Lets start with the first page. All of his assumptions are based on the propagation of an E/M wave NORMAL to the surface of a metallic plane. The equations he uses are what one uses when designing a shielded enclosure. He didn't even draw the voltages across the wire gap correctly, as he points the voltage vector the same way in both wires, and talks about the e field as a "water in a river" analogy, going slower at each bank. Ridiculous, high school level error.
In addition, he thinks skin depth is modeled accurately by the exponential approximation equation. That equation falls apart at audio frequencies in standard wires, because it assumes the wavefront drives into the conductor in a planar fashion. That is why bessels are necessary for accuracy in this realm.
He ignores the permeability of the magnetic wires he used in his so called "experiment". As YOU stated, he used magnetic wire with a permeability of 100, yet in modelling the wires, he NEGLECTED the 15 nH per foot internal inductance of the wire TIMES the permeability of 100, or 1500 nH per foot inductance, 1.5 uH per foot. IGNORES the inductance. Yet when he stimulates the inductive wire set with a truncated sine, he doesn't realize that the waveform he found was an inductive snap???
His test setup attempts to measure a voltage in a 10 to 50 milliohm impedance loop, yet he has NO clue has to how to design a test setup capable of zero snap or B dot induced voltage...
Look elsewhere for what? Victims who are clueless about engineering and physics??
Under no circumstances BeO filler...very dangerous if further machining is required. Alumina, Aluminum Nitride, Boron Nitride perhaps.
He misapplied propagation of an E/M wave into a planar conductive surface with the internal lenz exclusion of current from a cylindrical conductor. Standard textbook understanding ignored.
He used the incorrect model. He swapped a magnetic conductor in place of copper wire, he failed to design an accurate test setup. The wire swap gave him the results he wanted.
Not questioning results because they appear to match expectations is not the scientific method. Swapping to a magnetic conductor to create the expected results without proper engineering, fatal mistake.
I pointed out all the FATAL flaws in his entire article, the model he used, the errors in assumptions, the very bad test setup he designed. That is not conjecture.
As opposed to other high level PhD's, scientists, physicists who actually trashed him, in print no less. Very ugly, if you ask me.
What I do is study the problem, understand the science, figure out if it is flawed, why it is flawed, provide the correct physics, explain the errors of the test setup, and how to do it properly.
That is what I do.
This badly done test and article are an extremely small subset of what I've done for the last 20 years, trivially simple.
jn
Last edited:
Agreed. In that dialogue, he refused to address any and all the fatal flaws in his non-peer reviewed article. He merely stated "I stand by my article".
Remember, he didn't offer up the fact that he bait and switched to magnetic wire to see what he wanted, you told me.
Ostrich.
jn
PM. As I've stated in the past, you re-hashing MH's very erroneous E/M theory, understandings at that time, and very shoddy test setup does not show him in good light. Are you sure you want to continue pushing garbage that can only show him in bad light? You are certainly not doing him a favor, you are dragging him through the mud.
Last edited:
JN,
It seem like an analogy to a computer that does not use ecc ram, the same errors or random errors keep cropping up. Errors are not corrected, they are just recreated and used again. This seems to be a common occurrence in this thread!
It seem like an analogy to a computer that does not use ecc ram, the same errors or random errors keep cropping up. Errors are not corrected, they are just recreated and used again. This seems to be a common occurrence in this thread!
Except in this case, there's not even any computing going on. John didn't address a single issue that JN brought up. He's simply incapable of it. So he just crawls back under his bridge and waits for the next billy goat gruff to come along so he can jump out and spew the same nonsense all over again.
se
jneutron, we use BeO all the time. It is machined in one of two places on the US. It enebles us to take a 4 W theral load from -45 or 85 C to 25C +/- .1 C in 3 seconds. It final use doesn't matter, not one will be in a position to care.
Theory is when one knows everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but nobody knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice go hand in hand: nothing works and nobody knows why.
Practice is when everything works but nobody knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice go hand in hand: nothing works and nobody knows why.
I was told that MH would not be 'stupid' enough to imply micro-diodes in wires. I had to offer the counter-proof that he did state that non-linearities appear to exist in typical wires, BUT you, JN, switched the debate, to his other measurement which appears to be a 'time' distortion instead, due to other factors. I am not the ONLY person who has found wires non-linear in some conditions.
As long as you are not the ones cutting/machining BeO. The machining of BeO just has to be done in a vacuum enclosure to remove all dust particles which could be breathed in. It is extreamly toxic when in the lungs. Its pretty much a guarantee of serious illness or death to breath it into the lungs.
THx-RNMarsh
I repeat and hilite:
BeO is dangerous if particulates are generated that can get into the lungs. It causes berylliosis in 4% of the human population (IIRC, from brush wellman), there is no test capable of determining susceptibility.
I used it quite a bit in the past for heatsinking. My current employ uses beryllium metal for some uses, and the extent to which it is treated as hazardous you would not believe.
What exactly were you trying to say? That it isn't dangerous in solid form (which I've always stated), that it is thermally conductive (it is very close to aluminum), or that since.. quote: ""It is machined in one of two places on the US"", that even if somebody machined it at home, that it is not a problem? (it is).
jn
ahhh , good forensic scope .. 🙂
ahhh ah
Thanks for the non-drive by Post JN.................. 🙂
You are the guy who said that anybody who thinks of micro-diodes in wires is 'stupid', not me.
I have not been following the MH issues --- but this just came to mind ---- wires over time oxidize. Could old copper wires which get oxidized have a weak diode affect or other less than perfect conduction? Might multi-Stranded and oxidized wires touching each other create some distortion?
-RNMarsh
-RNMarsh
Last edited:
BeO is used in laser devices all the time, just as arsenic gas is used in our reactors to grow lasers. We even have CalOSHA out here. ANd yes, there are only to fabrication houses in the US which can handle BeO.
NO. I DIRECTLY ADDRESSED conclusion points A, B, C, and D from the first page (of three) that you provided as "proof".
I did NOT switch the debate. I ABSOLUTELY addressed the first four points in what YOU posted.
I find that when I apply a kiloamp to a #14 AWG copper wire it begins to show non linearity after about 1 second. By the way, it's an irreversible process once the wire exceeds 1084 C, which occurs in about.....1 second.
What you demonstrated was test setup errors.
If you really wanted to see wire nonlinearities at frequency, you need to ask how to do it.
jn
You're attributing that stupid idea to MH- where, exactly, did he claim that there are "microdiodes" in wires?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.