First, they're not carbon nanotube resistors.
Second, you're not discussing them in any way which is relevant to the Bybee devices.
se
Hi,
Well, I would posit that there is not even an argument being conducted here, unless in the strictest Phytonesque sense.
YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic
Ohhhh, there are scams in Electronics. Just recently I was sold something as 2SK389 that was anything but a 2SK389, it did not even appear to be a dual J-Fet.
The questions remain (and are not really addressed at all in this whole thread except in a few isolated posts in a massive slagging match) IF:
A) Bybee devices do what they are claimed to do (It would appear unlikely, but who knows, I cannot reliably exclude such a possibility, but I remain sceptical)?
B) Bybee devices do ANYTHING that can improve perceived sound quality, eg. act as RFI Filter (something that does not seem too unlikely)?
C) Bybee devices do ANYTHING at all or just completely inert (It would appear rather unlikely, as there are constituent parts that can effect signals and noise)?
D) Bybee devices represent fair value for money (I suspect that is a highly subjective thing, in my own money - no)?
E) Bybee's business practices are something that constitutes "Fraud" under the laws of the state and/or country he is operating/selling in?
F) Bybee's busines practices are of a nature that from the viewpoint of Ethics but now law are ones that cause an unequal exchange, where the seller gets the better deal?
G) You should buy a Bybee device?
H) You should try to copy a Bybee Device in DIY?
If A) is true I think proof could have been easily presented, but I can see reasons why one would not. I routinely use design techniques that are uncommon, but hard to protect by a patent and even if one had a patent, the legal process of enforcement especially against large meta-national companies is a fools errand. So it is possible that JB does not wish to explain how it works. I doubt even from ethics viewpoint this constitutes fraud.
If B) is true but A is untrue, then the device still fulfils it main function for which it is marketed so again, there is no fraud.
If C) was true, then one may have grounds to consider the the device fraudulent, just as one may consider the "specially filtered" water sold by a large soft drinks company.
However, to be able to reliably assert the untruth of any of the above would require direct and likely examination of such a device.
Jumping ahead to G) for a second. Would I spend money on Bybee devices? Personally - no. I remain unconvinced that in MY OWN System these devices would produce a sufficiently large (or any) improvement to justify the cost.
Others may decline to buy them as they find the explanations suspicious, still others because they suspect JB of exaggerating his credentials and so on.
Such opinions are valid and may be rendered and one may indeed give advise to other based on such, stating they are OPINIONS, rather than make statements of facts one is unwilling to formally back up.
I think D) is such a subjective thing, I'll not even go there. Some people find Rolex Watches and Armani Suits "Good value for money".
As for E) - this is a case for trading standards offices, the public prosecutor and courts to determine, as far as I know my laws (which is not very far I'd admit).
As we seem to have SO MANY concerned citizens (of his country of residence) that fear that Mr. Bybee acts in ways and manners that are against the law I am greatly puzzled why all these great benefactors of the public good waste their time posting here instead of going to the authorities and request them to take actions?
I also seem to remember that in most free countries the law presumes innocence and requires proof of the opposite, in clear contrast to fascist and communist regimes where the presumption is one of guilt and the defendant is required to prove his innocence (and even such proof if rendered was routinely rejected and the defendant executed or send to the Gulag/Concentration Camp anyway).
But such principles of free countries seem to be disregarded much in this debate (and others).
I think F) is an issue for Mr. Bybee's spiritual advisor(s). However I feel that he is no worse in that than most companies operating and making a profit.
The fundamental law of the capitalist system is one of unequal exchange (because the market is in fact not free), if you don't like it, join the Communists or Libertarians.
See above. If you know a scam or fraud is perpetrated, is it not your duty as upstanding citizen to inform the authorities? In fact, could not doing so not be considered aiding and abetting?
Do I infer that you are calling all those who in this thread have claimed that a scam or fraud is being committed but have not informed the authorities are anti-social?
Or are you trying to call those anti-social who feel that no proof of actual fraudulent activity has been presented, rather only assertions that such is happening without any proof have been made?
Yet some here seem to lack this entirely, preferring to just condemn without examination or investigation (it does safe time, I agree, but tends to often put one in the wrong). But then again, maybe they think they already know anything worth knowing and no longer have to learn? 😀
How about something in an area that is a little less "black/white" that that. For example, in my view your above example would be about like a particular tweak where your systems sound quality is "upgraded" over the telephone.
Lets have something a little more grey. How about someone was selling Kittens claimed to result from breeding Wild Cats with House Cats where the possibility of viable offspring is very low? Such Cats are quite desired by some and fetch high prices.
How about he used gene-splicing to make a real "Toyger" (a Housecat with appearance of a Mini-Tiger, for those here who do not fancy cats) but claimed it resulted from normal breeding (I think in some countries he would have broken applicable laws selling the animals). Would you suggest this person is a scammer? After all, he delivers a "Toyger" Cat?
BTW, anyone with real white Toyger Kittens for sale, gene spliced or bred, drop me a line, I'll come over and see if any of the Toyger Kittens would like to adopt me...
If you consider the evidence sufficient, it should suffice in court and to the authorities. So stop pussy-footing around and trading barbs in on line debate forums, go to the relevant authority and present your evidence. It's their job, let them do it.
You have interesting definitions of "innocent".
Do you really think the struggeling single Mother with low income is at danger of being sold "Quantum Purifiers"? Anyone having enough disposable income to afford a nice High End HiFi System is likely to have a rather above average income. These are hard to come by if you work in truely "honest" Jobs from the viewpoint of ethics.
Who said anything about "BELIEVING"? I have no intention to buy Bybee devices, nor do I believe much what I have heard about them. I'd have to investigate myself, but I have no intention of doing so. Hence I do not really know much that I could use to comment on the actual devices and the theory.
I do use silver wire though, but industrial silver (preferably goldplated too - think of that) and I use in DIY, so the cost difference to copper is notional, next to the time I spend. Yet according to you this makes me a believer in bunk, right? Then again, I also use goldplated silver contact relays for signal switching too. I guess you'd call that bunkum too, right?
Worse, there are people out there that cannot read, are hungry, disease ridden and no-one cares for them or helps them. How about you invest some time (and money) into helping them? They need help a lot more than the "victims" of Bybee Quantum Purifier sales or of sales of silver cables.
This assumes that contention C) from above is true. Do you have sufficient evidence that contention B) above is reliably untrue? Otherwise I think your comment above could be conscrued to be simple prejudice against that which you fail to understand and refuse to investigate.
If contention C) above is untrue, but contention B) it is true, there may still be mileage in the DIY option.
For example, now that I have (re)discovered "Cho-Drop" EMC/RFI Filters I remember seeing in a dissected Bybee device (this may have of course been misdirection by Bybee to leak a false dissection Photo) I think I have some quite nice uses for them.
So at least I will walk away from this bizarre and Phythoesque thread having gained something for my investment in time, so I am happy... 😛
Ciao T
Well, I would posit that there is not even an argument being conducted here, unless in the strictest Phytonesque sense.
YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic
Ohhhh, there are scams in Electronics. Just recently I was sold something as 2SK389 that was anything but a 2SK389, it did not even appear to be a dual J-Fet.
The questions remain (and are not really addressed at all in this whole thread except in a few isolated posts in a massive slagging match) IF:
A) Bybee devices do what they are claimed to do (It would appear unlikely, but who knows, I cannot reliably exclude such a possibility, but I remain sceptical)?
B) Bybee devices do ANYTHING that can improve perceived sound quality, eg. act as RFI Filter (something that does not seem too unlikely)?
C) Bybee devices do ANYTHING at all or just completely inert (It would appear rather unlikely, as there are constituent parts that can effect signals and noise)?
D) Bybee devices represent fair value for money (I suspect that is a highly subjective thing, in my own money - no)?
E) Bybee's business practices are something that constitutes "Fraud" under the laws of the state and/or country he is operating/selling in?
F) Bybee's busines practices are of a nature that from the viewpoint of Ethics but now law are ones that cause an unequal exchange, where the seller gets the better deal?
G) You should buy a Bybee device?
H) You should try to copy a Bybee Device in DIY?
If A) is true I think proof could have been easily presented, but I can see reasons why one would not. I routinely use design techniques that are uncommon, but hard to protect by a patent and even if one had a patent, the legal process of enforcement especially against large meta-national companies is a fools errand. So it is possible that JB does not wish to explain how it works. I doubt even from ethics viewpoint this constitutes fraud.
If B) is true but A is untrue, then the device still fulfils it main function for which it is marketed so again, there is no fraud.
If C) was true, then one may have grounds to consider the the device fraudulent, just as one may consider the "specially filtered" water sold by a large soft drinks company.
However, to be able to reliably assert the untruth of any of the above would require direct and likely examination of such a device.
Jumping ahead to G) for a second. Would I spend money on Bybee devices? Personally - no. I remain unconvinced that in MY OWN System these devices would produce a sufficiently large (or any) improvement to justify the cost.
Others may decline to buy them as they find the explanations suspicious, still others because they suspect JB of exaggerating his credentials and so on.
Such opinions are valid and may be rendered and one may indeed give advise to other based on such, stating they are OPINIONS, rather than make statements of facts one is unwilling to formally back up.
I think D) is such a subjective thing, I'll not even go there. Some people find Rolex Watches and Armani Suits "Good value for money".
As for E) - this is a case for trading standards offices, the public prosecutor and courts to determine, as far as I know my laws (which is not very far I'd admit).
As we seem to have SO MANY concerned citizens (of his country of residence) that fear that Mr. Bybee acts in ways and manners that are against the law I am greatly puzzled why all these great benefactors of the public good waste their time posting here instead of going to the authorities and request them to take actions?
I also seem to remember that in most free countries the law presumes innocence and requires proof of the opposite, in clear contrast to fascist and communist regimes where the presumption is one of guilt and the defendant is required to prove his innocence (and even such proof if rendered was routinely rejected and the defendant executed or send to the Gulag/Concentration Camp anyway).
But such principles of free countries seem to be disregarded much in this debate (and others).
I think F) is an issue for Mr. Bybee's spiritual advisor(s). However I feel that he is no worse in that than most companies operating and making a profit.
The fundamental law of the capitalist system is one of unequal exchange (because the market is in fact not free), if you don't like it, join the Communists or Libertarians.
See above. If you know a scam or fraud is perpetrated, is it not your duty as upstanding citizen to inform the authorities? In fact, could not doing so not be considered aiding and abetting?
Do I infer that you are calling all those who in this thread have claimed that a scam or fraud is being committed but have not informed the authorities are anti-social?
Or are you trying to call those anti-social who feel that no proof of actual fraudulent activity has been presented, rather only assertions that such is happening without any proof have been made?
Yet some here seem to lack this entirely, preferring to just condemn without examination or investigation (it does safe time, I agree, but tends to often put one in the wrong). But then again, maybe they think they already know anything worth knowing and no longer have to learn? 😀
How about something in an area that is a little less "black/white" that that. For example, in my view your above example would be about like a particular tweak where your systems sound quality is "upgraded" over the telephone.
Lets have something a little more grey. How about someone was selling Kittens claimed to result from breeding Wild Cats with House Cats where the possibility of viable offspring is very low? Such Cats are quite desired by some and fetch high prices.
How about he used gene-splicing to make a real "Toyger" (a Housecat with appearance of a Mini-Tiger, for those here who do not fancy cats) but claimed it resulted from normal breeding (I think in some countries he would have broken applicable laws selling the animals). Would you suggest this person is a scammer? After all, he delivers a "Toyger" Cat?
BTW, anyone with real white Toyger Kittens for sale, gene spliced or bred, drop me a line, I'll come over and see if any of the Toyger Kittens would like to adopt me...
If you consider the evidence sufficient, it should suffice in court and to the authorities. So stop pussy-footing around and trading barbs in on line debate forums, go to the relevant authority and present your evidence. It's their job, let them do it.
You have interesting definitions of "innocent".
Do you really think the struggeling single Mother with low income is at danger of being sold "Quantum Purifiers"? Anyone having enough disposable income to afford a nice High End HiFi System is likely to have a rather above average income. These are hard to come by if you work in truely "honest" Jobs from the viewpoint of ethics.
Who said anything about "BELIEVING"? I have no intention to buy Bybee devices, nor do I believe much what I have heard about them. I'd have to investigate myself, but I have no intention of doing so. Hence I do not really know much that I could use to comment on the actual devices and the theory.
I do use silver wire though, but industrial silver (preferably goldplated too - think of that) and I use in DIY, so the cost difference to copper is notional, next to the time I spend. Yet according to you this makes me a believer in bunk, right? Then again, I also use goldplated silver contact relays for signal switching too. I guess you'd call that bunkum too, right?
Worse, there are people out there that cannot read, are hungry, disease ridden and no-one cares for them or helps them. How about you invest some time (and money) into helping them? They need help a lot more than the "victims" of Bybee Quantum Purifier sales or of sales of silver cables.
This assumes that contention C) from above is true. Do you have sufficient evidence that contention B) above is reliably untrue? Otherwise I think your comment above could be conscrued to be simple prejudice against that which you fail to understand and refuse to investigate.
If contention C) above is untrue, but contention B) it is true, there may still be mileage in the DIY option.
For example, now that I have (re)discovered "Cho-Drop" EMC/RFI Filters I remember seeing in a dissected Bybee device (this may have of course been misdirection by Bybee to leak a false dissection Photo) I think I have some quite nice uses for them.
So at least I will walk away from this bizarre and Phythoesque thread having gained something for my investment in time, so I am happy... 😛
Ciao T
Last edited:
I like 'Pig Wrestling' as Jack Bybee calls my participation, myself. I have little better to do, but I do try to show what is, rather than some 'story' that is either a complete lie, or is just a conjecture, impugning someone else. I stand behind everything that I have said, so far, about Bybee devices, and everyone please read the physics paper. Then, we can talk about 'modern' physics, rather than old, dead, physics.
Now to continue. What is the 'speed' of the quantum resistors? Please remember that they are about 4 millionths of a meter long, and there is no barrier between the input and the output for the individual electrons that travel through the 'resistor'. Think about that and then compare it to any other resistor that you can think of.
Last edited:
So you're now claiming that quantum mechanics is wrong, too? John, really, you ought to bone up on the basics before trying to fake this stuff.
John, post 294, twice in one thread, give it a rest mate.
Read your post 293, you describe what I said earlier about the construction.
My appologies to any Quantum Purifiers out there for libeleing you by insinuating you were just some common or garden EMI filter related to the Ferrite bead family, as well as your ground breaking physical effects I didn't realise that you were also empowered by human emotions.
Read your post 293, you describe what I said earlier about the construction.
My appologies to any Quantum Purifiers out there for libeleing you by insinuating you were just some common or garden EMI filter related to the Ferrite bead family, as well as your ground breaking physical effects I didn't realise that you were also empowered by human emotions.
Good question, Poptart. I used to like electronics because I thought it was politics free. Wrong!
Maybe find another hobby? How about permaculture? Not politics free, but at least you won't be making "old and tired" frauds rich.
I'm guessing that for most people, like myself, that these threads are only minor diversions from the business of building an audio system. They are useful though for gauging the personalities of persons with whom we interact but will probably never have the opportunity to meet. Don't be so uptight.
John
Marce, some people need to be told more than twice, before they listen.
Well I guess SY is saying that the invisible, even with an electron microscope, cavity that would be the rough equivalent of a gun barrel, in this case of each nanotube, is full of stuff. Well, of course, the 'resistance' between the ends of the nanotube (12.9K or its multiples), is created by 'something', just not anything that most people normally know about. That is why I am trying to get people to read this short article, in order to make a paradigm shift, in people never exposed to 'modern' physics in their daily lives.
It shows that OHM'S law can be gotten around, Johnson noise can be eliminated, under some conditions, and that power dissipation is not a function of resistance, necessarily.
Wow, talk about breaking the 'rules' and I didn't even have anything to do with it. ;-)
Well I guess SY is saying that the invisible, even with an electron microscope, cavity that would be the rough equivalent of a gun barrel, in this case of each nanotube, is full of stuff. Well, of course, the 'resistance' between the ends of the nanotube (12.9K or its multiples), is created by 'something', just not anything that most people normally know about. That is why I am trying to get people to read this short article, in order to make a paradigm shift, in people never exposed to 'modern' physics in their daily lives.
It shows that OHM'S law can be gotten around, Johnson noise can be eliminated, under some conditions, and that power dissipation is not a function of resistance, necessarily.
Wow, talk about breaking the 'rules' and I didn't even have anything to do with it. ;-)
anyone notce this
"However at
Flinders University a major breakthrough for this problem
was made when it was discovered that unlike coaxial cables,
the movement of optical fibres through space does not affect
the propagation speed of light through them. This is a very
strange effect and at present there is no explanation for it."
regards Max.
edit: Maybe it supports Heaviside's contention that electricity in wires is a product of fields in space,
"However at
Flinders University a major breakthrough for this problem
was made when it was discovered that unlike coaxial cables,
the movement of optical fibres through space does not affect
the propagation speed of light through them. This is a very
strange effect and at present there is no explanation for it."
regards Max.
edit: Maybe it supports Heaviside's contention that electricity in wires is a product of fields in space,
Last edited:
It's "created" by the quantum point contact that was made using a multiwall carbon nanotube. It's nothing inherently to do with carbon nanotubes as quantum point contacts can be made using other materials.
Where on earth do you get THAT from?
And what on earth has any of this to do with Bybee Purifiers?
se
I did get a chance to read the article, although my degree in high energy physics predates it by more than a decade (and remains largely unused) I did get the concept.
I also get that John Curl understands the article at least as well, probably more so than I do.
It is very interesting and I haven't had time to see if any more up to date work has been done in the realm of quantum resistance.
A few points I might make.
This article shows that at a quantum level, routine laws of physics (Newtonian and electromagnetic theory) don't fully apply. Not that this is new, but it does describe nicely what happens in a conduction short carbon nanotubule.
This article makes no claims as to what that means, or what use it might have. Nor where the techniques used in this experiment useful for any type of production of a functional device. The ballistic movement of electrons in the tubule, the quantum resistance and the fact that heat is only dissipated at the connectors to the nanotube rather than in the tube itself.
I personally find it interesting that the electron moves ballistically through the nanotube, yet the conductance is in the outer layer of the tube indicating that the particle and wave properties of the electron are separates in their nanotube behavior AT THE SAME TIME! Cool ****.
I am sorry, John, but I do not believe for a moment that Bybee has some how developed a device that utilizes this phenomena, reproduces it faithfully and has some meaningful impact on an audio device. Even if he has some how created a "nanoresistor" or "quantum conductor" of some type, why should I assume this has any impact? Maybe it has the impact of a high quality resistor rather than a poor quality one? I wouldn't even begin to be able to see if that could be that case.
In regard to the ohms law issue, on a quantum level, ie. in the tube or tube walls, I agree, ohms law may be a bit inapplicable, just like all Newtonian physics are not correct at a certain quantum level, but it is not really a way to make an audio device that is not based in the basic principles.
Do you have any information on further research in this area? It must have advanced some and if Bybee has made some enormous advance in quantum electronics, I would imagine that there would be far more useful areas to apply them rather than an inserted boutique tweak in high end stereos. I am an audiophile and therefore special, but not that special..😎
Summary: This is a very interesting discourse (if the **** were thrown out and everyone would discuss it intellectually) in quantum electronics, but I fail to see how this has any bearing on Bybee products, function or especially on the ability to make a DIY Bybee. To John Curl's credit, he is looking at some interesting electronic phenomena. To his fault, he fails to make a compelling argument regarding its relevance. To other posters (those attacking him) you also are not making much in the way of coherent augments against him, only slinging negatives, or dismissives.
Lets take this to a better discussion, we are smarter than this.
By mentioning a 12 year old article on 'something' like a resistor on this website, I hoped for a paradigm shift in SOME people, just like it did to me, 10 years ago. Now, 12 years is a long time in science and industry. Airplanes went from the first examples to whole fleets in WW1, in 12 years Transistors went from laboratory curiosities to portable radios in 12 years. But I digress.
Now what about Bybee? He doesn't build special resistors, he buys them. Beryllium resistors are special resistors as well. Why would he have purchased beryllium resistors to work with his devices? I mentioned 'speed' and was laughed at. I mention quantum resistors and their 'speed' and get more laughter. I don't know how to tell people about beryllium resistors more than denoting their high Fermi velocity. I have no paper available describing their advantages, but that does not mean that their advantages do not exist. In order for people to even CONSIDER that Beryllium resistors have certain advantages, I had to generate a paradigm shift in people who have no idea of what goes on at the mesoscopic level, AND how it is utilized by industry, today.
Now what about Bybee? He doesn't build special resistors, he buys them. Beryllium resistors are special resistors as well. Why would he have purchased beryllium resistors to work with his devices? I mentioned 'speed' and was laughed at. I mention quantum resistors and their 'speed' and get more laughter. I don't know how to tell people about beryllium resistors more than denoting their high Fermi velocity. I have no paper available describing their advantages, but that does not mean that their advantages do not exist. In order for people to even CONSIDER that Beryllium resistors have certain advantages, I had to generate a paradigm shift in people who have no idea of what goes on at the mesoscopic level, AND how it is utilized by industry, today.
I'm guessing that you've guessed wrong. If, like me, and the hundreds of others like me, "the business of building an audio system" means putting together a high-end, high-resolution system, no expense spared, then snake oil salesmen and their shills, paid or unpaid, are not a minor diversion.
They are a real and present danger. They are an insidious poison. They have ruined this hobby for me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Sometimes, when I feel more chipper, more optimistic, more American (something in the drinking water?) I can laugh joylessly at the makers of amplifiers that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars but are still single-ended instead of balanced, or the many purveyors of high-priced RCA cables used to carry signals from an MC cartridge (cartridges are effectively balanced devices; can you guess what's wrong with this picture?), or in this case, a blind-me-with-science debate that is designed to intimidate all but the most steely, Budweiser-drinking engineer with a more than passing acquaintance with particle physics.
How I miss the days when knowledge was hard to come by, but you got it first hand from some grizzled guy who worked for Tektronics, or built an amplifier from a schematic scribbled on the back of an envelope in a KFC outlet.
John, enough with the buzzwords and silly games.
If you're incapable of stating just WHAT the "advantages" are and of what RELEVANCE they are to the Bybee purifiers, then you're just wasting everyone's time and ultimately hijacking this thread.
se
If you're incapable of stating just WHAT the "advantages" are and of what RELEVANCE they are to the Bybee purifiers, then you're just wasting everyone's time and ultimately hijacking this thread.
se
Yeah, I commented on this in another thread. That paper was not exactly a breakthrough; it was just plain wrong. "Amateurs look for patterns, professionals look for error bars."
jrenkin, high energy stuff is fun. My QM prof used to deride us chemists as "limited to 1/r physics." However, my training and professional experience was specifically in the electrical properties of materials, especially low dimensional and carbon-based materials.
You're correct that the CNT stuff has some interesting aspects (the materials I worked with had solitons and polarons for charge transport). You're correct that it's absolutely irrelevant to audio and irrelevant to the Bybee snake oil. And though you didn't mention this, actual CNTs are rare birds- the materials sold as CNT generally have a low CNT content and can't actually be used for these wonderful effects. What has also gone past most is that the CNT properties are STRONGLY determined by chirality, so making ANY general statements about their electrical properties is nonsense.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.