I find it interesting that one of the biggest and most vocal supporters of Bybee, J Curl hasnt posted a single reply or comment. I guess if he helped design the test he wont be able to poo poo it later.
cbdb, I have been offline for several days, due to a computer crash. However, what is going on here is pointless, and redundant, except for exeric, who actually tried them. I have had similar experiences as he has.
As far as the resistor is concerned, OF COURSE THERE IS A RESISTOR. There has always been a resistor that parallels the device. Whether on the inside or around the outside, there has ALWAYS been a resistor added. The early resistors measured .25-.3 ohms and the latest resistors measure about .025 ohm. They always did and they always will. However that is NOT the Bybee device. It measures several ohms, but its resistance is lost in the paralleling with the low R resistor.
Now when you go beyond measuring the resistor, please let me know.
As far as the resistor is concerned, OF COURSE THERE IS A RESISTOR. There has always been a resistor that parallels the device. Whether on the inside or around the outside, there has ALWAYS been a resistor added. The early resistors measured .25-.3 ohms and the latest resistors measure about .025 ohm. They always did and they always will. However that is NOT the Bybee device. It measures several ohms, but its resistance is lost in the paralleling with the low R resistor.
Now when you go beyond measuring the resistor, please let me know.
jneutron: Yes, that's a crucial part of the detail. I would be absolutely embarrassed to put up data without information suitable for replicability.
I can give you a detailed resistance value from an HP 3478A multimeter hooked up in Kelvin connection. In fact, I had measured a Bybee device in the multimeter. It measured .025 ohms.
Once you expand to AC, you will find little, if anything, as did Ames Research Labs, 15 years ago. I have those printouts as well, but they don't show anything significant, and that is why I did not send them to Netlist.
Once you expand to AC, you will find little, if anything, as did Ames Research Labs, 15 years ago. I have those printouts as well, but they don't show anything significant, and that is why I did not send them to Netlist.
Expand WHAT to AC? "Find little" looking where? How? What measurements were done, how were they set up, what was the reference? Why wouldn't superconducting slipstreamed electrons claimed to offer noise reduction show... noise reduction?
They did with the measurements made with the BMI analyzer. Why don't you get the SAME analyzer and see if you get the same results or not? Nobody said 'semiconducting', it is 'NEAR semiconducting'. Please read more closely.
Since you've kept what measurements were done and how they were set up a secret, replication is impossible.
I'd prefer to be honest and actually disclose what I do and how I'm doing it. But that's just me and my silly ways.
"'NEAR semiconducting'" is not a term I'm familiar with. Could you please define it? And while you're at it, maybe define "near superconducting?"
I'd prefer to be honest and actually disclose what I do and how I'm doing it. But that's just me and my silly ways.
"'NEAR semiconducting'" is not a term I'm familiar with. Could you please define it? And while you're at it, maybe define "near superconducting?"
Does that mean they stop working if you heat them up? Copper is "near" superconducting by only 300 degrees or so.
Measures several ohms and gets lost in the paralleling with the 0.025 ohm resistor.
Yup, that's pretty darned nearly superconductive alright. 😀
se
As a user of BMI equipment, analyzing the performance of a Bybee with one seems rather silly.
You may have gotten some measurements of neutral noise able to be measured by the BMI, but this is in general unsuitable for audio performance analysis. BMI equipment was designed to sense severe power line disturbances sufficient to cause equipment malfunction. Easy to measure with a 10 MHz scope. Not impressed by the BMI test, not at all. Certainly not when we are talking subtleties so small only the golden ear can detect it, while "measurements are pointless".
No, the equipment discussed (RF/spectrum analyzers) are much more sensitive than the BMI. It will be interesting to see if the high tech test equipment can be aligned with the BMI results (highly doubtful, but o ya- I've got an open mind).
You may have gotten some measurements of neutral noise able to be measured by the BMI, but this is in general unsuitable for audio performance analysis. BMI equipment was designed to sense severe power line disturbances sufficient to cause equipment malfunction. Easy to measure with a 10 MHz scope. Not impressed by the BMI test, not at all. Certainly not when we are talking subtleties so small only the golden ear can detect it, while "measurements are pointless".
No, the equipment discussed (RF/spectrum analyzers) are much more sensitive than the BMI. It will be interesting to see if the high tech test equipment can be aligned with the BMI results (highly doubtful, but o ya- I've got an open mind).
Is this entertainment annoying someone? Until the tests are done it's pointless to keep talking about it.
Or perhaps they achieve more gain??
Actually, copper does not exhibit any superconductivity, even in superfluid.
The best one can hope for is three orders of magnitude better than room, and that is 7 nines annealed to within an inch of it's life.
Cheers, John
Netlist, I am having trouble with my computer, but I will send you extra measurements, if you want, when I can. They really don't show much, except the characteristics of the resistor used 15 years ago, which was probably a wirewound Dale power resistor, hopefully non-inductive wound, but I can't be sure of that, and it might be a normally wound Dale power resistor.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.