John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, KBK, this is what I think. I think it is EXTREMELY difficult to comprehend how signal ACTUALLY flows through a cable.

The signal does not "flow through a cable". This is an oversimplification. The signal is carried by electromagnetic field along the cable according to Maxwell equations. And there is also an electromagnetic field inside the real (non-ideal) conductor that depends on material constants of the conductor, speed of propagation here depends again on material constants and geometry of the conductor.
 
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.

The white vs black is your world view not ours. Talk about the Cheshire Cat calling the kettle black "Such is Human Perversity", check out some of his photos of Alice.
 
Last edited:
PMA, I learned that in school 50 years ago. However, even last night, a colleague and I were discussing the problems KBK previously alluded to when Heaviside 'simplified' Maxwell's 'quaternions' to the form that we normally refer to today as 'Maxwell's equations, of which I have a T-shirt with those printed on, to wear on special occasions.
What was changed? What was 'left out'? Can anyone here answer this question?
 
PMA, I learned that in school 50 years ago. However, even last night, a colleague and I were discussing the problems KBK previously alluded to when Heaviside 'simplified' Maxwell's 'quaternions' to the form that we normally refer to today as 'Maxwell's equations, of which I have a T-shirt with those printed on, to wear on special occasions.
What was changed? What was 'left out'? Can anyone here answer this question?

Getting the history right helps. Quaternions were a later reformulation of Maxwell. Heaviside was everything you claim to like- disliked by the scientific establishment, self taught, a really brilliant outsider who, at the end, they had to accept. Invented coaxial cable, researched and described the skin effect.

His reformulation of the mathematics of the original displaced the clumsy quaternion calculation method. The physics remains the same, but the mathematical expression is simpler, more powerful, and much easier to use. And it works, as is demonstrated by you using your computer.
 
What was 'left out'?

Special Relativity? - the "right " formulation reqires Einstein's Spacetime, Minkowski 4-space - Clifford's Geometric Algebra is supposed to do a much better job than the Gibbs/Heaviside Vector Calculus with the cross product, "curl" relations failing in 4-d

for monople free, free space progation the G(3,1) fromula is a single equation ~ "Coulomb's law" + Space-Time
 
Getting the history right helps. Quaternions were a later reformulation of Maxwell. Heaviside was everything you claim to like- disliked by the scientific establishment, self taught, a really brilliant outsider who, at the end, they had to accept. Invented coaxial cable, researched and described the skin effect.

His reformulation of the mathematics of the original displaced the clumsy quaternion calculation method. The physics remains the same, but the mathematical expression is simpler, more powerful, and much easier to use. And it works, as is demonstrated by you using your computer.

I agree that Heaviside was brilliant. Of that, there is no doubt.

The three points that are missing, compared to the original works:

Asymmetrical.

Unidirectional.

Elastic.

The most telling point of all, is that when you get into the areas of weird science that keep making claims that the theory cannot substantiate..oddly enough....those are the three things they keep saying are happening.

When asymmetrical and elastic are combined (breach though resonance), well, then all those bizarre claims suddenly make considerably more sense. Cutting edge physics is slowly bringing all of this out, in the nano, particle, and materials development world. Almost every day.. I read a new report at places like physorg, that substantiate these aspects. This glass ceiling is being breached.
 
Last edited:
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.

Think optical, with high mass from the fluidic integration aspects, and granular interference in the translation medium.

And if you wish, all while keeping in mind the three original Maxwellian points that were lost.
 
diyAudio Member RIP
Joined 2005
Special Relativity? - the "right " formulation reqires Einstein's Spacetime, Minkowski 4-space - Clifford's Geometric Algebra is supposed to do a much better job than the Gibbs/Heaviside Vector Calculus with the cross product, "curl" relations failing in 4-d

for monople free, free space progation the G(3,1) fromula is a single equation ~ "Coulomb's law" + Space-Time

I Remember Clifford

LEE MORGAN, I Remember Clifford (Benny Golson) - YouTube
 

Thanks for that. But, when I remember Clifford, mostly...it's not Brown, it's Simak.

1198129.jpg
 
Last edited:
diyAudio Member RIP
Joined 2005
Clifford in context

This is an excellent book if one has the patience. Hope these reproductions don't tweak the publisher too much.
 

Attachments

  • Clifford Algebras book cover.jpg
    Clifford Algebras book cover.jpg
    572.5 KB · Views: 277
  • Clifford Algebras intro 1.jpg
    Clifford Algebras intro 1.jpg
    374.1 KB · Views: 267
  • Clifford Algebras intro 2.jpg
    Clifford Algebras intro 2.jpg
    554.3 KB · Views: 125
  • Clifford Algebras intro 3.jpg
    Clifford Algebras intro 3.jpg
    379.9 KB · Views: 89
  • Clifford Algebras intro 4.jpg
    Clifford Algebras intro 4.jpg
    603.4 KB · Views: 68
… 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. …
Well said and so true.
 
The signal does not "flow through a cable". This is an oversimplification. The signal is carried by electromagnetic field along the cable according to Maxwell equations. And there is also an electromagnetic field inside the real (non-ideal) conductor that depends on material constants of the conductor, speed of propagation here depends again on material constants and geometry of the conductor.

Indeed, and also on the dielectric material and geometry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.