I choose adjective definition 4
bet·ter 1 (btr)
adj. Comparative of good.
1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality.
2. More useful, suitable, or desirable: found a better way to go; a suit with a better fit than that one.
3. More highly skilled or adept: I am better at math than English.
4. Greater or larger: argued for the better part of an hour.
5. More advantageous or favorable; improved: a better chance of success.
6. Healthier or more fit than before: The patient is better today.
bet·ter 1 (btr)
adj. Comparative of good.
1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality.
2. More useful, suitable, or desirable: found a better way to go; a suit with a better fit than that one.
3. More highly skilled or adept: I am better at math than English.
4. Greater or larger: argued for the better part of an hour.
5. More advantageous or favorable; improved: a better chance of success.
6. Healthier or more fit than before: The patient is better today.
Sy,
Seems to me that if we take Jack Bybee at his word, that his device is a quantum slipstream with near room temperature super conduction that "looses" noise from a signal by turning it into heat, the following new universe might be true.
Assuming that the wrap under the PVC is made from carbon nano-tubes and the resistor is wound from Beryllia, perhaps the PVC really is acting upon the passage of electrons in the carbon nano-tubes in a triboelectric fashion, causing them to linger in an electron orbit packing scheme. Sort of a slow school zone wave guide. The coherent signal packet, or information, or whatever... doesn't care and should in fact find this zone to be a preferred wave guide, when compared to the putative more loosely packed orbit Beryllia thingy, off in another universe. Might not actually be a quasi super conductor...... might be a compound quasi super solid...
I see the only way to test this device, as it is intended to work, once again taking Mr. Bybee at his word, as the following. Apply a known coherent signal / information packet. Maybe the cleanest 440 Hz you can generate. While recording the 440 Hz on both sides of the device, begin to insert the "noise" signal used in current audio test suites to look at speaker parameters. And then white noise and pink, starting at -100 db and slowly rising. Null the 440 Hz beyond the Bybee device, noting any reduction in level and measure the noise on both sides of the device. The constructed noise from the test suite should allow an objective spectrum comparison and the white and pink an audible difference when run through a speaker. Assuming, of course, the unusual possibility that there is something going on under that PVC wrapper.
Seems to me that if we take Jack Bybee at his word, that his device is a quantum slipstream with near room temperature super conduction that "looses" noise from a signal by turning it into heat, the following new universe might be true.
Assuming that the wrap under the PVC is made from carbon nano-tubes and the resistor is wound from Beryllia, perhaps the PVC really is acting upon the passage of electrons in the carbon nano-tubes in a triboelectric fashion, causing them to linger in an electron orbit packing scheme. Sort of a slow school zone wave guide. The coherent signal packet, or information, or whatever... doesn't care and should in fact find this zone to be a preferred wave guide, when compared to the putative more loosely packed orbit Beryllia thingy, off in another universe. Might not actually be a quasi super conductor...... might be a compound quasi super solid...
I see the only way to test this device, as it is intended to work, once again taking Mr. Bybee at his word, as the following. Apply a known coherent signal / information packet. Maybe the cleanest 440 Hz you can generate. While recording the 440 Hz on both sides of the device, begin to insert the "noise" signal used in current audio test suites to look at speaker parameters. And then white noise and pink, starting at -100 db and slowly rising. Null the 440 Hz beyond the Bybee device, noting any reduction in level and measure the noise on both sides of the device. The constructed noise from the test suite should allow an objective spectrum comparison and the white and pink an audible difference when run through a speaker. Assuming, of course, the unusual possibility that there is something going on under that PVC wrapper.
If the device works at all shouldn't you be able to just null the 440 and see a difference? Drive a Bybee and a .025 resistor with the legs of a center tapped transformer. Ground the center tap and measure the difference at the node between the loads. A very much symmetrical single layer transformer could be used for test. Alternatively, make a full bridge. Pick a frequency/ signal. Trimming of the matching resistor and other nulling steps could be taken as necessary, until you cob together a model of everything the device does, minus whatever can't be added unless you have the action of another matching Bybee. To me, there should be an effect above -120dB difference for it to be useful in audio. Far less than that and I'm not sure you could ever Prove it's audible, although maybe it might be useful in communications or something. I don't say that because anyone should be trying to prove there's an audible difference here in this thread, just that it might be something useful to realize if it becomes possible to null the result down to -140dB or more. At that point, we may as well hang it up.
Last edited:
I think your test will have considerable merit.
My thought was based on the added noise being some how random enough to get lost in the resistor, rather than following a coherent wave form, as thee Bybee talk seems to indicate. Just that random charges, or noise, might statistically choose to bury themselves in the beryllia and enough be lost to be measured. The 440Hz was just to provide a non random signal for comparison.
My thought was based on the added noise being some how random enough to get lost in the resistor, rather than following a coherent wave form, as thee Bybee talk seems to indicate. Just that random charges, or noise, might statistically choose to bury themselves in the beryllia and enough be lost to be measured. The 440Hz was just to provide a non random signal for comparison.
I dont think the device uses carbon nanotubes (I'd go as far as saying I'm certain it dosn't), it may use some carbon fibre based fabric, similar to stillpoint ERS. I'd also say that the PVC coating provides nothing more than a protective outer coating and to hide the QP's interior.
I'm curious as to the lack of measured data, is it an indication that the only measured data is that caused by the resistor?
I'm curious as to the lack of measured data, is it an indication that the only measured data is that caused by the resistor?
Can someone please explain what this quantum talk is about. My humble electrical engineering knowledge is based on impeadance and RLC. Does this not hold true for whats happening in a bybee? Is there such a thing as a superconductor at room temp, and is that not just a little less R between the source and load which has lots of R anyway?
No. But the claim is "near superconductive," which has no particular meaning, "puffery" in advertising parlance. The claims of First and Second Law of Thermodynamics violations, as well as the claim to violate the Pauli principle and Fermi-Dirac statistics are much more... astounding. I don't think I'm giving up too much in advance to say that this isn't happening.
They also do not claim the use of CNTs- that's stuff that Curl made up, not Bybee. They specifically say:
So let's not judge them for claims they don't make, nor assume things that they don't claim. The claims they DO make are extraordinary enough.
Not per se re the Bybee but:
Noise is bidirectional, signal is directional.
Signal flows from the source to the load. Noise is present at both the source and the load. The source impedance is usually low and the load higher so in normal practice the source effectively shorts out the noise generated by the higher load impedance.
In a feedback amplifier there may be some influence on the performance based on back EMF.
However the noise from a loudspeaker impedance source is very low. It should be more important at a line level device of 10,000 ohms or above.
For those who don't understand AC the voltage varies from positive to negative as does the current so when you multiply the two the power flow is positive in resistive loads.
Hey John:
Do we need 3GHz bandwidth to catch How this thing is doing what it is doing or do we also need 3GHz bandwidth to see what its doing?
Are we not going to get anywhere by testing with an audio frequency sine tone driving a nulling bridge and a low noise amplifier?
I don't care whether you have to make up an answer. Until multiple people can repeatably prove that this thing does anything more than what you'd expect from conventional ideas about RLC, it's All made up. Even if something neato Is happening. Fortunately for humans, they don't need to understand what they don't know to prove there is something going on that they don't understand. Right now, just doing that hasn't been accomplished so far as I know. If there is some special reason that proof one does know should Also disappear once you get down to a particular resolution (sub, particlar, if you have to) then a lot of people other than me might be surprised.
Do we need 3GHz bandwidth to catch How this thing is doing what it is doing or do we also need 3GHz bandwidth to see what its doing?
Are we not going to get anywhere by testing with an audio frequency sine tone driving a nulling bridge and a low noise amplifier?
I don't care whether you have to make up an answer. Until multiple people can repeatably prove that this thing does anything more than what you'd expect from conventional ideas about RLC, it's All made up. Even if something neato Is happening. Fortunately for humans, they don't need to understand what they don't know to prove there is something going on that they don't understand. Right now, just doing that hasn't been accomplished so far as I know. If there is some special reason that proof one does know should Also disappear once you get down to a particular resolution (sub, particlar, if you have to) then a lot of people other than me might be surprised.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.