and i quote
"As everybody knows high power amplifiers use larger electrons to achieve this high power. The bigger electrons don't start or stop as fast as normal electrons resulting in much heavier, less nimble Watts. So high power amplifiers can never have the finesse of low power amplifiers. High sensitivity speakers only work with the smaller electrons (the smallest are produced by tube amplifiers). Thus if you use a high power amplifier with sensitive speakers you need a transformer that slims down the electrons and makes them swifter. Such transformers are available from Jenny Craig Audio Inc., Phen-Fenophile Corp. and the US Nuclear Agency."
Alan Ross
PS. Don't forget to elevate the amplifiers above the speakers, so the signal can flow easier.
"As everybody knows high power amplifiers use larger electrons to achieve this high power. The bigger electrons don't start or stop as fast as normal electrons resulting in much heavier, less nimble Watts. So high power amplifiers can never have the finesse of low power amplifiers. High sensitivity speakers only work with the smaller electrons (the smallest are produced by tube amplifiers). Thus if you use a high power amplifier with sensitive speakers you need a transformer that slims down the electrons and makes them swifter. Such transformers are available from Jenny Craig Audio Inc., Phen-Fenophile Corp. and the US Nuclear Agency."
Alan Ross
PS. Don't forget to elevate the amplifiers above the speakers, so the signal can flow easier.
Now, as far as I can tell, electrons can't exactly get any bigger or smaller than they are already. Perhaps a group of electrons, but they only travel in streams. And your very old book, probably isn't up to date. Perhaps I am wrong as well, but what my physics professor taught us was that electrons move at the speed of light because they are massless according to Einsteins theory of general relativity. Since they move at slightly less than the speed of light due to resistance, they do not move as fast as conceivably possible, so they are subject to a delay in moving through the coil of the speaker. If this resistence and timing was perfected, you could produce maximum extrusion with a high resistence. Now, too slow and the speaker doesn't develope a railgun effect and doesn't shoot forward. Same vice versa, too fast, and the speakers inertia won't allow it to move at all.
You guys have any specs that might relate to this? All part of my ultimate plan to turn mars into a subwoofer...mwahahahaha!
You guys have any specs that might relate to this? All part of my ultimate plan to turn mars into a subwoofer...mwahahahaha!
Actually, what we REALY know about electrons (and quantum mechanics for that matter) it's still in diapers. No one is convinced that the electron is both a corpuscle (with mass) AND a wave... depending on the circumstances. Yet, we live with it because the maths works. Don't burn your head over it 
Every Time I SPEAK
I get somewhat lighter in WEIGHT
I then go to KITCHEN to EAT.
As you reconn I eat a lot
but
somehow my WEIGHT stays around same value.
So the Energy/Mass connection is there
but probably only for me.
groman
The True Out Sider
fotenote:
outsider=not among the favourites
on rare occations a winner
you will not get rich, playing outsiders
and certainly not playing the favourite, all the time
I get somewhat lighter in WEIGHT
I then go to KITCHEN to EAT.
As you reconn I eat a lot
but
somehow my WEIGHT stays around same value.
So the Energy/Mass connection is there
but probably only for me.
groman
The True Out Sider
fotenote:
outsider=not among the favourites
on rare occations a winner
you will not get rich, playing outsiders
and certainly not playing the favourite, all the time
Physics student
Now when you say these kinds of things the quantum physicist will have to argue the case!
In laymans talk, as electrons move faster the increase in KE is equated as an increase in mass from the formula E=MC² (energy = mass times the speed of light squared). But this is only significant at very fast speeds! - for example this equation is used in particle accelerators when approaching the speed of light.
I would argue that this needs to be considered for electrons in wires as their velocity would be much lower than the speed of light!
Although technically valves are particle accelerators - electrons boiling off of the cathode (thermionic immision) are accelerated through a PD to the anode. Their velocity is still no where near that so E=MC² needs to be considered.
tomasro said:
Now when you say these kinds of things the quantum physicist will have to argue the case!
In laymans talk, as electrons move faster the increase in KE is equated as an increase in mass from the formula E=MC² (energy = mass times the speed of light squared). But this is only significant at very fast speeds! - for example this equation is used in particle accelerators when approaching the speed of light.
I would argue that this needs to be considered for electrons in wires as their velocity would be much lower than the speed of light!
Although technically valves are particle accelerators - electrons boiling off of the cathode (thermionic immision) are accelerated through a PD to the anode. Their velocity is still no where near that so E=MC² needs to be considered.
At the risk of getting flamed ....
Electrons have mass and so do not travel at or near the speed of light except perhaps in partical excelerators.. only photons and some whacky sub-atomic particles are massless.. I've got the formulas sitting around here to determine the speed of an electron.. i'll get them out at a later date when i have a little more time but even at a more typical top speed of 1/10th the speed of light, it's still really to fast to make any practical difference to us with the current information we have that is relative to this field.
Electrons have mass and so do not travel at or near the speed of light except perhaps in partical excelerators.. only photons and some whacky sub-atomic particles are massless.. I've got the formulas sitting around here to determine the speed of an electron.. i'll get them out at a later date when i have a little more time but even at a more typical top speed of 1/10th the speed of light, it's still really to fast to make any practical difference to us with the current information we have that is relative to this field.
Electrons:
There have been electrons made with multiples of their rest state mass/size. So one can have electrons with double the mass, triple the mass, etc. Yet they are still electrons. They probably existed in the earliest time of creation, like a few milliseconds after the blast.
It has also been discovered that electrons can exist even smaller, in quotients of 1/3rds.
Nature has dictated that electrons (and all particles) exist in their current level of charge/mass/size.
Just a semi-useless fact.
Gabe
There have been electrons made with multiples of their rest state mass/size. So one can have electrons with double the mass, triple the mass, etc. Yet they are still electrons. They probably existed in the earliest time of creation, like a few milliseconds after the blast.
It has also been discovered that electrons can exist even smaller, in quotients of 1/3rds.
Nature has dictated that electrons (and all particles) exist in their current level of charge/mass/size.
Just a semi-useless fact.
Gabe
In a television picture tube with 25kV on the anode and a long distance to accelerate the electron, I believe it does get up to a significant fraction of C.
**********
All I know is that protons are red, neutrons are black and electrons are blue. I saw it in a book one day so it must be true. Then another day I proved it by making electrons jump through the air in a spark and it was blue colour. So there.
GP.
**********
All I know is that protons are red, neutrons are black and electrons are blue. I saw it in a book one day so it must be true. Then another day I proved it by making electrons jump through the air in a spark and it was blue colour. So there.
GP.
heavy electrons
I guess those electrons get heavy, in the CRT.
But there are heavier "electrons", called muons and tau-leptons...
Now for something REALLY heavy:
Is there an infinity bigger than the size of the set of integers, Aleph-0, but smaller than the size of the set of real numbers, the continuum, Aleph-1?
More silly blather: I remember reading weird articles in Wireless World by someone named Ivor Catt about whether electric current even really exists at all.
I think I better finish my dinner now, blodd sugar must be getting low
I guess those electrons get heavy, in the CRT.
But there are heavier "electrons", called muons and tau-leptons...
Now for something REALLY heavy:
Is there an infinity bigger than the size of the set of integers, Aleph-0, but smaller than the size of the set of real numbers, the continuum, Aleph-1?
More silly blather: I remember reading weird articles in Wireless World by someone named Ivor Catt about whether electric current even really exists at all.
I think I better finish my dinner now, blodd sugar must be getting low
it's much worse than that.
If you look up "continuum hypothesis" on google,
or just here:
http://ii.best.vwh.net/math/ch/
you find that the answer is pretty much the same as the answer an Arthur Andersen accountant (no offense intended) would have given an Enron executive who asked how much money did we make last quarter: "How much do you want to have made last quarter?".
In short, Kurt Godel proved that the continuum hypothesis is consistent with the rest of set theory, and Paul Cohen proved that the opposite of the continuum hypothesis is consistent with the rest of set theory, so essentially you can have it your way.
The site makes a good read.
Hmmm.
If I were an eloquent man, I'd draw a parallel between the undecidability of the continuum hypothesis and some of the various arguments about subjective vs. objective audio, tubes vs. transistors, ...
but I'm too much of a brute to do that.
If you look up "continuum hypothesis" on google,
or just here:
http://ii.best.vwh.net/math/ch/
you find that the answer is pretty much the same as the answer an Arthur Andersen accountant (no offense intended) would have given an Enron executive who asked how much money did we make last quarter: "How much do you want to have made last quarter?".
In short, Kurt Godel proved that the continuum hypothesis is consistent with the rest of set theory, and Paul Cohen proved that the opposite of the continuum hypothesis is consistent with the rest of set theory, so essentially you can have it your way.
The site makes a good read.
Hmmm.
If I were an eloquent man, I'd draw a parallel between the undecidability of the continuum hypothesis and some of the various arguments about subjective vs. objective audio, tubes vs. transistors, ...
but I'm too much of a brute to do that.
Re: ... oops ...
Now you got me confused -- i used to be able to do these proofs in my sleep. Without going out and digging out a book, i think it goes like this: you can easily provr that the number of even numbers is the same as all integers. You can also show that the number of rational numbers is also the same -- not nearly as intuitive. The set of irrational numbers is the next infinity up and you can throw in all the rational numbers numbers if you'd like (what we call R=Real numbers).
dave
mirlo said:
Now you got me confused -- i used to be able to do these proofs in my sleep. Without going out and digging out a book, i think it goes like this: you can easily provr that the number of even numbers is the same as all integers. You can also show that the number of rational numbers is also the same -- not nearly as intuitive. The set of irrational numbers is the next infinity up and you can throw in all the rational numbers numbers if you'd like (what we call R=Real numbers).
dave
Power sets
The set of all the subsets of a set S is called it's power set. THe power set of S is denoted 2^S because for each subset, you can imagine a binary number with a place for each element of S, a 1 if the element is there in the subset, and a 0 if it isn't.
It is obvious then that 2^(Aleph_0) = C, the set of reals, because each real number has a binary representation.
(don't you love it when people use the word "obvious")
Aleph_1 is something else, which is described in that article on the continuum hypothesis.
Whether or not there are any infinite sets with sizes strictly between Aleph_0 and 2^(Aleph_0) is the question, and the weird answer is that you can have it either way without disturbing the rest of set theory.
Since I am starting to feel guilty about wasting bandwidth on this subject here I'll give it a rest.
The set of all the subsets of a set S is called it's power set. THe power set of S is denoted 2^S because for each subset, you can imagine a binary number with a place for each element of S, a 1 if the element is there in the subset, and a 0 if it isn't.
It is obvious then that 2^(Aleph_0) = C, the set of reals, because each real number has a binary representation.
(don't you love it when people use the word "obvious")
Aleph_1 is something else, which is described in that article on the continuum hypothesis.
Whether or not there are any infinite sets with sizes strictly between Aleph_0 and 2^(Aleph_0) is the question, and the weird answer is that you can have it either way without disturbing the rest of set theory.
Since I am starting to feel guilty about wasting bandwidth on this subject here I'll give it a rest.
Re: Power sets
Brings back memories. 4 years getting an honours math degree and this is the stuff i was best at.
Later took a partial differential course and on a test couldn't remember the convential solution (this was a course for fun, i wasn't working it very hard) but i came up with a proof based on set theory that the prof gave me full marks for saying he had never seen anything like it...
went into hifi, then computers and can't remember 90% of it. so sad.
dave
mirlo said:
Brings back memories. 4 years getting an honours math degree and this is the stuff i was best at.
Later took a partial differential course and on a test couldn't remember the convential solution (this was a course for fun, i wasn't working it very hard) but i came up with a proof based on set theory that the prof gave me full marks for saying he had never seen anything like it...
went into hifi, then computers and can't remember 90% of it. so sad.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.