Very interesting ... care to throw out a hint or two ... 😉 ?
I suspect many people have made progress, intentionally or accidentally, through a variety of techniques ... and there will most likely be much overlap in the ideas ... 🙂
I suspect many people have made progress, intentionally or accidentally, through a variety of techniques ... and there will most likely be much overlap in the ideas ... 🙂
guys, please stick to the topic at hand or i will close this thread, promise....
i'm not sure what else there is to say on the subject AJT, it doesnt matter how many blind tests there are, how many measurements are made, or how many assertions are made based on uncontrolled tests; nothing will ever change, every conversation on the subject is a carbon copy of the last one.
Now, think of effervescence... bubbles in soda.
When the electrons are pushed through the atomic structure of copper, it is a less than smooth path. If it were perfectly "smooth" it would be a super conductor. Being not a super conductor there is heat generated.
What the Quantum purifier does is to re-order the electrons, in essence smooth them out, removing the excess quantum level "bubbling" within the Bybee device.
The mechanism by which this occurs is open to conjecture since the actual material apparently is classified.
How much it is audible apparently is proportional to the "bubbling" that is occurring. Obviously, this quantum level "bubbling" is a type of distortion, since it is not part of the intended signal.
When the electrons are pushed through the atomic structure of copper, it is a less than smooth path. If it were perfectly "smooth" it would be a super conductor. Being not a super conductor there is heat generated.
What the Quantum purifier does is to re-order the electrons, in essence smooth them out, removing the excess quantum level "bubbling" within the Bybee device.
The mechanism by which this occurs is open to conjecture since the actual material apparently is classified.
How much it is audible apparently is proportional to the "bubbling" that is occurring. Obviously, this quantum level "bubbling" is a type of distortion, since it is not part of the intended signal.
Sorry but that is just fantasy, they do nothing to the electrons...
And classified material WOULD not be sold on the open market...If it has been or is being used on ANY USA based military equipment it will be covered by ITAR.
And classified material WOULD not be sold on the open market...If it has been or is being used on ANY USA based military equipment it will be covered by ITAR.
I'm sorry, that's nonsense. EM signals are not propagated by those means, electrons can't be "smoothed out," and the concept of "quantum level bubbling" is the stuff of comic books. If it's "classified," Mr. Bybee is a felon. No need to conjecture about the physics behind Tinkerbell effects, there isn't any.
Maybe it uses quantum superposition? We all thought it was related to low noise sonar, when really it is connected with long-range quantum encryption! 😎
Actually that's an explanation I like! But answering one question begs the next one: does this device only de-bubble the electrons inside the device? Or does it also de-bubble all electrons that are connected to it? Would a BB device connected to the mains de-bubble ALL electrons in ALL the house wiring? How about the neighbours'? Does a xformer stop the BB effect, or would a single BB de-bubble the national grid??
If, otoh, it only de-bubbles the electrons inside the device, we're ******! As soon as the electrons exit the BB, they will start to bubble again and we're back at square one .... 😱
(Don't you love thought experiments?)
jan
with an a.c. signal the electrons within the Bybee will never exit the device, so even the claimed effects are rubbish
The anti-symmetry with respect to electron exchange means that you can't even say that.
Reply to #29&30- and yet my sense of cheapness wouldn't allow me to leave my last pair of small purifiers gathering dust. Returned to an old crossover where caps A feed the mids, caps B are in series with caps A and feed the tweeter(happy with mid's natural upper roll off). Inserting small Bybee between A and B caps resulted in no quickly noticeable change. The only measurement I performed was an afternoon's worth of music. Speakers not transformed into magical communicators but realised had whiled away about 5 hours with no listening fatigue.This is not a recommended use by Bybee, as for ease of change and a bias against internal speaker vibrations my cross over - filters are always outboard. I've decided I don't need to understand why I like qp's here, and will just enjoy them. I recall an old pair of 700's pamphlet which stated if it sounds good to you, it's good sound. I'm sure these are not necessary for good sound, but after several attempts, I did find an application which they may have improved .
That's good. When my 'scope or DMM breaks I won't have to waste money on buying new ones.MITsound said:
This thread is supposed to be about Bybee measurements. Does anyone have any, apart from strong indications that it does nothing?
Reply to#36- that's a fair observation, thanks for your thoughts. I won't learn much if I don't allow other's opinions may be as valid as my own. The qps will stay in, however.
Touché.
But how many? Had a quick read up, but its a bit too quantum for me tonight🙂
In relation to drift velocity, in the presence of an a.c. EM wave, they would just jiggle back and forth.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.