Well, KBK, this is what I think. I think it is EXTREMELY difficult to comprehend how signal ACTUALLY flows through a cable.
The signal does not "flow through a cable". This is an oversimplification. The signal is carried by electromagnetic field along the cable according to Maxwell equations. And there is also an electromagnetic field inside the real (non-ideal) conductor that depends on material constants of the conductor, speed of propagation here depends again on material constants and geometry of the conductor.
Many people are very heavily invested into a certain world-view, to a point that they have lost the flexibility to adjust their world-view in accordance with changing evidence regarding it's correctness. In fact, any small adjustment would bring the whole thing down like a house of cards.
The white vs black is your world view not ours. Talk about the Cheshire Cat calling the kettle black "Such is Human Perversity", check out some of his photos of Alice.
Last edited:
The difference, my worldview is based in reality and hence always fluid, changing and updated in comparison with reality...
Everyone claims that. Talk is cheap.
PMA, I learned that in school 50 years ago. However, even last night, a colleague and I were discussing the problems KBK previously alluded to when Heaviside 'simplified' Maxwell's 'quaternions' to the form that we normally refer to today as 'Maxwell's equations, of which I have a T-shirt with those printed on, to wear on special occasions.
What was changed? What was 'left out'? Can anyone here answer this question?
What was changed? What was 'left out'? Can anyone here answer this question?
PMA, I learned that in school 50 years ago. However, even last night, a colleague and I were discussing the problems KBK previously alluded to when Heaviside 'simplified' Maxwell's 'quaternions' to the form that we normally refer to today as 'Maxwell's equations, of which I have a T-shirt with those printed on, to wear on special occasions.
What was changed? What was 'left out'? Can anyone here answer this question?
Getting the history right helps. Quaternions were a later reformulation of Maxwell. Heaviside was everything you claim to like- disliked by the scientific establishment, self taught, a really brilliant outsider who, at the end, they had to accept. Invented coaxial cable, researched and described the skin effect.
His reformulation of the mathematics of the original displaced the clumsy quaternion calculation method. The physics remains the same, but the mathematical expression is simpler, more powerful, and much easier to use. And it works, as is demonstrated by you using your computer.
And it works, as is demonstrated by you using your computer.
SY,
Not a very good example! 🙂
ES
Hey, John has been posting pictures and everything; cut him some slack!
OK J.C. has a Mac, my mental image was of a PC!
What was 'left out'?
Special Relativity? - the "right " formulation reqires Einstein's Spacetime, Minkowski 4-space - Clifford's Geometric Algebra is supposed to do a much better job than the Gibbs/Heaviside Vector Calculus with the cross product, "curl" relations failing in 4-d
for monople free, free space progation the G(3,1) fromula is a single equation ~ "Coulomb's law" + Space-Time
Is that YOUR new reference, Wavebourn?
No, it is just direct logical conclusion that follows the "Signal flows through cable" distortion concept. No cables, no distortions. That means such systems shoud sound the best.
Getting the history right helps. Quaternions were a later reformulation of Maxwell. Heaviside was everything you claim to like- disliked by the scientific establishment, self taught, a really brilliant outsider who, at the end, they had to accept. Invented coaxial cable, researched and described the skin effect.
His reformulation of the mathematics of the original displaced the clumsy quaternion calculation method. The physics remains the same, but the mathematical expression is simpler, more powerful, and much easier to use. And it works, as is demonstrated by you using your computer.
I agree that Heaviside was brilliant. Of that, there is no doubt.
The three points that are missing, compared to the original works:
Asymmetrical.
Unidirectional.
Elastic.
The most telling point of all, is that when you get into the areas of weird science that keep making claims that the theory cannot substantiate..oddly enough....those are the three things they keep saying are happening.
When asymmetrical and elastic are combined (breach though resonance), well, then all those bizarre claims suddenly make considerably more sense. Cutting edge physics is slowly bringing all of this out, in the nano, particle, and materials development world. Almost every day.. I read a new report at places like physorg, that substantiate these aspects. This glass ceiling is being breached.
Last edited:
Well, KBK, this is what I think. I think it is EXTREMELY difficult to comprehend how signal ACTUALLY flows through a cable. I have looked into the problem myself, and found it so. I have also found that many people do NOT think much about it, and just accept a few 'rules of thumb' and simple explanations as to how it flows, even when these explanations can be 'self contradictory' when looked at closely.
However, as we know, approximations work sort of OK for most people, just like that 'Sun rises in the morning' is a pretty good observation for most people. I have found, however, that looking deeper, even quoting textbooks, among 'most people' will just bring out 'crappy' comments. It is a fine line that I often walk here, as well, to keep these 'comments' to a minimum.
KBK, my associates and I have heard your cable, and at least one of my associates has gotten behind you to sell your cable to the audio public. This associate also has a CTC Blowtorch, and many of my other designs. This is enough for me, that you are on to something interesting and important. At least, I won't get in your way.
Think optical, with high mass from the fluidic integration aspects, and granular interference in the translation medium.
And if you wish, all while keeping in mind the three original Maxwellian points that were lost.
Special Relativity? - the "right " formulation reqires Einstein's Spacetime, Minkowski 4-space - Clifford's Geometric Algebra is supposed to do a much better job than the Gibbs/Heaviside Vector Calculus with the cross product, "curl" relations failing in 4-d
for monople free, free space progation the G(3,1) fromula is a single equation ~ "Coulomb's law" + Space-Time
I Remember Clifford
LEE MORGAN, I Remember Clifford (Benny Golson) - YouTube
Thanks for that. But, when I remember Clifford, mostly...it's not Brown, it's Simak.

Thanks for that. But, when I remember Clifford, mostly...it's not Brown, it's Simak.
![]()
Wish I had this edition:
Attachments
Broken, Broken, Broken!
happening more and more, every day. Near thousands of examples of this sort of 'positive'. All one has to do, is go out and look.
Quantum decision affects results of measurements taken earlier in time.
There goes 'expectation bias', regarding it's use in scientific methdology. Thoroughly in the trashbin, where it has always belonged.
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. / See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
happening more and more, every day. Near thousands of examples of this sort of 'positive'. All one has to do, is go out and look.
Quantum decision affects results of measurements taken earlier in time.
There goes 'expectation bias', regarding it's use in scientific methdology. Thoroughly in the trashbin, where it has always belonged.
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. / See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
Last edited:
Clifford in context
This is an excellent book if one has the patience. Hope these reproductions don't tweak the publisher too much.
This is an excellent book if one has the patience. Hope these reproductions don't tweak the publisher too much.
Attachments
Well said and so true.… Many people are very heavily invested into a certain world-view, to a point that they have lost the flexibility to adjust their world-view in accordance with changing evidence regarding it's correctness. In fact, any small adjustment would bring the whole thing down like a house of cards.
When faced with anything that threatens their elaborately constructed house of cards model of reality, they must somehow find ways to discredit any such information, make it appear untrue, in order to preserve their worldview.
Ignoring such a threat is not an option to them, they must attack and be seen (at least to themselves) to win the argument, so the status quo and the orthodoxy is reasserted. …
The signal does not "flow through a cable". This is an oversimplification. The signal is carried by electromagnetic field along the cable according to Maxwell equations. And there is also an electromagnetic field inside the real (non-ideal) conductor that depends on material constants of the conductor, speed of propagation here depends again on material constants and geometry of the conductor.
Indeed, and also on the dielectric material and geometry.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II