Sound Quality Vs. Measurements

Status
Not open for further replies.
That possibly is more or less right. I beleive the first amplification was in a gas flame using metal particles. Semiconductors had been used since 1880. Marconi didn't have them as detectors for his first experiments. Very soon after the cat-wisker detector was used. Some said they could get amplification using a second wisker. This amplificaton was so small as to be thought to be imagination. The triode worked. The 1920's device 2A3 is still an excellent reliable amplifier.

My statement was like that of the evolutionists. Circumstances cause it to be. This was exactly the point I was making. We should by knowing how evolution works in electronics see a similarity. One is assisted and the other to most people is not. There is a third possibility which I would call the bedrock is knowing the true cause.

One mistake many people make is to report accepted wisdom as fact. This is well coverd by the statement " The victor gets to write history ". Bell labs is an example. It is suggested the patent of the telephone was by a rather human twist of the cards given to Bell. The BBC did a drama of how Bell invented the telephone. I so much beleived it I thought I had been there almost as his witness.

Bell did not invent telephone, US rules | World news | The Guardian

unlikely stuff is likely (sort of)

black swans

Black swan theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s45E8_jkyJc

"Life" is a turkey?

the vid came from here

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8uY6yLP9BS4BUc9BSc0Jww

8 minutes
 
Yes, you can get the amino acids OK, that's pretty well covered - but proteins are a huge jump in complexity, and that's where the problem was the last time I looked - there didn't seem to be a plausible way of combining the amino acids to form proteins, as a chance occurrence in nature.
And that still seems to be the state of play - this, A model for the role of short self-assembled peptides in the very early stages of the origin of life, proposes a mechanism which is a possible stepping stone ... but there is still a long way to go ...
 
I suspect when we understand more we will realise stone is a primitive type of life. Not thinking or moving. Made of the same stuff. We might construct life from mildly modified minerals. Stone is more a type of life than a vacuum. As I said before I wouldn't be surprised if DNA exists 100's of millions of light-years away that might be 90% identical to things here. This would be because chemistry is pre arranged to do this. No more complicated than how water is the likely outcome of hydrogen and oxygen. Now the difficult bit. The simple explanation is the universe is alive. What we see is a large body. The big problem is it needs an ultimate sceintist somewhere as regardless of why or how, life is organised in an intelligent way ( not intelligent design ). If this body can make a fake intelligence I wouldn't know. That is, looks like, acts like, but isn't.

Invention avalanche. When enough is known and parts available it will happen. I have to say why the Romans didn't have steam railways is a mystery. Perhaps the mindset was against it. Too much good food too easilly harvested I guess?

The early transistors would not be robust. Gain stated at 10 and then 3dB. I suspect 3 dB on a good day if a two cats whisker type on one crystal. I beleive the big bust up at Bell was diffused junction or point contact. That seems to have cause Silicon Valley. The licence was $25 000. Seems enough people could find the money. What the didn't want to do was work for Bell. Diffused suggests IC's as what you see before carving up a wafer is what an IC is. Valves already had near IC ideas.
 
Last edited:
Nige, sometimes ideas appear before the general state of technology is capable of actually manufacturing it. A good example is the Helmholtz resonator, used to power Quad ESLs, launched in 1959. exactly 100 years after Helmholtz published it first.

Not to mention the Greek basking in the sun in Ephesus and pondering on the nature of atoms. He had to wait almost 2.000 years to be proved right.

As for the chemistry of life, we have a concept based on our known chemistry. However, it is possible, or if you prefer not impossible, that somewhere else there exist components of life we kno nothing about (yet), so unimaginable combinations may well be possible.
 
People send me conspiricy theories to look at. This one didn't take long to pick apart. However I suspect there were nasty effects and that's what anyone might exspect. As with all teleportantion why didn't they materialise inside a mountain? Stranger still another US port? It made interesting reading and I suspect something useless was tried. From what I know if it did work it still was seen on radar. So visually hidden, but not radiowave hidden.

THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT
 
Dejan that's right. Fourier was dead just as railways came along.

One of the more interesting spulations about the Philidelphia Experiment is we sent off a beacon in a paralell universe. For all of the aliens great scientific ability they hadn't conceived of our existance. They better than us understood what comes next. This means UFO's come from exactly here but not here. As I can not beleive anything of human design teleported anything I will give you a wild speculation. Our friends might have done it to warn us off. The LCR works by similar means so perhaps that was the fear. We are not well enough behaved to have access this. That being so why not make life at LCR difficult? Maybe like Star Trek they are not allowed to.

Anyway all the fairy stories aside. What PE did was show me a simple way Quantum Paradox could be easilly understood. Briefly we see the seppartion of two or more univereses. As paralell universes are thought possible ( probable ) why not this ? As we know in conservation of energy it can not be created or destroyed ( change state, yes ). Photons are pure energy and one has been created?
 
Nige, to an avid Sci Fi reader such as myself, the idea of parallel universes is anything but new. It has been beaten to death in the books of many authors, one way or another. As has been time travel, human like half-human or wholley electro-mechanical cybermen, cloning, death rays nowadays called lasers, and so forth. Between 1970 and 1980, I must have read literally hundreds of books from the old masters of the genre, like Heinlein, Asimov, Sturgeon, Bester, Dick and many others. For the sake of those memories, I can't wait to get to London later on in the year, there's a little ye olde shoppe juist off Piccadilly Circus, selling only Sci Fi fare, both books and comics, which I also like to read to this day.

I don't know the theory behind Helmholtz's resonator and other resonators "used for milleania" before that, but I suspect his was at least somewhat different for it to be remembered as his. I do know that much of our technology even today is based on our own capabilities, much enhanced and often much miltiplied. For example, what's a bulldozer but the equivalent of say 10 or 20 men with shovels, the key difference being that the equivalent is compress into one rather then being 10 or 20 small ones. And is thus much more efficient.

By the same token, some other race in some other star system will probably have started along the same lines way back, and that way back could be literally hundreds of thousands of our yeara ago, and will thus probably be much more advanced then ours. If their natural habitat contains materials we as yet know nothing about because it's not really reasonable to assume that our little insignificant planet has it all from what the entire universe contains, then all bets are off. I think we may yet meet with races which look nothing like we can even imagine, just as we may meet those who generally look like us because their habitat resembles ours very highly. Personally, I believe we (as a race) have already met more than one alien species, as alien to us as we must be alien to them.
 
Linn got very silly about other loudspeakers in the room spoiling the timing. I suggested all people should leave the rooom as they were spoiling the music for Helmholz reasons also. Linn thought I was being a prat. Likewise them I feel. Quad ESL57 have selenium rectifiers. Run for cover if you smell cabbages. Funny to think an 1880 devices made it to 1957+ "!

My view of the Linn idea was to limit the number of things listened to and close more sales. I sort of approve as the speakers need free space to work. More than three pairs usually makes for poor placement.
 
Nige, sometimes ideas appear before the general state of technology is capable of actually manufacturing it. A good example is the Helmholtz resonator, used to power Quad ESLs, launched in 1959. exactly 100 years after Helmholtz published it first.

Could you expand a little on this, please, Dejan? How is a resonator involved in powering the quad ESL?
 
Could you expand a little on this, please, Dejan? How is a resonator involved in powering the quad ESL?

Frankly, Russ, I have no idea. I picked that info up from one of many magazines I used to read way back in the late 70ies, if memory serves, from an interview with Peter Walker.

I'd like to help, but I cannot. I never investigated the operating principles of that speaker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.