It wasn't an opinion, it was a question. And a question you still haven't answered.
se
You've seen the DA test? See the recovery voltage -- that is due to DA only. I would have to go back and find the article and reread it... but iirc, I showed the level and also stated the DA recovery voltage amplitude as a percent of the applied voltage.
Comment or opinions, SY?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Seriously? diyAudio doesn't have a popcorn eating smiley? Who do I see about that?
EDIT: Ok, let's try this (stole it from HeadFi)
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Eh. Has a box around it. Ah well.
se
Last edited:
Ping John Curl for John Iverson´s Force Field Speaker info/ pics?
John G Iverson was an audio designer that had an invention confiscated by the FBI apparently for "National security" reasons. He adamantly wanted financial reimbursement for this but instead soon disappeared never to be seen again. Apparently the issue was over a Force field =massless speaker he had designed.
I wonder if this has a similarity to the RODIN =ABHA=NUNEZ COIL. This coil is a Toroid claimed to be wound using a numerical sequence which allows energy to flow in its natural planes with less resistance. It is said to be an over unity device. My interest in it is that it sounds pretty good as a speaker and would like to see if I can use it in one of my horn designs
This video shows it in action as a speaker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0mg-zT6wuw
I been informed that John Curl has seen and heard this force field speaker. Apparently he knew Iverson. I wonder if he could comment on its function. Are there any pic available on this?
John G Iverson was an audio designer that had an invention confiscated by the FBI apparently for "National security" reasons. He adamantly wanted financial reimbursement for this but instead soon disappeared never to be seen again. Apparently the issue was over a Force field =massless speaker he had designed.
I wonder if this has a similarity to the RODIN =ABHA=NUNEZ COIL. This coil is a Toroid claimed to be wound using a numerical sequence which allows energy to flow in its natural planes with less resistance. It is said to be an over unity device. My interest in it is that it sounds pretty good as a speaker and would like to see if I can use it in one of my horn designs
This video shows it in action as a speaker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0mg-zT6wuw
I been informed that John Curl has seen and heard this force field speaker. Apparently he knew Iverson. I wonder if he could comment on its function. Are there any pic available on this?
After reading about him in Bart Kosko's excellent book I also wrote 'Lofti' I think more than once. But actually his name's 'Lotfi' (contraction of 'Lotfali'). 'Lofti' trips so much easier off the tongue though...
Thanks! Even a maths guy I used to buy books from wrote Lofti (and talked about his lofty goals). Lotfi A. Zadeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No. That's what YOU are saying.
What I'm saying is that calling folk names is a personal attack. You don't like me saying that and are making a big fuss about it and look bad doing it.
I did know John Iverson well, and 40 years ago, I listened to his force field speaker. It was very inefficient, but it played Joan Biaz's young voice better than any other speaker that I ever heard. I thought the Mafia did him in for owing them money, but nobody knows for sure. He was a great engineer, better than me, or anyone else I have worked with in audio.
Since we're talking about linear behaviour, and DA of caps, I went a-hunting - and discovered fracpoles ... this may be of interest here, http://www.designers-guide.org/Modeling/suite.pdf.
No. You're the one making a fuss about nothing. Personal attacks are ten-a-penny round here. Saying se looks bad is a personal attack. If you could refute the suggestion that they're charlatans that would be one thing, but just moaning about a behaviour you don't hesitate to indulge in yourself is blatant hypocrisy.
Ok, name-calling. From my Webster's Ninth Collegiate:
The use of offensive names esp. to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts.
I called Richard a charlatan after years of objective consideration of the facts. I didn't call him a charlatan just to be mean or to disingenuously make him look bad. I called him a charlatan because his behavior is precisely that of a charlatan. Making countless claims and proclamations, leading people to believe he actually knows what he's talking about, but subsequently having those claims and proclamations shot down by those who actually know what they're talking about.
Just look at the most recent example, his claiming that DA is nonlinear and that DA models need to be revisited to reflect this nonlinearity he is claiming. But he's finding it impossible to answer some very basic questions about how he managed to isolate DA from all other possible causes of the distortion he claims to have measured.
Anyone who actually knew what they were doing would have anticipated that question and answered it when they made the claim in the first place.
This is just one example of countless others that have occurred over the years. So by my Webster's definition, calling Richard a charlatan isn't name-calling. It's an apt and accurate description of his behavior.
se
I don't know that DA is linear.... the simple models show it that way. I figure it isnt purely linear due to the FFT result.
If you do a traditional sine wave test on a capacitor and say drop 50% of the voltage across it and the distortion increases.... as I understand it does.... what else is there but the dielectric... it wouldnt be the plate, the leads, the solder? That just leaves the dielectric and I think it is characterized by the DA value. The distortion increased and decreases in lock step with increased or decreased DA.... it correlates. Just what about the dielectric would make the distortion increase? Possibly something about the materials hysterysis (related to DA).
That is about as far as i took it. You are a better person to know than I the answer to what the detailed model should be. I havent ruled out completely, the end terminations which are composed of several different metals not well alloyed together... alum, copper, steel (sometimes). And how that contact is made. I didnt test for that possibility. I just did and FFT on the waveform and it showed what i told F.Toole and the room full of bright guys.
You should do the test again and see what you find. I could be wrong about DA being an important factor in how people were describing the sound of various caps.... remember the 'sound' of caps came first and was being discussed. I was asked what could make caps sound different and DA was my best guess.. I think I found a mechanism which closely matched the descriptions being given to the various cap types. DA seems to correlate best with what people said they heard. So witch hunters...burn me at the stake if I am wrong.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
That is an interesting term ....
Something I dont think was ever (at the time I was interested in caps non-ideal properties.....) the Z approaching resonance... look at the shape of the change in slope near the rez freq. That change, I never found in the models, either. It measures that way though, as shown.
THx-RNMarsh
Hawksford was not shy of publishing in peer reviewed journals and had had quite a few pieces published. But Essex Echo was only ever published in consumer audio magazines, even though if his conclusions were correct they would have implications across a wide variety of disciplines.
Personally I suspect he came to realize his errors but could not come clean about them and decided to cut his losses by not pursuing publication in any journal where it could actually tarnish his reputation, whereas there would be little or no consequence in consumer audio circles where his work is still passed on as gospel.
se
If people are indeed taken in by 'countless claims' then that's exactly what they deserve for their idiocy. Less gullible people know that 'actions speak louder than words'. So who are these morons of whom you speak?
I wouldn't call laypersons idiots. They're not equipped to know better than the person making the claims. They're still learning. So what's wrong with those who do know better pointing out the flaws of those claims?
Take the Hawksford article for example. Who among the readers of those consumer audio magazines could ever be expected to know whether or not Hawksford's conclusions were erroneous?
Sorry, but I just don't think leaving claims to go unquestioned or challenged and anyone who accepts them as valid is just a idiot and deserves what they get is a very good idea.
se
The fracpoles, that is interesting, the initial figure shows a
multiplicity of capacitors and series resistors but no exemplar
values.
It has a parallel capacitance and resistance also with the other circuits.
Or is the whole thing considersidered the circuit?
By the looks of it one might think you could use something
like that as some sort of multi type filter....ha ha...just as we
have been discussing here, how to get clean A/C power.
However, it still doesn't want me to run around with a vial
of plutonium in my pocket.
It does make me think how lucky we were to have left
the square riggers behind us though. For shipping at the
time having the foresails (various jibs) was quite an accomplishment.
It meant you could beat to windward, that is sailing close hauled
or sailing heading farther into the wind than previously possible.
Sailing into the wind was very efficient for shipping in that
you could take a more direct route going into the wind then
just having the wind at your side or your after quarter or
behind you.
And with speed the apparent wind changes enabling you
or your vessel to sail closer to the true wind.
While not so practical today yacht racing was a display of
logistical and transportability. Kind of like FedEx...when it absolutely
positively has to get there over night. If you get their first-est
with the most-est you are likely the winner.
And with the filters we can also filter out the OxenScheisse.
Why are they not equipped with common sense?
Non-sequitor - I'm not claiming that there's anything 'wrong' here. Just observing.
And yes they're still learning - learning is quickest through making mistakes. Are you setting out to prevent people making mistakes? If so then you're preventing learning.
Its immaterial unless they're basing purchasing decisions on his claims isn't it? I mean I read those articles when they came out, but I wasn't totally convinced by them so filed them amongst the 'interesting curiosities' in my mind. I'm not an expert in Maxwell's equations myself. Since hanging out on DIYA I've read jn's rebuttals of his points and that's convinced me that Hawksford was indeed in error.
Clearly that's your opinion but so far you've not justified why its not a good idea.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.