Prost!
Sorry. There is a counter example called superconductivity, another one called recoilless scattering (i.e. zero phonon processes), etc.
Not quite true again. At quantum level they are.
This is what we know. And admittedly, we do not know the rest.
TNT,
I meant to say that you should not take seriously this statement:
"The Higgs boson has the extraordinary ability to exert a force on itself. Incredible but true."
I am sorry for the confusion.
I meant to say that you should not take seriously this statement:
"The Higgs boson has the extraordinary ability to exert a force on itself. Incredible but true."
I am sorry for the confusion.
This language is monopoly of wives and GFs. 🙂
Let's not upset them, agree? Everyone is ignorable here, if they are hard to be understood too often.🙂
N101N
if I may, there is an easier way: you could ask the OPS to allow you to correct the old posting (or delete it). Replace word "force" for "coupling". If my understanding is correct, it means their action, leading to creation of a "G-force", is combined and modified. Do you agree?
By the way, superconductivity yields horrible signal distortion. To increase efficiency is to close in on the superconducting state.
... and how would you know this? Proof?
Another guess stated as a fact. This is, of course, completely untrue. Most of what you have been posting is pure nonsense N101N.
Let's try something new. How about we attempt to stay on the subject this thread is about? While we are at it, let's also do our best to post factual stuff, not garbage you can turn up under rocks on the internet.
Ionmw,
force is the correct term. There is a coupling between forces (but not between currents as widely believed).
force is the correct term. There is a coupling between forces (but not between currents as widely believed).
this is probably the last one for today:
Sorry. No. I cannot say for a fact. I have experienced probeheads reading just fine at capturing s-ms-us-ns-ps time frames of signals. Same for generating GHz-THz signals, pretty pure, conform and stable signals. Some setups create masers, hence quite stable, no distortions, if done well.
Actually overall the superconducting versions are hard to beat champions on this.
Maybe you had different experience, problems and mechanisms at your Probe.
Vortexes can be avoided, and there is technology and know-how for this.
But again, I am not a superconducting scientist. I only tell what I have seen (not done).
Last edited:
Back to business.
If anyone knows the full history of 20000 posts here, was there ever exemplified a reference system which "won" the contest, combining the best measurements with best sound quality ? Thanks!
If anyone knows the full history of 20000 posts here, was there ever exemplified a reference system which "won" the contest, combining the best measurements with best sound quality ? Thanks!
But it had an answer, right next to it. If memory allows, Post# 19890. Probably all, inclusive me, agreed with that answer? 🙂
More than this, sorry, I cannot help.
Ask Scott...
More than this, sorry, I cannot help.
Ask Scott...
If you mean sources as in music albums, there are plenty of well recorded and mastered sources produced recently. Unfortunately, there are many crap albums produced recently as well. You just have to know which is which. So it hasn't left the building. More like wannabes have infiltrated the building.
If you insist:
- for a 2.7mH / 16Ohm driver
- Amp capable of 10A at 20KHz, with 3dB bandwidth of 200KHz and maximum 25° phase.
- distortion less than 0.01%
- all protections possible 🙂
- software control.
[Edit] - in addition: DF better than 100.
Does TNT has an offer?
In the case of a power amplifier, that would be its weight, but I am the wrong person to answer the question.
They’re anti-science, providing proof that isn’t flowery words or simple a priori axioms might just be too much cognitive dissonance, even for the snake oil crowd
- Status
- Not open for further replies.