Pieter, you came in sideways. Joe (and now Steve) claim that in some circumstances K's law is not valid. Indeed, he didn't claim he violated it, but that there were circumstances it would be violated, or was not valid, words to that effect. See Scott's post above.
Thanks for the clarification.
Jan
Hi Jan,
Yes cassette tape bias is really transmitting the signal at 90 to 115 KHz (usually). They use a trap to keep the bias out of the rest of the machine. The erase head gets the carrier, no modulation. The record head gets the carrier modulated by a few percent of audio. What Joe is talking about is very similar, but the modulation is much, much greater than the carrier would be.
For completeness, open reel recording is the same except with higher levels of signal and carrier waves. Bigger heads, wider tape = higher levels. Video, DAT, everything is very similar to the cassette model.
Hi Bill,
Hi Pieter t,
Hang on for a ride. You are probably not going to like where it goes, but I would kindly suggest you read up on this material so that you can see the true path. Don't use Joe's reading list. Read from more sources and keep an open mind. Otherwise, it's the swirly path for you.
-Chris
Yes cassette tape bias is really transmitting the signal at 90 to 115 KHz (usually). They use a trap to keep the bias out of the rest of the machine. The erase head gets the carrier, no modulation. The record head gets the carrier modulated by a few percent of audio. What Joe is talking about is very similar, but the modulation is much, much greater than the carrier would be.
For completeness, open reel recording is the same except with higher levels of signal and carrier waves. Bigger heads, wider tape = higher levels. Video, DAT, everything is very similar to the cassette model.
Hi Bill,
How more right can you be?
Hi Pieter t,
Hang on for a ride. You are probably not going to like where it goes, but I would kindly suggest you read up on this material so that you can see the true path. Don't use Joe's reading list. Read from more sources and keep an open mind. Otherwise, it's the swirly path for you.
-Chris
Hi Chris,
I am not afraid of "where" it goes; there is enough open mindedness, and though not an expert, I do know the basic things about loudspeakers well enough to understand what the discussion is about.
However I am concerned of "how" it goes, and this "how" seems more and more to be the way it goes in this particular forum.
In my opinion there are more subtle ways to question one's statements, and in this particular case it is not even a statement but more a hypothesis: Joe does not violate Kirchhoff's Law but indicates that there might be circumstances which go beyond what KL predicts.
That is a bold hypothesis no question about it, but there is no need to jump into his back before he comes up with his findings. In the end physics will win, not someone around here.
I am not afraid of "where" it goes; there is enough open mindedness, and though not an expert, I do know the basic things about loudspeakers well enough to understand what the discussion is about.
However I am concerned of "how" it goes, and this "how" seems more and more to be the way it goes in this particular forum.
In my opinion there are more subtle ways to question one's statements, and in this particular case it is not even a statement but more a hypothesis: Joe does not violate Kirchhoff's Law but indicates that there might be circumstances which go beyond what KL predicts.
That is a bold hypothesis no question about it, but there is no need to jump into his back before he comes up with his findings. In the end physics will win, not someone around here.
Claiming that your speaker crossover violates conservation of mass-energy and charge is something beyond a "bold hypothesis." 😀
You can say that about almost everything in audio (if it doesn't have a computer in it). But if it is useful and we are not looking at it, then it needs reconsideration.
We should always be reconsidering everything. Look at Newton's Laws of Gravity for instance.
dave
While that is true, it is also true that we very often simplify a problem (assuming what we are tossing out is so small as to be irrelevant) to keep the math "easy", that it is possible for something to creap in that does affect things.
dave
Hi Dave,
Are you suggesting gravity has failed us, or are there some minor changes because we can measure things much more accurately these days? After all, just look at how long that Newtonian concept has been around.
My point is, this idea has been recently looked at, to the point where commercial gain has been involved. However, it might help Joe immensely if he could buy those devices and read their information on the topic.
Chris
Are you suggesting gravity has failed us, or are there some minor changes because we can measure things much more accurately these days? After all, just look at how long that Newtonian concept has been around.
My point is, this idea has been recently looked at, to the point where commercial gain has been involved. However, it might help Joe immensely if he could buy those devices and read their information on the topic.
Chris
Hi Pieter,
"Keeping an open mind" is the thing that is exploited in order to forward an agenda for commercial gain. Some people have a track record of taking a run at just about every facet of physics in order to profit in some way. After a while they can look back on all this "work" and even use that to their advantage.
I for one spent a good deal of time and money learning about how the laws of physics impact our world. If I had a question, a little research on my part would clear things up, or an experiment would answer a concern immediately. For most people, reaching different conclusions than experts in a field causes them to look at their own work to find the problem. Other folks decide the experts are wrong right off and challenge the collected body of work from thousands of individuals instead of looking at their own work. Irresponsible behavior if you ask me. Laws have been proved correct. If anyone thinks differently about this, it is up to them to prove the issue without asking others to prove they are wrong. They do not have that expectation yet.
-Chris
Not when there is already a vast body of work between every expert in the world that shows otherwise.
"Keeping an open mind" is the thing that is exploited in order to forward an agenda for commercial gain. Some people have a track record of taking a run at just about every facet of physics in order to profit in some way. After a while they can look back on all this "work" and even use that to their advantage.
I for one spent a good deal of time and money learning about how the laws of physics impact our world. If I had a question, a little research on my part would clear things up, or an experiment would answer a concern immediately. For most people, reaching different conclusions than experts in a field causes them to look at their own work to find the problem. Other folks decide the experts are wrong right off and challenge the collected body of work from thousands of individuals instead of looking at their own work. Irresponsible behavior if you ask me. Laws have been proved correct. If anyone thinks differently about this, it is up to them to prove the issue without asking others to prove they are wrong. They do not have that expectation yet.
-Chris
Not at all. But indeed when gravity was looked at more closely Newton's Law is really a close approximation only applicable at "slow" speeds.
What commercial gain?
This forum was largely formed around luminaries (in this case specifically Nelson Pass) passing on what they know for FREE. There is no doubt it adds a bit of glow to the commercial offerings but most here will choose to DIY.
Are you advocating that we stem that and let the forum stagnate to death?
dave
1/r^2 still works. Nothing has changed that. Mass energy charge conservation is rigorously true, and if it ever becomes upset, it won't be because of a guy selling speaker kits, boutique wire, and DVD players.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. What's been offered is no proof whatsoever. Perhaps Joe was in error and didn't think his statement through, in which case there's no shame in him saying, "Whoops, I was wrong."
You keep saying that, and you can keep asking, but this is a DIY forum and we have never asked for proof. And you never are patient enuff to wait for an answer.
It works or it doesn't. If it doesn't it does not survive.
If you try to apply Newton's laws at high speeds the old theory/law breaks.
dave
It works or it doesn't. If it doesn't it does not survive.
If you try to apply Newton's laws at high speeds the old theory/law breaks.
dave
information has a clear mathematical definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.