John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 3446 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 8th February 2013, 02:13 PM   #34451
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
It is too bad that you don't actually read my inputs on this device, JN, or most of your questions would have been answered. There were a series of tests made on the 'purifier' and I have not put the others up, because they only show ABSENCE of capacitance or inductance, rather than anything interesting. I was not there, nor did I know Jack Bybee when these tests were run. I copied them off and kept them, about 15 years ago.
After your 'criticisms' of Dr. Hawksford's measurements, I hardly think it useful for you to harass AMES Research Center as well for their test methods and approach.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 02:18 PM   #34452
diyAudio Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: away
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
All of these questions have been asked before and John has declined to answer them.

Don't fall into the same trap I did- this isn't technology, it's performance art.
It may indeed be performance art. However, given actual scope information which shows a difference, the questions beg to be asked, is the difference really there, and if so, is it a result of a poor test setup or the result of the lumped elements placed in series with the circuit?

IOW, if I place a suitable lossy inductor in series with the supply stuff, will I duplicate what was seen? Is it necessary to use a lossy ferrite, or do I use sufficiently thick copper wire that when it proximities, losses climb? Did the bybee proximity such that 6th harmonic is evident? What, no spectral analysis??

The neutral to ground voltage has too much 60 hz content and not enough 3rd. The test setup is a shambles. It matters not how high falutin the equipment is, it needs to be done right..

jn
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 02:26 PM   #34453
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Now, I have to laugh! JN you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. '-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 02:26 PM   #34454
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post
It may indeed be performance art. However, given actual scope information which shows a difference, the questions beg to be asked, is the difference really there, and if so, is it a result of a poor test setup or the result of the lumped elements placed in series with the circuit?
When unexplained charts are posted with no detail on test methods or setup, and questions to pin down what the measurements are and what they mean are deflected with a sneer, you may safely go back to the planet Earth and let the performance art play out. Logic and evidence have no place here. "Facts" have already been dismissed by John as irrelevant.

I'll be kind and not refer to it as "fraud"; it really is performance art, Karen Finley without the chocolate.
__________________
And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 02:33 PM   #34455
diyAudio Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: away
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
It is too bad that you don't actually read my inputs on this device, JN, or most of your questions would have been answered.
I've never seen you answer many of my technical questions. I guess this is another of those episodes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
After your 'criticisms' of Dr. Hawksford's measurements, I hardly think it useful for you to harass AMES Research Center as well for their test methods and approach.
My discussions of Malcolm's analytical approach, the poor test methodology, and the contrived results stand by themselves. ALL the high level engineers and physicists I know of who examined his non peer reviewed magazine article agree with my assessment. I raised valid methodology errors, yet Malcolm "stands by his results", and you cheerlead.

As to "Ames Research Center", when it comes to actual testing using actual hardware, remember the phrase "GIGO"...Garbage in, garbage out. My questions arise as a result of rather significant experience on my part.

One of the most difficult things to do is measure voltage and current in very low impedance circuits at high dI/dt. Malcolm messed that up, and it appears Jack did too.

I can envision how a wirewound covered in a lossy material can alter signals, the use of a lumped element here is not sufficient in modelling as a result. I seek knowledge, don't divert as you normally do.

jn
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 02:38 PM   #34456
diyAudio Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: away
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
Now, I have to laugh! JN you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. '-)
If by that, you mean pay no attention to the fact that the ac waveform is clipping, and that a low impedance circuit has a switch wired into it but yet ignore that as well.....

No, don't be silly.

From the waveform, I guess we can assume that Ames Research Center is incapable of measuring a 120 volt sine wave?

jn

ps...my questions are what good engineers with lots of experience ask. Why is it you did not ask them, and why is it Jack did not?

Last edited by jneutron; 8th February 2013 at 02:42 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 03:02 PM   #34457
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
I thought you would say that. So the BQP doesn't actually do anything which a low value resistor would not do.


More quantum smoke blown in our eyes, unless you can show us the relevance of that paper to the BQP.
We were there last time, a little ground up nanotube stuff is supposedly "in the mix". Of course the paper has nothing to do with the macroscopic properties of a random pile of CNT's, but it does provide a smokescreen.
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important."
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 03:46 PM   #34458
diyAudio Member
 
Max Headroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Australia, straight over the road from the beach, natural ambient sounds only.
Default Perceived Noise Floor...

Copied from another thread...
Quote:
The Bybee devices appear to reduce a certain kind of 1/f related modulation noise. This means that you have to have signal, to measure the noise, not just a static noise measurement, and apparently the ear (at least from my experience) is sensitive enough to hear the difference. It is darn difficult to measure, but apparently still possible with the right test conditions, even with my out-of-date HP3563.
Let me explain the problem. Most testing for noise does not require a signal present, so you just measure the Johnson or 1/f noise generated from the resistance or other sources. This does not bring out the noise that the Bybee addresses. Only with a signal, that then, has to be removed almost completely, does the noise difference show up on test instruments. The ear apparently does this naturally. Of course, many think that the ear can't hear such things. Oh well. Back to your zip cord.
Somewhere recently I read a paper discussing the concept of music noise floor, as opposed to absolute noise floor...Perhaps someone here can refresh me.
Reading between the lines it seems that the BQP helps to improve this perceived noise floor.
I have read varying reviews of the subjective effects....some negative, some positive, but all reviews do describe subjective changes.

Ok some questions...

- Who participating in this discussion thread have direct experience of BQP.

- Of those, has anybody done a 'Diffmaker" comparison, and what was the magnitude wrt the original signal of the derived difference.

- Ditto, what was the nature of the sound of the difference signal

Thanks, Dan.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 04:10 PM   #34459
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
That sort of AC 'clipping' appears to be an artifact of the display. I can get the SAME sort of 'clipping' from one of my early graphic calculators when showing a sine wave. Get real guys!
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 04:12 PM   #34460
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Poor old Dr. Hawksford, he 'messed up' too, according to you, JN.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:58 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2