Some guy told me to rotate the tires on my car. I said "Pull the other one! They rotate every time I drive!"
Its important you put the flat bit of the tyre to the road or it wont work properly.
Using real superconductivity to remove the thermal noise of a detectors resistive component is not very quantum mechanical and easily measurable. Anything involving submarine warfare was secret at one time. I can see the roots of stories.
There is no room temperature SC and in any case SC itself wouldn't do what is claimed.
Actually, capacitors can sound different and there are quite measurable non-linearities in some types. They have voltage and temperature coefficients, and some types exhibit significant dielectric adsorption.
As one extreme example, tantalum capacitors have been used in active tone controls in guitar effects pedals to generate distortion effects anyone can hear.
The idea is that if capacitors are appropriately selected for a given circuit function, then they should't cause sound quality or other problems.
Jack does not claim superconductivity. He refers to 'near superconductivity' to some of his components to infer characteristics in the materials he uses that are usually associated with superconductivity. I don't know how he could say it even better. Apparently, the OBVIOUS characteristics of superconductivity are missing from his devices, but not necessarily all of the less known ones.
Of course, you have to accept that Jack worked in the military-industrial complex many decades ago as an acknowledged expert in superconductivity, and that is why he was assigned to help Richard Feynman on this subject. If you don't believe anything about him, then it would be impossible to believe that he could have done anything that he claims, but that is your problem, not mine.
I have known Jack for more than 20 years, and I have often skeptically evaluated his claims, of both his products and his past history. I believe him, just as much as I believe that you went to MIT at some point in your life. I can't prove your history either, but I still believe it, because I have known you for about 10 years longer than I have known Jack Bybee and you have been consistent with your history over the decades. It is the same with Jack.
I have gone to the UC campus with Jack, on occasion, and nothing tells me he is a stranger to the campus. I even found out that he and I had lived in the same rooming house (10 years apart) when the rooming house used to be a fraternity that Jack belonged to at the time. Later, when I was there, it seemed to be a strange construction for a previous family residence, with lots of bedrooms with one kitchen, etc. so it made sense that it was a frat house in the past, until they moved up the road a little way. I too had my doubts about Jack in my early association with him, but they have been erased with knowing and sometimes working with him. I certainly don't work FOR him or in any way partner with him, but over the decades, I have been a design consultant for projects that he is not familiar with, like electrical and electronics design. I also have never designed in one of his QM based products into one of my designs, mostly because they are just too expensive, but I am probably keeping some of my best designs from sounding their very best, because of this. However, I prefer to improve my designs with my own efforts, even though they are often as 'unproven' as many of Jack's products. So there!
Of course, you have to accept that Jack worked in the military-industrial complex many decades ago as an acknowledged expert in superconductivity, and that is why he was assigned to help Richard Feynman on this subject. If you don't believe anything about him, then it would be impossible to believe that he could have done anything that he claims, but that is your problem, not mine.
I have known Jack for more than 20 years, and I have often skeptically evaluated his claims, of both his products and his past history. I believe him, just as much as I believe that you went to MIT at some point in your life. I can't prove your history either, but I still believe it, because I have known you for about 10 years longer than I have known Jack Bybee and you have been consistent with your history over the decades. It is the same with Jack.
I have gone to the UC campus with Jack, on occasion, and nothing tells me he is a stranger to the campus. I even found out that he and I had lived in the same rooming house (10 years apart) when the rooming house used to be a fraternity that Jack belonged to at the time. Later, when I was there, it seemed to be a strange construction for a previous family residence, with lots of bedrooms with one kitchen, etc. so it made sense that it was a frat house in the past, until they moved up the road a little way. I too had my doubts about Jack in my early association with him, but they have been erased with knowing and sometimes working with him. I certainly don't work FOR him or in any way partner with him, but over the decades, I have been a design consultant for projects that he is not familiar with, like electrical and electronics design. I also have never designed in one of his QM based products into one of my designs, mostly because they are just too expensive, but I am probably keeping some of my best designs from sounding their very best, because of this. However, I prefer to improve my designs with my own efforts, even though they are often as 'unproven' as many of Jack's products. So there!
Which would be? The claims if true would make the superconductivity (or "near" superconductivity) irrelevant. These claims are not something that some hear and some don't and return for a refund, fundamental physics does not work that way.
Surely those aren't the credentials I'd be looking for (can't speak for the former, have the latter). I'd be much more interested in what he's actually done that, say, was (and perhaps still is) scientifically/technologically relevant. Much higher standard. 🙂
An acknowledged expert in superconductivity without a PhD and not a single publication, we just gotta believe.
Jack has a Masters Degree in Physics from UC Berkeley. He has always regretted not getting a PhD, but his schooling was interrupted by being drafted in as a Marine officer in the Korean war. Apparently, years later, he was going to return to college to get his PhD, when he got a job offer that he couldn't refuse, apparently from accidentally meeting someone on a plane flight, and he became a VP of Sega, in the early days when they were associated with offshore gambling machines for service people.
Now how do I know he is a real physicist? Well, he is a lot more of a physicist than I am, and I have a BA in Physics. He knows a lot more about atomic physics than I ever will, that's for sure.
Of course, in my life, I have met a few 'posers' who learn a few terms and act like an expert. I even suspect there are a few on this thread even, but that is not Jack. He is as real as anyone I know.
Now how do I know he is a real physicist? Well, he is a lot more of a physicist than I am, and I have a BA in Physics. He knows a lot more about atomic physics than I ever will, that's for sure.
Of course, in my life, I have met a few 'posers' who learn a few terms and act like an expert. I even suspect there are a few on this thread even, but that is not Jack. He is as real as anyone I know.
Why not a superconductivity "specialist" without PhD?
A very simple example:
I am not an engineer but I have done some projects "beyond my school degree". Why I don't will built one thing I understand, only why I don't have the proper "degree"?
Of course, this comment don't apply to snake oil...
A very simple example:
I am not an engineer but I have done some projects "beyond my school degree". Why I don't will built one thing I understand, only why I don't have the proper "degree"?
Of course, this comment don't apply to snake oil...
Don't worry DIYBras, that's not the point, so don't worry. It was all the self-claiming and no beef to support part. Not the degree. 🙂
Jive Talking
Maybe the Bybees are mostly a thought experiment, exploring the wave- particle duality
nature of reality, or the instant creation of a reality, within a holographic universe.
An observer expects to hear a difference, and therefore collapses the wave which creates that reality.
An observer expects to hear no difference, and
therefore collapses the wave which creates that reality.
Maybe the Bybees are mostly a thought experiment, exploring the wave- particle duality
nature of reality, or the instant creation of a reality, within a holographic universe.
An observer expects to hear a difference, and therefore collapses the wave which creates that reality.
An observer expects to hear no difference, and
therefore collapses the wave which creates that reality.
Attachments
"Quantum technology and what the quantum units actually do is quite secret, but..." Straight from the Nordost site. Sheesh.
I wonder why there haven’t been complaints filed with regulatory agencies over this kind of thing?
This isn’t protected under “puffery” as they are making claims of audible benefit and function which I imagine aren’t verifiable. It’s pretty much square in the false and misleading claims department.
Rather than take stabs at this sort of thing in a forum, take steps to have these products removed from the marketplace and the manufacturers punished for lying to consumers?
Surely they would have to prove these claims when agency bodies inquire?
Also surely there are some here with the industry experience and clout to take steps toward that?
How has this kind of nonsense still not been addressed?
Can someone with more internal knowledge of the industry shed some light on this?
It’s a bit embarrassing as it seems endemic.
False or misleading claims | ACCC
Is not superconductivity a bit like pregnancy: you cannot be 'a little bit pregnant'? Superconductivity is marked by two issues: negligible resistance, exclusion of magnetic field - both of which happen abruptly at the phase transition. What are these 'lesser known' issues?john curl said:
Someone would have to be awfully clever to help Feynman on any subject. It is a pity that RF does not mention Bybee in any of his books.
However, Bybee's background is largely irrelevant (apart from supporters mentioning it as though it somehow supports his claims). It is the claims which matter, which appear to be a claim about Maxwell demons. We are asked to believe that this device can separate noise from signal. We are told that it is not simply an RF filter. It appears to be, and measures as, a low value resistor surrounded by some unspecified material; as a two-terminal passive device it can only affect a circuit via its impedance. I am guessing that the vague mention of 'near superconductivity' means a claim about the near formation of near Cooper pairs which will nearly slip past all the lattice discontinuities in adjacent conductors, thus nearly not being scattered by them. Thus the almost negligible effect of conductor resistance will be nearly overcome and the signal and noise will be nearly unchanged.
All this nearly wonderful technology has never been published (nor nearly anything else by Bybee?) in any peer reviewed journal, and nobody else has nearly stumbled across it (or perhaps they were nearly dealt with by security services). Yet it is so nearly secret that Bybee and his friends can openly refer to its existence?
BQP changes the excess noise behaviour of systems.
This manifests as clearer output sound without changing the original signal.
Actually in typical systems the signal changes the system.
No Maxwell demons are involved.
Dan.
This manifests as clearer output sound without changing the original signal.
Actually in typical systems the signal changes the system.
No Maxwell demons are involved.
Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.