john curl said:
Since DA is modeled as a linear distortion, a cap with 5% DA will have 0% harmonic distortion.
se
Hi,
Yes, Steve, I did notice the mistake in the text.
If you read the next line of text it becomes clear that the author meant the opposite.
By referring to the Affel and Green patent application from which you quote the apperently diametrically opposing statement that becomes even clearer and confirms the intention of the author.
Note also that the patent was filed in 1925.
Moreover by actually understanding the phenomen as you showed, you also seem to confirm that you understand that in fact hysteris distortion is not the same as dielectric absorbtion.
Why we keep dragging this on and on is beyond me though...
I think I have already hinted at where the "microdiode" idea came from twice.
Hint 3 : It's just an analogy written up by some poor soul trying to explain to the masses why he felt convinced cables could distort the audio signal.
Probably promoting one or other supercable sold at ten times the industrial catalogue price.
Hope this helps,😉
Yes, Steve, I did notice the mistake in the text.
If you read the next line of text it becomes clear that the author meant the opposite.
By referring to the Affel and Green patent application from which you quote the apperently diametrically opposing statement that becomes even clearer and confirms the intention of the author.
Note also that the patent was filed in 1925.
Moreover by actually understanding the phenomen as you showed, you also seem to confirm that you understand that in fact hysteris distortion is not the same as dielectric absorbtion.
Why we keep dragging this on and on is beyond me though...
I think I have already hinted at where the "microdiode" idea came from twice.
Hint 3 : It's just an analogy written up by some poor soul trying to explain to the masses why he felt convinced cables could distort the audio signal.
Probably promoting one or other supercable sold at ten times the industrial catalogue price.
Hope this helps,😉
fdegrove said:
If you noticed the mistake in the text, then why did you quote the MISTAKEN TEXT and use that as proof that DA and DH weren't one and the same?
Yes, I noticed that. So? It didn't stop you from quoting from it.
"Hysteresis distortion"? No, the term we'd been using has been dielectric hysteresis. And again, I see no evidence that dielectric hysteresis and dielectric absorption are not synonyms for the same phenomenon.
Because you haven't shown that dielectric hysteresis and dielectric absorption are not synonyms for the same phenomenon.
se
SY said:
Wait a minute, how can a material polarize without the movement of the polarizable elements which allow it to be polarized in the first place? SOMETHING'S gotta move unless you're talking about a vacuum.
se
Hi,
It's just that I hadn't noticed I had selected the wrong block of text while posting, that's all.
Just hoping we'd stop discussing it before 2025, that's all.😀
Cheers,😉
It's just that I hadn't noticed I had selected the wrong block of text while posting, that's all.
Just hoping we'd stop discussing it before 2025, that's all.😀
Cheers,😉
janneman said:
Interesting, I am not sure I made much of a claim about
anything so there even can be anything I am not having
a clue about. I thought I had mostly tried to demand some
clarification of other peoples claims and tried to structure up
some things. Obvoiously I have said something else that
was very wrong or stupid and that has slipped passed both
myself and others. I usually want to know about my mistakes
so I can admit them, so could you please reconsider your
opinion not to post anything more and tell me what I did
wrong? Or do you just want to join in and complain about
others without contributing anything useful yourself? Show
us you are adult by not just complaining, but also telling us
what you are complaining about.
Edit: I do, however, agree with you that the thread has
degenerated and is losing its focus on the original issue.
fdegrove said:
Ok, so if the right block of text is the block of text which says that as dielectric hysteresis increases the loss angle also increases, how does that make it "sufficiently clear too see that DA and DH are not one and the same" seeing as the loss angle increases as DA increases?
Or at least before it becames all too clear that you're just grasping at straws here. 😀
se
Steve Eddy said:
Charge density moves. It's not massless, but pretty damn close compared to the weight of the nuclei plus core electrons.
To late to add to previous post by editing.
Jan,
I have just reread, alhthough quickly, all what I wrote in this
thread, and all that you wrote to, BTW, and I am even more
puzzled what you might be referring to. Since you lumped
me, John and Frank together but left, for instance, Steve out,
you seem to think I have made some claim in agreement
with Frank and John and which is wrong, while at the same
time it seems you agree with Steve. I cannot see I have made
any such claims. However, you have made claims that I intepret
as agreeing with Frank and John while not agreeing with Steve.
This is really puzzling. Maybe I am confusing you by not taking
a clear stand and claim anything at all? you see, I don't want
to make claims about whether a certain pehnomenon exists
or not without having evidence of it, as some people inlcuding
you seem not to mind.
Jan, I beg you for a clarification of what you "accused" me of,
either here or by email. I don't wan't to be accused of
making errors without getting a chance to either admit it
or clarify myself.
Jan,
I have just reread, alhthough quickly, all what I wrote in this
thread, and all that you wrote to, BTW, and I am even more
puzzled what you might be referring to. Since you lumped
me, John and Frank together but left, for instance, Steve out,
you seem to think I have made some claim in agreement
with Frank and John and which is wrong, while at the same
time it seems you agree with Steve. I cannot see I have made
any such claims. However, you have made claims that I intepret
as agreeing with Frank and John while not agreeing with Steve.
This is really puzzling. Maybe I am confusing you by not taking
a clear stand and claim anything at all? you see, I don't want
to make claims about whether a certain pehnomenon exists
or not without having evidence of it, as some people inlcuding
you seem not to mind.
Jan, I beg you for a clarification of what you "accused" me of,
either here or by email. I don't wan't to be accused of
making errors without getting a chance to either admit it
or clarify myself.
SY said:
I'm talking about polarizability. And one of the things which determines the polarizability of a dielectric material is the re-orientation of molecular dipoles.
se
Hi,
Let's just hope they're good straws then.
Seriously, Steve, there are literally hundreds of academic references for all to see and read on the web, do you really expect anyone to go through all of them untill there's one that might just suit you?
Careful, you may have to prove that too...😉
Let's just hope they're good straws then.
Seriously, Steve, there are literally hundreds of academic references for all to see and read on the web, do you really expect anyone to go through all of them untill there's one that might just suit you?
Careful, you may have to prove that too...😉
fdegrove said:
Even the best straw is still just a straw.
So let's see just one which actually differentiates dielectric absorption from dielectric hysteresis. You don't have to go through all of them. You just have to go through one. And 1925 patents don't count as "academic references" by the way.
se
Hi,
Ah, I was afraid of that already...Mr. Wilson or any other patent holders, tear them up they're worthless rags.
What would count, I wonder?
Put it another way, what would count as good enough to convince you?
Maybe there's a way to tell the search engines to find something SE likes and accepts as being either black or white enough to be accepted....
Just kidding, Steve, but sometimes you make me tear out the few straws on my head that are still hanging in there.
Which would be?
Cheers,😉
Ah, I was afraid of that already...Mr. Wilson or any other patent holders, tear them up they're worthless rags.
What would count, I wonder?
Put it another way, what would count as good enough to convince you?
Maybe there's a way to tell the search engines to find something SE likes and accepts as being either black or white enough to be accepted....
Just kidding, Steve, but sometimes you make me tear out the few straws on my head that are still hanging in there.
Which would be?
Cheers,😉
fdegrove said:
The patent's fine. You said yourself it was clear what the author meant to say. Which was that as dielectric hysteresis increased, the loss angle increases as well.
But that's perfectly in keeping with dielectric absorption. So it only argues against your claim.
It's real simple, Frank. Either offer up something which explains what the difference is between dielectric hysteresis and dielectric absorption, or simply explain it in your own words.
Which would be any one of the hundreds that you say are out there.
se
Here's the conundrum, Frank.
You keep insisting that dielectric hysteresis and dielectric absorption are two different things. Yet it's clear that you don't have the foggiest idea just what that difference is. Which begs the question, if you don't know what the difference is, how is it that you know that they are two different things?
se
You keep insisting that dielectric hysteresis and dielectric absorption are two different things. Yet it's clear that you don't have the foggiest idea just what that difference is. Which begs the question, if you don't know what the difference is, how is it that you know that they are two different things?
se
Hi,
ROTF.
Yes, in the patent application one could replace one for the other and it would still be true.
How does that make both synonymous?
You seem to think I'm an employee of yours so what's the amount on the payroll?
But yes, the Google first page shows hits good for 10 pages with 10 references per page that amounts to a hundred references.
Come to page 10 and even more turn up...
Naturally all these references are wrong and confuse DA with DH, they just must be wrong because there's just not enough of them.
And don't give me any crap like you made the claim so the onus is on you. You have the same resources as I have, perhaps even more when it comes to library access etc.
Does it not seem odd to you that no one but you makes this claim of synonymousity?
And no, I don't think it has any effect on audio cables of decent quality and shape but it's your call.
Cheers, 😉
P.S. Just lost another bunch of those straws hanging from my head....
ROTF.
Yes, in the patent application one could replace one for the other and it would still be true.
How does that make both synonymous?
You seem to think I'm an employee of yours so what's the amount on the payroll?
But yes, the Google first page shows hits good for 10 pages with 10 references per page that amounts to a hundred references.
Come to page 10 and even more turn up...
Naturally all these references are wrong and confuse DA with DH, they just must be wrong because there's just not enough of them.
And don't give me any crap like you made the claim so the onus is on you. You have the same resources as I have, perhaps even more when it comes to library access etc.
Does it not seem odd to you that no one but you makes this claim of synonymousity?
And no, I don't think it has any effect on audio cables of decent quality and shape but it's your call.
Cheers, 😉
P.S. Just lost another bunch of those straws hanging from my head....
Steve Eddy said:
Not exactly, and especially not for common materials used as cap dielectrics. Take a simple polymer like polyethylene, for example; the dipoles within the molecules are quite weak (carbon and hydrogen have similar electronegativity, carbon-carbon single bonds are totally nonpolar). But under a field, the electron density (and hence dipole moment) squishes back and forth. This is a function of the charge cloud sloshing back and forth with the applied field, but to a good approximation (Born-Oppenheimer) the molecular centers aren't moving with the field.
Now, when you measure the dielectric contant of non-macromolecular liquids, for example, the motion of molecular dipoles can become significant. But that's not exactly a typical cap or cable insulation material family.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.