You can do even better and just leave them out altogether. Then the distance becomes ZERO. Not to mention eliminating half a dozen or more additional contacts in the signal path.
To that end, I've created a brand new product.
I call it, the Un-Bybee.
And it's absolutely FREE! (just pay $9.95 to cover shipping and handling)😀
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
se
I like how it can not be there, yet casts a shadow...
I ain't got no dog in this hunt, but I am not yet completely cynical. John - read through this and see if perhaps I am headed down the right path...
If anyone chooses to think that being stupid is a virtue, then I am the single most virtuous human on the planet. So I think in simplistic terms (and I can't use words with more than two syllables). What follows is how I am picturing all this in the void between my ears.
But first, a little background. While I have not worked directly with nanomaterials, I have done work for companies and labs who produce and work with nanomaterials. I am keenly aware that nanomaterials behave in ways that are frequently different from the same material in macro form - and also in ways that we don't yet fully understand. That is the primary reason for concern about the presence of nanomaterials in the environment (the field - so to speak - I work in). There is a very real concern in the minds of scientists and regulatory authorities that in the event this stuff were to be released in some quantities to the air or water, it would interact with the environment in a way that we cannot predict or remedy. Those of you who demand proof - go to US Environmental Protection Agency and search the term nano. You will see plenty of documents there for your reading pleasure.
Back on point. I read the short article John suggested. The picture I have in my head is that the electrons are "speeded up" not by actually increasing their inherent maximum speed (analogy: putting a turbocharger to make the car actually move faster). Instead, the nanotubes create a "path of absolute least resistance" and in doing so, creates the straightest path for the electrons with basically no obstacles in that path (analogy: two identical cars on a drag strip - one allowed to drive at maximum speed in a straight line, the other told to zig-zag down the strip and bump into the walls on both sides). Yes, I know I will be flamed for using the word "absolute" - but please remember I ain't real smart. Well, ok - I am going to be flamed for every word and thought in this post.....
Again, thinking in simple pictures taking one concept from the paper, I envision the electrons as flowing in a very very small sine wave pattern on the conductor (even considering skin effect). As small as that wave is, the amplitude (oh crap - that has more than 2 syllables) is so large relative to the nanotube dimensions that the portion of the sine wave that "fits" with the nanotube dimension appears to be a straight line (probably incorrect analogy: kind of like the opposite of what high sampling rates do for digital music relative to the analog wave - the higher the sampling rate, the more smoothed out the digital wave - ie., the smaller those horizontal lines are).
So the nanotube creates no resistance from the "conductor material" and no obstacles for the electrons to bump into on their way. Add to that we really don't know how/why nanomaterials do what they do, I can see how this might make some sense. If that is generally headed in the right direction, why would that not result in lower signal noise?
Those of y'all ready to get your flamethrowers going, let er rip. I reserve the right to respond to none.
If anyone chooses to think that being stupid is a virtue, then I am the single most virtuous human on the planet. So I think in simplistic terms (and I can't use words with more than two syllables). What follows is how I am picturing all this in the void between my ears.
But first, a little background. While I have not worked directly with nanomaterials, I have done work for companies and labs who produce and work with nanomaterials. I am keenly aware that nanomaterials behave in ways that are frequently different from the same material in macro form - and also in ways that we don't yet fully understand. That is the primary reason for concern about the presence of nanomaterials in the environment (the field - so to speak - I work in). There is a very real concern in the minds of scientists and regulatory authorities that in the event this stuff were to be released in some quantities to the air or water, it would interact with the environment in a way that we cannot predict or remedy. Those of you who demand proof - go to US Environmental Protection Agency and search the term nano. You will see plenty of documents there for your reading pleasure.
Back on point. I read the short article John suggested. The picture I have in my head is that the electrons are "speeded up" not by actually increasing their inherent maximum speed (analogy: putting a turbocharger to make the car actually move faster). Instead, the nanotubes create a "path of absolute least resistance" and in doing so, creates the straightest path for the electrons with basically no obstacles in that path (analogy: two identical cars on a drag strip - one allowed to drive at maximum speed in a straight line, the other told to zig-zag down the strip and bump into the walls on both sides). Yes, I know I will be flamed for using the word "absolute" - but please remember I ain't real smart. Well, ok - I am going to be flamed for every word and thought in this post.....
Again, thinking in simple pictures taking one concept from the paper, I envision the electrons as flowing in a very very small sine wave pattern on the conductor (even considering skin effect). As small as that wave is, the amplitude (oh crap - that has more than 2 syllables) is so large relative to the nanotube dimensions that the portion of the sine wave that "fits" with the nanotube dimension appears to be a straight line (probably incorrect analogy: kind of like the opposite of what high sampling rates do for digital music relative to the analog wave - the higher the sampling rate, the more smoothed out the digital wave - ie., the smaller those horizontal lines are).
So the nanotube creates no resistance from the "conductor material" and no obstacles for the electrons to bump into on their way. Add to that we really don't know how/why nanomaterials do what they do, I can see how this might make some sense. If that is generally headed in the right direction, why would that not result in lower signal noise?
Those of y'all ready to get your flamethrowers going, let er rip. I reserve the right to respond to none.
Last edited:
No flames LongHorn, your insight seems fine, but if that is what it does, why have it at all? If you took it out and reconnect he wires without it, you will have a zero length path, rather than a very fast on of finite length.
Of course, resistor and its propagation time is only part of the equation. The other part is the cavity resonator (or whatever it is) that is the actual Bybee device. However, perhaps if two paths can stay in phase (or out of phase by 180 degrees) then maybe the Bybee device works more efficiently and does more of what it does so well. Just a guess.
LH very good reasoning. As Jack and I always say: The more we learn the 'dumber' we feel in the understanding of everything. Right now, we are working on dark matter.
LH very good reasoning. As Jack and I always say: The more we learn the 'dumber' we feel in the understanding of everything. Right now, we are working on dark matter.
Last edited:
LH, what you are leaving out is that EACH nanotube has an effective resistance of 12.9K ohms or some multiple of it. This is caused by the quantization of the current flow, something that almost nobody here knows anything about.
So let me see, you put carbon nanotube "dust" in some stuff that encapsulates a .025 Ohm resistor and observe the quantum mechanical effects as a macroscopic property? What are you guys smoking?
Also, although there is a voltage drop and current that looks like a 12.9K resistor, there is NO power dissipation in the nanotube itself. READ THE PAPER However, the electrons traversing the nanotube from one end to the other HIT the target at the end of the nanotube (mercury in the paper) and that dissipates energy.
Question: does the placement of the device matter? -- distance to the system, before, after? Do more purifiers purify better?
Of course they do. the more you spend the better it sounds, but if you have friends over they will not notice until you point out how much you spent.
What you're leaving out John is that the CONTEXT was a quantum point contact. Not simply carbon nanotubes. He used a carbon nanotube to create a quantum point contact.
And it's the quantum point contact that gives us the GQ = 2e2/h = (12.9k ohms)-1 equation.
I gave you a link about the quantum point contact previously. Did you not bother to read it?
This is a fundamental result; the conductance does not take on arbitrary values but is quantised in multiples of the conductance quantum GQ = 2e2/h which is expressed through electron charge e and Planck constant h.
You're just reading stuff you don't understand and then regurgitating it here, passing it off as if it has some sort of relevance to the discussion at hand.
It doesn't.
And you have the audacity to tell others to go learn something.
The Bybee Purifier is not a quantum point contact.
se
Last edited:
Ok John, I was thinking of this as an intellectual argument and trying to read and be reasonable, albeit with my bias. But this is just plain insulting.
Several obviously well learned people are contributing to this discussion who clearly DO know a thing or to about this very esoteric subject. You just dismissed and devalued those here in a most obnoxious way. I was prepared to think of you as a reasonably knowledgeable source, in spite of the fundamental disagreement, but once you stoop to insults and superiority ipso facto, I am done.
I will finally sign off this thread.
I suggest we all do. John curl is just making **** up and trying to inflame, rather than objectively discussing. This is worthless. We could start another thread just to discuss quantum interest.
I am impressed. I cite a paper not written by me, and I am attacked in every which way possible. First, that I don't understand the paper. To be honest, I only understand part of it. This is not my field of expertise. Second, when someone leaves out the fact that it is a RESISTOR, and I remind him of that fact, I am considered rude. Third, Steve Eddy already told me all about this effect, some time earlier, and I should look to him for further advice. Wow, this is fun!
Please everyone, remember:
1. It doesn't exist.
2. It exists, but it is not important.
3. We invented it.
Different people are at different levels at this time. SE is apparently going to 3, if he can get away with it.
1. It doesn't exist.
2. It exists, but it is not important.
3. We invented it.
Different people are at different levels at this time. SE is apparently going to 3, if he can get away with it.
IKO, you are showing that you have no experience, and no understanding of Bybee devices, and you haven't even read the brochure on them. Please don't waste my time with such questions. Thanks in advance.
You obviously don't.
What you leave out is what relevance that has to the Bybee Purifier.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.