resistance. If you put current through it you get I^2R losses. If you assume that the whole transformer is at one temperature you don't even need to worry about the physical origin of each element of measured resistance.

I guess I have to agree with that. Seein's as that's what I said about 3 bazillion posts ago (maybe friday?)

Course, I didn't get the fiddle reference...

Originally Posted by DF96

No, but others have implied that JC was imagining things.

Actually, some may have actually said that..especially given John's propensity for shall we say, "creative physics fiction". Over the years he has spouted various physics "explanations" that were without merit, so I believe many will make the assumption of "business as usual".

I try to take each statement or understanding on it's own merit. Despite the fact that John C stated some "crazy" thing, I try to look at it on merit.

Originally Posted by DF96

I thought so at first, especially when he seemed reluctant or unable to offer a reasonable explanation. At times he resorted to shouting, or sneering, which made me even more suspicious.

That's him...always has been, always will be. The fact that he cannot support a reasonable explanation doesn't mean his observational skills are bad..just that his understanding of physics is pretty rusty. And I do give him credit for attempting to figure out the physics. But he considers a discussion of the physics as an attack against him, especially if he has it all wrong. Again, it is what it is...

Originally Posted by DF96

It was only when I began to filter out all the noise and confusion, and think about the actual physics, that I realised that he was probably right but he seemed unable or unwilling to offer a coherent explanation.

He didn't have a coherent explanation to give. Only after I started the eddy loss==>effective resistance stuff and we all started discussing, did he start to jump on the bandwagon..

Originally Posted by DF96

They seemed to continue banging on his door for an explanation even after I had offered one instead.

Hmm.. this is such a long and fast thread.. Did you post eddy loss/series resistance before me?? I'd love to read it if so, can you provide a link? Thanks.

Originally Posted by mrfeedback

Some here would do well to listen through JC's ears and hear his words of experience.
Standard theory does not quite explain all.
Eric.

You are half right...half wrong.

Some here would indeed do well to listen to JC....

But...
Standard theory absolutely does explain it.

Originally Posted by john curl

Gee, I was right, after all! '-)

Don't get a big head now duuuude..

Originally Posted by john curl

Of course, I try to be reasonable, and it is quite a challenge, as I have had the same arguments with the same people, SY, SE, and JN for 8 years or more.

For my part, I'm keeping you honest John. When you're right, I tell you. When you're wrong, I tell you.

And in all cases, I detail exactly why you are right and why you are wrong.No more, no less.

In this particular case, I refused to allow your accurate observation to be dismissed out of hand..

Condescention on your part has never been justified.

Originally Posted by john curl

I am rarely proven wrong,..

Certainly incorrect. But no matter..

Originally Posted by john curl

Where are the other audio designers at my experience level? Where is Walt Jung and Charles Hansen? They are my colleagues, and we talk together often. Why don't they post here, anymore? Do you have any ideas or suggestions?

Honestly, my thinking is that they don't want to be associated with your posting style or some of your hilarious physics meanderings... But, that's just my opinion.

Cheers, John

[iko]

Originally Posted by DF96

John, some of the cheap shots were fired by you. I seem to remember remarks about professionals vs amateurs, apprentices vs graduates, and international prize winners? It was clear to a relative newcomer (on this forum) like me that there was some 'history' between those in the argument. This meant that many people seem predisposed to be more aggressive than they usually are. Your apparent reluctance to offer a simple physics explanation did not help.

Even now, you are talking about "my experience level". Remarks like that do not win friends. Scientific argument must be settled on the science, not the eminence (real or imagined) of the people involved. There is no room for gurus in science!

+1

Cheap shots on either part makes one look bad no matter the status or level.

[john curl]

JN, you have never taught me anything of significance in all of our interactions. Perhaps, it is just me, but I do tend to 'muddle on' to make successful audio products. The very idea of 'keeping me honest' is a slight, that I do not appreciate it, like so many other comments that you made toward me. I have NEVER knowingly lied or gave misinformation on this or any other website in my life experience. It would be a waste of time for me to do it, and it would give 'ammunition' to my distractors. I don't know EVERYTHING, but I know a lot, and I always appreciate any REAL input from engineers and physicists that actually gives more insight to audio design.