One of my better or at least larger stories is for what is now called the Verizon Center in D.C.
It was such a large new building that to power it required feeds from two substations. The electrical engineer designing the power system want a good earth ground. Since the building was being built above the subway and mostly on fill, a simple ground system would have been inadequate. The design called for a ring of ground rods driven all the way around the building. These were connected to each other by the thickest copper wire (OOOO or .46" dia.) normally used. Then at each power point of entry one at the South end and the other the West as I recall, the neutral would be tied to the ground ring.
I wrote an advisory mentioning that there would still be .016 ohms between the two ground points. At an unbalance current of 366 amps this would have the neutrals and safety grounds at each point differ by 6 volts the maximum allowed. As 366 amps is a small current for a building this size, the problem became obvious. My suggestion was to connect a cable from each entry neutral to the other and ground the center point to the ring.
All of the higher ups understood the issue and the money was found to add such an expensive bit of wire.
When the electrical contractor saw the revised drawing, he offered to save them quite a bit of money by just connecting the entry neutral to the ground ring point closest to them! He did not understand why the extra wire was needed. It was quite the story about how everyone in the room when the cost savings was offered just about shouted "NO!" in unison.
As a result there is rarely any hum issues in the building even with touring sound companies. (There is every so often, but it ain't from the AC power system grounding!)
Been there, done that. Waay too many times.
(Now Neil Muncy really seem to be the expert on system grounding.)
Just talked with our enginering manager in Shanghai, apparently they have conquered the fake egg (shell and all). No clue as to what composes the insides, any guesses?
There are young engineers there that know their stuff, BTW.
Well I promised I wouldn't start in on electricians, but I must be permitted one anecdote. When I consulted on the electronics systems for Bob Dylan's sprawling remodel in Point Dume, circa 1976, he was quite negative about everything I suggested by way of audio, video, TV distribution, intercoms, and particularly negative about the notion that he might need a security system ("I'm just going to live here".)
But I managed to persuade him that at least we should run enough wire in the walls before they were sealed up, and terminate things appropriately in junction boxes in strategic locations. This would make it easier to sell the property some day, should he ever wish to do so.
Included in this not-to-be-used installation were magnetic switches at all of the many external doors. I specified the reed switch and magnet sets. I left it to the imperious electrician Lee S., who strutted about snapping his figurative suspenders all the time and boasting of what a great job he was doing, to run the wires and hook up the switches. Of course the individual runs allowed for the identification of zones; the switches closed when the doors were shut, and for any local point were to be wired in series.
At some point the attorney/business manager learned that BD had disdained the security system, and ordered one installed in spite of this. We were not to let on that this was underway. They brought in a company who of course immediately began pulling wire and terminating things with electrical tape, until I finally persuaded them to use the stuff already in place.
Oooops. Guess what? All the switches had been wired IN PARALLEL. The electrician did not know the difference between series and parallel, and I was too naive to check his work at the outset.
So a given zone's system might register an intrusion, provided that ALL of the doors were opened.
The boss fought valiantly to make the case that this was my fault, unsuccessfully. He was up on ladders extracting the switches from each recessed hole and changing them out with reeds with bias magnets, no small feat as Mr. S had left the shortest leads possible throughout --- no service loops here folks!
The American Home Security people charged about 800 dollars for changing a couple of jumpers in their control box, about as massive of an overcharge as one could possibly get away with, and supporting my POV that their ilk were often about as crooked as the people from whom they were supposedly protecting you.
But I managed to persuade him that at least we should run enough wire in the walls before they were sealed up, and terminate things appropriately in junction boxes in strategic locations. This would make it easier to sell the property some day, should he ever wish to do so.
Included in this not-to-be-used installation were magnetic switches at all of the many external doors. I specified the reed switch and magnet sets. I left it to the imperious electrician Lee S., who strutted about snapping his figurative suspenders all the time and boasting of what a great job he was doing, to run the wires and hook up the switches. Of course the individual runs allowed for the identification of zones; the switches closed when the doors were shut, and for any local point were to be wired in series.
At some point the attorney/business manager learned that BD had disdained the security system, and ordered one installed in spite of this. We were not to let on that this was underway. They brought in a company who of course immediately began pulling wire and terminating things with electrical tape, until I finally persuaded them to use the stuff already in place.
Oooops. Guess what? All the switches had been wired IN PARALLEL. The electrician did not know the difference between series and parallel, and I was too naive to check his work at the outset.
So a given zone's system might register an intrusion, provided that ALL of the doors were opened.
The boss fought valiantly to make the case that this was my fault, unsuccessfully. He was up on ladders extracting the switches from each recessed hole and changing them out with reeds with bias magnets, no small feat as Mr. S had left the shortest leads possible throughout --- no service loops here folks!
The American Home Security people charged about 800 dollars for changing a couple of jumpers in their control box, about as massive of an overcharge as one could possibly get away with, and supporting my POV that their ilk were often about as crooked as the people from whom they were supposedly protecting you.
It is best to be honest and forthright when talking technically about different groups of people. T is right, and I have learned from his input. I am NOW working on a 'problem' started by a 'Chinese' cap manufacturer about 20 years ago. I will not give you the details, until it is made necessary, but it could have bankrupted Parasound at the time.
Now, and associates 20 year old amp is suffering from the same company's caps.
Now, and associates 20 year old amp is suffering from the same company's caps.
As Scott said. This is an international forum with stated rules that it can not afford broad generalization discussions based on nationality or arguing politics. We have already received several reports on the relevant posts. Gentlemen, please end that line of topics.
As Scott said. This is an international forum with stated rules that it can not afford broad generalization discussions based on nationality or arguing politics. We have already received several reports on the relevant posts. Gentlemen, please end that line of topics.
Ok. I'll get it moving.
electrostatically charged cables.
That solids have to integrate with the delicate ionic function we call 'signal'. That the signal does not do well with this method of transport, as it is always shifting in value, that signal. This, regarding solids. No matter what you do, the signal will be like a soft little kid that is grabbed by the pants and the back of the neck and is constantly having it's head crashed through a wall.
Blarg! ouch! wah!
Now, if you buffer the emergent 'contrary' condition, as it appears, with another mistake, ie a electrostatic field...then you can seem to correct it, with regard to the hard errors. Or, conversely, an emplacement of a 'suspension' on the extent of the dynamic of the error.
This would work, as the ear is dynamic-absolute/comparative sensitive.
Do two wrongs make a right?
My understanding is that “nice stories”, i.e. fairytales and myths aim at the psychological age of the listener.
There is the danger that, dismissing these stories -early on- due to realistic reasoning, we “throw the baby out too”. They were carrying important moral and social analogies.
Fairytales and myths were meant to be discussed, talked and commented about between kid and friendly elders, not read in isolation, something we tend to overlook.
George
What I'm trying to illustrate is that solids, frozen lattice structures, are not the correct medium for signal. period.
The existence of the solid, and it's use in literally 'forcing' signal, this ionic system, through the solid is what gives rise to complex impedance.
All of our math surrounding this, is based on this as an overall equation.
Then we built all other math as an attempt to fit, but all originating from this standpoint. Thus we cannot make it to a clear understanding of what is really going on, as we've got our origin point in our heads, minds and view...completely bass-ackward.
Maxwell had it right, until we edited his works into something that would not explain what it originally would (and did), which was the fluidic/ionic aspects of the 99% of the universe that is NOT a frozen lattice or 'solid'. (solids are the odd man out, by a factor of 100 to 1)
You have to consider conductors, materials, semi-conductors, and signal.... the same way you would view optics and light.
Then, you'll begin to 'get it'.
Last edited:
Well, John, the problem (or point) is that it is all about changing a thought mode, when it comes to looking at the components. And thus questioning their design parameters and their efficacy, at the fundamental levels.
But, all one can do at this point, is to consider application, and thus modify application after some rumination on the given aspects.
This will necessarily take time to evolve in the individual.
When some sort of understanding is found..then...Looking at the components and saying, 'Now, what can I do to ease this issue, using what I've got at hand?"
In my personal experience, looking at it from that sort of direction and grinding away at it, intellectually and experimentally... does, in the end, produce results.
and in many ways, individually and collectively, the industry has.
The industry has recognized the efficacy of perfect crystal copper. It has also recognized the efficacy of amorphous coppers/conductors.
Some remain unconvinced, as they suffer a 'deification' type disconnect from the understanding of what signal is, and how it integrates with the solids.
In those cases and minds, the signal is this disconnected nebulous thing that remains undefined, a mysterious invisible thing. Somehow, in those minds, equations - solve all. Which is correct, for them, for that is as far as they see.
Well, KBK, this is what I think. I think it is EXTREMELY difficult to comprehend how signal ACTUALLY flows through a cable. I have looked into the problem myself, and found it so. I have also found that many people do NOT think much about it, and just accept a few 'rules of thumb' and simple explanations as to how it flows, even when these explanations can be 'self contradictory' when looked at closely.
However, as we know, approximations work sort of OK for most people, just like that 'Sun rises in the morning' is a pretty good observation for most people. I have found, however, that looking deeper, even quoting textbooks, among 'most people' will just bring out 'crappy' comments. It is a fine line that I often walk here, as well, to keep these 'comments' to a minimum.
KBK, my associates and I have heard your cable, and at least one of my associates has gotten behind you to sell your cable to the audio public. This associate also has a CTC Blowtorch, and many of my other designs. This is enough for me, that you are on to something interesting and important. At least, I won't get in your way.
However, as we know, approximations work sort of OK for most people, just like that 'Sun rises in the morning' is a pretty good observation for most people. I have found, however, that looking deeper, even quoting textbooks, among 'most people' will just bring out 'crappy' comments. It is a fine line that I often walk here, as well, to keep these 'comments' to a minimum.
KBK, my associates and I have heard your cable, and at least one of my associates has gotten behind you to sell your cable to the audio public. This associate also has a CTC Blowtorch, and many of my other designs. This is enough for me, that you are on to something interesting and important. At least, I won't get in your way.
Well if you have another observation for the sun, please share it.
It's funny John that you knee-jerk side with KBK, just because he rubs the right people the wrong way even though you don't have a clue as to what he is saying.
Last edited:
Here is the answer: no need for expensive cables, direct ionic path from CD player to amp, from amp to speakers. If to follow your logic, it must sound the best.
http://www.amazon.com/Singing-Machine-SML-383P-Karaoke-Player/dp/B003VIEXB0
http://www.amazon.com/Singing-Machine-SML-383P-Karaoke-Player/dp/B003VIEXB0
John,
This is human nature, sadly. Or as Charles Lutwidge Dodgson once wrote: "Such is Human Perversity".
At issue is what I call "moral affordability".
Many people are very heavily invested into a certain world-view, to a point that they have lost the flexibility to adjust their world-view in accordance with changing evidence regarding it's correctness. In fact, any small adjustment would bring the whole thing down like a house of cards.
When faced with anything that threatens their elaborately constructed house of cards model of reality, they must somehow find ways to discredit any such information, make it appear untrue, in order to preserve their worldview.
Ignoring such a threat is not an option to them, they must attack and be seen (at least to themselves) to win the argument, so the status quo and the orthodoxy is reasserted.
For many years I have elected to use their methods of debate reflectively, as a mirror. The difference, my worldview is based in reality and hence always fluid, changing and updated in comparison with reality, so with me the seeming mental inflexibility is in fact purely an Act, a piece of performance art, intended to hold up a mirror.
Ciao T
This is human nature, sadly. Or as Charles Lutwidge Dodgson once wrote: "Such is Human Perversity".
At issue is what I call "moral affordability".
Many people are very heavily invested into a certain world-view, to a point that they have lost the flexibility to adjust their world-view in accordance with changing evidence regarding it's correctness. In fact, any small adjustment would bring the whole thing down like a house of cards.
When faced with anything that threatens their elaborately constructed house of cards model of reality, they must somehow find ways to discredit any such information, make it appear untrue, in order to preserve their worldview.
Ignoring such a threat is not an option to them, they must attack and be seen (at least to themselves) to win the argument, so the status quo and the orthodoxy is reasserted.
For many years I have elected to use their methods of debate reflectively, as a mirror. The difference, my worldview is based in reality and hence always fluid, changing and updated in comparison with reality, so with me the seeming mental inflexibility is in fact purely an Act, a piece of performance art, intended to hold up a mirror.
Ciao T
- Status
- Not open for further replies.