Calm down Arthur! I said 'alleged' BECAUSE I have NOT personally tested them to ascertain how well they damp vibration. I suspect, in fact I'm pretty sure that they do what they claim. It is not for me to prove ANYTHING to you. I'll I can do is suggest that people TRY things before they TRASH them.
military tweaks
Of course the military uses "tweaks." The steath fighter and stealth bomber are good examples of how extensively "tweaks" are sometimes employed to attain a level of performance impossible without them. The aircraft are both "flying tweaks," if you will, with completely new technology (then) developed to obtain "low prob of intercept" (to use the military venacular). (The big challenge was to actually make the aircraft fly, as they were quite unstable in flight due to the primary goal of LPOI). But theory (and measurement) was only (a small) part of the puzzle, as Trial & Error dominated the development of these amazing weapon systems. Tweaking the wing and fuselage geometry and development of the "correct" skin materials/paint and learning to apply them in the correct manner took many years of trial and error. In fact, without the tweaking you get nada, or at most just acceptable results. Really no different from development of a "high end "amplifier or speaker. Some might call it "engineering development," others might call it "tweaking."
Of course the military uses "tweaks." The steath fighter and stealth bomber are good examples of how extensively "tweaks" are sometimes employed to attain a level of performance impossible without them. The aircraft are both "flying tweaks," if you will, with completely new technology (then) developed to obtain "low prob of intercept" (to use the military venacular). (The big challenge was to actually make the aircraft fly, as they were quite unstable in flight due to the primary goal of LPOI). But theory (and measurement) was only (a small) part of the puzzle, as Trial & Error dominated the development of these amazing weapon systems. Tweaking the wing and fuselage geometry and development of the "correct" skin materials/paint and learning to apply them in the correct manner took many years of trial and error. In fact, without the tweaking you get nada, or at most just acceptable results. Really no different from development of a "high end "amplifier or speaker. Some might call it "engineering development," others might call it "tweaking."
Stealth tweaks
As a guy who actually worked for Ben Rich, I'm somewhat familiar with the sorts of things you're talking about. I've got a vision in my head about an engineer who would go to Ben and say, "Look, I can't really measure any difference in RCS when I put this funny rock on the rudder, but I feel like it's making the plane more invisible. And I can certainly measure the effect of the rock on the aerodynamics." That engineer would be using a colostomy bag for the next ten years.
As a guy who actually worked for Ben Rich, I'm somewhat familiar with the sorts of things you're talking about. I've got a vision in my head about an engineer who would go to Ben and say, "Look, I can't really measure any difference in RCS when I put this funny rock on the rudder, but I feel like it's making the plane more invisible. And I can certainly measure the effect of the rock on the aerodynamics." That engineer would be using a colostomy bag for the next ten years.
john curl said:
I have personally tried Brilliant Pebbles and have found them to be phenomenally effective. The trashing Geoff Kait receives as a result of ignorance is exceedingly bothersome to me. FWIW, I use the word ignorance in its purest sense, although the pejorative sense, not surprisingly, is applicable as well.
I stumbled across this site while searching for information regarding the Great Randi challenge. The assertion that Mr. Kait could prove the effectiveness of his Brilliant Pebbles by simply submitting to this challenge again shows their ignorance. This challenge has no applicability to Mr. Kait's product. If the Randi Challenge were applicable, and administered fairly, Geoff Kait truly would be laughing all the way to the bank.
For the skeptical, I would be more than happy to participate in any applicable blind test if fairly administered.
andy_c said:
andy_c said:
john curl said:
John, we're going around in circles with this. I'll repeat this a third time. Let's define a "tweak" as "a mod that's put in after hardware is designed and built. The distinction I'm getting at here is the means by which such tweaks are verified. It's been my experience from 20 years in the defense business that such mods are never put into military hardware without validation by measurements.
special absorbant paint
SY - thanks for making my point. It all depends on what you call a thing - if you call it a "rock" it sounds preposterous (I have never called them "rocks" myself). But if you call something "special absorbant paint" it sounds plausible (at least to the generals who were paying for the stealth aircraft). Or is the Lockheed engineer who developed the "special absorbant paint" now wearing a colostomy bag?
GK
SY - thanks for making my point. It all depends on what you call a thing - if you call it a "rock" it sounds preposterous (I have never called them "rocks" myself). But if you call something "special absorbant paint" it sounds plausible (at least to the generals who were paying for the stealth aircraft). Or is the Lockheed engineer who developed the "special absorbant paint" now wearing a colostomy bag?
GK
Wellfed said:
One could certainly make that argument, and it's a valid one, certainly worthy of a lot of discussion. My point was not to claim otherwise. Rather, I'm saying that the comparison of the subjective high-end audio business to the aerospace and defense business is not valid. The defense business is a measuremen-oriented culture, while the high-end audio business is not. To say "we do it like they do" is a distortion of the facts.
I've got to get to work now, so it will be some time before I can respond further.
john curl said:
I'm sorry John, but your suggestion is highly misleading. The military and contractors indeed use tweaks to improve performance, but as andy_c correctly pointed out this is only the case when objective measurements confirm the efficacy of the modification. Like andy, I have personal experience in this area, and you are simply wrong.
I don't care what Mr. Bybee says... in fact, his monetary interests are tied to this mystique around his background that he has created. For this reason, I give much less weight to his words than to other similar people in the field (which I work with and interact with on a daily basis).
Once again, if a tweak is used, you can rest assured that there is ample data to back up its use. I've personally witnessed engineers chase secondary radar signature artifacts to many places right of the decimal point, and not once was an unscientific approach taken. The same is true in my projects.
Two assumptions there John. One, that we haven't read the white papers. Two, that these devices work. The engineering/physics principles you claim these devices are based on also predict that any effects will be orders of magnitude below audibility.
Besides, following the lead of the military, we would expect measurable results from a device based on physics and not on never-never-land fancy. A jar of rocks effectively absorbing airborn acoustic vibrations (or mechanical ones at that)??!? C'mon John. Phyiscs says that if this is the case, the rocks will covert that energy to heat. We can measure temperature to a stunning degree of accuracy. Any absorbent effect these rocks have should be easily observed by simply taking their temperature. Where are these results? Where's the beef?
Wellfed said:
Music enjoyment (or lack theroff) is subjectively. The reproduction of sound signals by technical means can be defined and measured.
Jan Didden
Re: military tweaks
This is utter horse manure. Before you built a prototype fighter or bomber you can be sure that everything has been carefully calculated and simulated. The 'science' of stealh is nothing special, in fact the theory is many decades old and depends on simple reflection and absorbtion. It is indeed the conflict between stealth and manoueverability and speed that makes it hard to have both stealth AND performance. That's why it took awhile before the required technology was available and affordable.
Jan Didden
geoffkait said:
This is utter horse manure. Before you built a prototype fighter or bomber you can be sure that everything has been carefully calculated and simulated. The 'science' of stealh is nothing special, in fact the theory is many decades old and depends on simple reflection and absorbtion. It is indeed the conflict between stealth and manoueverability and speed that makes it hard to have both stealth AND performance. That's why it took awhile before the required technology was available and affordable.
Jan Didden
john curl said:
That only shows that this guy is able to laugh. If your report is accurate, of course, which we have no way of verifying right now.
You don't get it, do you John? Hearsay, hearsay, more hearsay.
Jan Didden
andy_c said:
Thank you Andy for your courteous clarification.
janneman said:
What means are there to measure the increase in resolution and 3-D effect Brilliant Pebbles effect in my system? I would really like to unequivocally put to death the unwarranted insinuations and nasty, libelous accusations that people, in their ignorance, direct against Geoff Kait. If these accusers were to listen to what Brilliant Pebbles do in my home they would either be humbled or shamed depending on the degree of their vitriol.
stealth
Jan, again I have to thank a member of the forum for agreeing with
me, twice in one hour no less. I inferred the technology was not recent and that the stealth aircraft were unstable in flight (due primarily to the unique geometry required for stealth) requiring computer-controlled flight. So where's your beef?
You might feel confident that "everything has been calculated and simulated," but allow me to set you straight on this - it is not true at all, as demonstrated by the very high number of crashes of the stealth bomber early on due to miscalculations of center of gravity and perhaps other reasons. You might not remember the crashes but I do. Someone here can probably fill in the details.
Jan, again I have to thank a member of the forum for agreeing with
me, twice in one hour no less. I inferred the technology was not recent and that the stealth aircraft were unstable in flight (due primarily to the unique geometry required for stealth) requiring computer-controlled flight. So where's your beef?
You might feel confident that "everything has been calculated and simulated," but allow me to set you straight on this - it is not true at all, as demonstrated by the very high number of crashes of the stealth bomber early on due to miscalculations of center of gravity and perhaps other reasons. You might not remember the crashes but I do. Someone here can probably fill in the details.
something went haywire
Newspaper story on 1998 crash of B-1 in Kentucky:
MARION, Kentucky (CNN) -- Flying unmanned after its crew ejected safely, an Air Force B-1B bomber plowed into a muddy cow pasture and exploded Wednesday in rural western Kentucky.
The unarmed plane barely missed a farmhouse, crashing about four miles from Marion, a farming community of about 3,300 people near the Ohio River. No one on the ground was hurt, and all four crew members survived.
Two crew members were found walking along a road, where they were picked up by a passerby in a car. A third was found walking in a nearby field. The fourth crew member's parachute caught in a tree, and he suffered head and neck injuries.
Randy Rushing, a volunteer firefighter responding to the crash, said he picked up Sabella when he found him in the field. "He mainly said that something went haywire," Rushing said.
Note: This was the sixth crash of the B-1, most if not all of which were design related -- Guess they need to go back and run some more simulations.
Newspaper story on 1998 crash of B-1 in Kentucky:
MARION, Kentucky (CNN) -- Flying unmanned after its crew ejected safely, an Air Force B-1B bomber plowed into a muddy cow pasture and exploded Wednesday in rural western Kentucky.
The unarmed plane barely missed a farmhouse, crashing about four miles from Marion, a farming community of about 3,300 people near the Ohio River. No one on the ground was hurt, and all four crew members survived.
Two crew members were found walking along a road, where they were picked up by a passerby in a car. A third was found walking in a nearby field. The fourth crew member's parachute caught in a tree, and he suffered head and neck injuries.
Randy Rushing, a volunteer firefighter responding to the crash, said he picked up Sabella when he found him in the field. "He mainly said that something went haywire," Rushing said.
Note: This was the sixth crash of the B-1, most if not all of which were design related -- Guess they need to go back and run some more simulations.
janneman said:
Jan, assuming Jack Bybee did what he says he did in the Navy, which was to experiment and find ways, using the best of his knowledge, to reduce noise in sonar electronics systems, how would you characterize that work?
Is Jack's past work, assuming I've described it sufficiently correctly, so dissimilar to what people like John do in the audio field?
Just curious.
Tom,
I am always operating from the principle that people are honest and really say what they mean, even in the face of counter-indications. Call me a sucker.
But we don't even know why the guy laughed. Did he laugh because he found it hilarious that anybody could believe they used tweaks? Or did he laugh because he found it hilarious that anybody could believe they didn't use tweaks? Did he even get the question? I don't want to ridicule anybody, just to try to make it clear that is ridiculous to expect people to shell out money for tweaks that seem not to be able to do what they claim on the face of it, just on the strength of 'I personally know the guy and he told me it's allright'. Gimme a break!
This guys says (or so John thinks) that they DO use tweaks. Other authoritive guys on this forum say the contrary. I have 35 years of Air Force engineering behind my belt. DoD do not use tweaks as we understand them in audio: green pens, capacitors without isolating jackets, brilliant pebbles, oxygen-free listening rooms, WITHOUT any substantiated verification and testing.
A good engineer can have an idea to 'tweak' for instance a radar log amp by, say, adding an extra nested feedback loop. IF his boss grants him the time and cost to built and test one, he then proceeds to fully characterize the new amp, test it in all sorts of environements, asks his peers to review the data (and they will be VERY critical), and if he is really good he has an improvement. It is also called 'not fooling yourself'. But, if the old amp foots the bill, it is extremely unlikely that his boss will let him loose. Unless it is a cost+ contract, then his chances are better.
Now, I have also come across sompanies that had a monopoly in a particular field. They have been caught by skipping on the testing and characterizing, because, hey, you need them anyway. I would group these under the general heading of charlatans, at least as far as their moral standing is concerned.
Jan Didden
I am always operating from the principle that people are honest and really say what they mean, even in the face of counter-indications. Call me a sucker.
But we don't even know why the guy laughed. Did he laugh because he found it hilarious that anybody could believe they used tweaks? Or did he laugh because he found it hilarious that anybody could believe they didn't use tweaks? Did he even get the question? I don't want to ridicule anybody, just to try to make it clear that is ridiculous to expect people to shell out money for tweaks that seem not to be able to do what they claim on the face of it, just on the strength of 'I personally know the guy and he told me it's allright'. Gimme a break!
This guys says (or so John thinks) that they DO use tweaks. Other authoritive guys on this forum say the contrary. I have 35 years of Air Force engineering behind my belt. DoD do not use tweaks as we understand them in audio: green pens, capacitors without isolating jackets, brilliant pebbles, oxygen-free listening rooms, WITHOUT any substantiated verification and testing.
A good engineer can have an idea to 'tweak' for instance a radar log amp by, say, adding an extra nested feedback loop. IF his boss grants him the time and cost to built and test one, he then proceeds to fully characterize the new amp, test it in all sorts of environements, asks his peers to review the data (and they will be VERY critical), and if he is really good he has an improvement. It is also called 'not fooling yourself'. But, if the old amp foots the bill, it is extremely unlikely that his boss will let him loose. Unless it is a cost+ contract, then his chances are better.
Now, I have also come across sompanies that had a monopoly in a particular field. They have been caught by skipping on the testing and characterizing, because, hey, you need them anyway. I would group these under the general heading of charlatans, at least as far as their moral standing is concerned.
Jan Didden
From Jack Bybee's website. I assume Jack either approved or wrote the following?
quote:
Jack Bybee, a theoretical physicist specializing in quantum mechanics and superconductivity, developed a series of esoteric wire and power purification technologies for the passive sonar systems of the U.S. Navy’s atomic submarine fleet. Even the battery stored DC power used in these submarines required special filtration to lower the noise floor to a level that did not compromise sonar performance. Many of the military applications of this technology are still classified; however, continuing research has led Jack Bybee to the development of solutions specific to power and audio/video circuits: the Bybee Quantum Purifiers.
Yeah, military classified, but of course it's OK to sell it to audio people. Can I have my turn at hilarious laughing now?
One other thing: I am SURE the Navy have tested his technology to death before applying it. Are there any tests for the audio side of it, somewhere?
Jan Didden
quote:
Jack Bybee, a theoretical physicist specializing in quantum mechanics and superconductivity, developed a series of esoteric wire and power purification technologies for the passive sonar systems of the U.S. Navy’s atomic submarine fleet. Even the battery stored DC power used in these submarines required special filtration to lower the noise floor to a level that did not compromise sonar performance. Many of the military applications of this technology are still classified; however, continuing research has led Jack Bybee to the development of solutions specific to power and audio/video circuits: the Bybee Quantum Purifiers.
Yeah, military classified, but of course it's OK to sell it to audio people. Can I have my turn at hilarious laughing now?
One other thing: I am SURE the Navy have tested his technology to death before applying it. Are there any tests for the audio side of it, somewhere?
Jan Didden
Well, your military electronics experience is more perspective than I can offer. I hear what you're saying, Jan.
Re: special absorbant paint
If I had RCS measurements showing an improvement with a rock, I could call it any damn thing I want. If I don't, I'm wearing the bag.
Jan's post accords with my experience at Lockheed- the stuff we dealt with in aerospace was done systematically, tightly, and with proper measurements and controls. It was sometimes improvised, it was sometimes empirical, but it was ALWAYS data-driven. Hard data. A magic doodad just makes the gullible audiophile a little poorer. An unproven "tweak" on a fighter jet can mean people die.
geoffkait said:
If I had RCS measurements showing an improvement with a rock, I could call it any damn thing I want. If I don't, I'm wearing the bag.
Jan's post accords with my experience at Lockheed- the stuff we dealt with in aerospace was done systematically, tightly, and with proper measurements and controls. It was sometimes improvised, it was sometimes empirical, but it was ALWAYS data-driven. Hard data. A magic doodad just makes the gullible audiophile a little poorer. An unproven "tweak" on a fighter jet can mean people die.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.