Chemistry 101 (Cable Insulation)

[badgerboy]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...703455404&rd=1

Ebay Quote: "Unique Insulation
For electrical signal reproduction, insulators with the lowest dielectric constant minimize the distortion of the music by the insulator. Jena Labs uses the best dielectric material (Teflon), with special modifications that exclude the element Fluorine. This is beneficial in many ways. The cables are clear, flexible and easy to work with, and removing fluorine has is very good for the environment. "

Dupont (Makers of Teflon) Quote: "The original form of Teflon® is polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE. The molecular structure of Teflon® is based on a chain of carbon atoms, the same as all polymers. Unlike some other fluoropolymers, in Teflon® this chain is completely surrounded by fluorine atoms. The bond between carbon and fluorine is very strong, and the fluorine atoms shield the vulnerable carbon chain. This unusual structure gives Teflon® its unique properties. In addition to its extreme slipperiness, it is inert to almost every known chemical."

Is it me, or are these quotes mutually exclusive?

[SY]

The Jena quote is... questionable. Though that seems to be the norm among cable peddlers. Elemental fluorine? That's probably the most reactive substance around (and deadly toxic), so it's doubtful in the extreme that there's any in Teflon. There are fluorine atoms bound to the chain, but they're nearly impossible to remove because the bond energy is so high- that's why Teflon is so extremely unreactive. You can get it to react SLIGHTLY with things like sodium naphthalide (which spontaneously explodes in air, so it's not likely to be found around the house), or combust at VERY high temperatures, but that's about it.

I think there's some price justification and puffing going on by Jena. Slimy. The statement about dielectric constant is false, too (note that polypropylene has a lower dielectric constant than Teflon...).

Run away.

[serengetiplains]

Slimy.

Sy, with respect, do you think it good taste for a member, let alone a moderator, to call a commercial enterprise "slimy"? I mean, this is a public audio forum, Jena Labs makes its living selling audio gear and statements like "slimy" are reasonably seen to harm the image and reputation of Jena in the eyes of a casual observer. This latter constitutes a good working definition of libel.

The statement about dielectric constant is false, too (note that polypropylene has a lower dielectric constant than Teflon...). [/B]

And especially when you get certain of the facts quite wrong. The dielectric constant of teflon is 10% lower than that of polypropylene in every definition I've seen.

Other moderators, is any of this a concern to you?

[serengetiplains]

Sy, you're in California, aren't you?

"A libel is a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that tends to blacken the memory of the dead or that tends to injure a living person's reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury or to impeach any person's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation." (California Statues, Sec. 73.001, 1995)

You might check out the following site:

http://www-cs-education.stanford.edu...et/index2.html

[Sch3mat1c]

Originally posted by serengetiplains


Sy, with respect, do you think it good taste for a member, let alone a moderator, to call a commercial enterprise "slimy"?

Misinformation, either bent truth, buzzwords, conflicting information or outright lies aren't unheardof in marketing. Tell me, is it then right for manufacturers to claim PC speakers of 700W capacity?

Tim

[SY]

Sy, with respect, do you think it good taste for a member, let alone a moderator, to call a commercial enterprise "slimy"? I mean, this is a public audio forum, Jena Labs makes its living selling audio gear and statements like "slimy" are reasonably seen to harm the image and reputation of Jena in the eyes of a casual observer. This latter constitutes a good working definition of libel.

I'm always available for service. Thanks for the advice, but I'm not shaking with fear of Jena's high-power legal team.

People who talk to the dead for a fee? Slimy.

Peddlers of perpetual motion and free energy schemes? Slimy.

Televangelists using old ladies' Social Security checks to buy mansions and limos? Slimy.

People who make pseudoscientific claims to sell products? Slimy.

[benny]

serengetiplains,

with all due respect, i thought i'd just add my two cents.

if sy had made his defamatory comments about a product marketed through factual evidence, then ok, that's not fair. BUT, if the product he is defaming is marketed based on non-factual information, making untrue claims as to why their product is better than similar products from other companies (such as how they 'exclude the element flourine'), then this is in a way the company in question defaming other companies, and therefore deserves the same back. only difference between what sy said and what jena labs said is what sy said was true. therefore, not only is sy in the right to make these coments and is in no way unfairly defaming jena labs, he is actually doing other honest, competitor companies a favour at the same time.

keep it real

[SY]

if the product he is defaming

I haven't defamed any product. I've never seen, handled, used, tried, bought, disparaged, complimented, or looked in the general direction of this or any other Jena product. I merely state my personal opinion about the way these products are sold, and by implication, my impression of that company.

[benny]

I merely state my personal opinion about the way these products are sold, and by implication, my impression of that company.

... and therefore you are having some effect on the public image of this company by stating opinions and impressions. this can be either defamatory or complementary... if you can somehow justify that what you originally said about jena was a neutral and objective coment, then in that case there was no influence on public image, and therefore it was neither defamatory or otherwise.

also,

and by implication, my impression of that company.

for a person to be able to derive an implication from what someone has said takes at least a little bit of perception... i don't see what perception is needed to understand what is meant when you refer to a companies marketing scheme as 'slimy'... i mean, in all fairness, that was a pretty subtle coment wasn't it??? (not!)

so all i'm saying is what you said was defamatory, but i think that the context it was in, it was justified.

cheers

[serengetiplains]

Originally posted by benny


... and therefore you are having some effect on the public image of this company by stating opinions and impressions. this can be either defamatory or complementary... if you can somehow justify that what you originally said about jena was a neutral and objective coment, then in that case there was no influence on public image, and therefore it was neither defamatory or otherwise.

Benny, I appreciate you expressing the point I was making. Sy took an eBay quote probably not authored by Jena, assumed the quote in some way reflected Jena's manufacturing and marketing process, performed some quick mental machinations on some hypothetical chemical process, suggested that process was improbable, then called Jena "Slimy." He then admitted he knows little or nothing about the company or their products, but is apparently happy to leave the impression or implication that Jena employs deceptive means to sell their products.

My broader point, here, is to express my vote for moderators stepping into a more mature discharge of their role. Sy apparently is uninterested in what this means in this instance.