That's exactly what I meant. People that buy this exotic stuff mostly do not care at all about a technical explanation. Even here one regularly reads posts where people do not want to be bothered with explanations - "as long as it sounds better".
So why bother with an explanation? It just scares off technically educated people.
But maybe the simple answer is that the website would be plain empty without some text.
This I don't understand. I don't think you expect that a product ships for parts cost? It's well known that only a fraction of the price of a commercial product is parts cost. What was it - 1/8 for parts, another 1/8 for manufacturing? And the rest pays off development costs, distributors, net benefit, taxes.
I am not sure on the exact fractions, so maybe someone could correct me on this.
Have fun, Hannes
I remeber John saying once that a manufactured product shouldn't be more than 1/4 the retail price.
That jives with my (admittedly limited) experience. Double the manufactured product cost for your own margin, then again it gets doubled by the distributor or retailer.
Jan Didden
That jives with my (admittedly limited) experience. Double the manufactured product cost for your own margin, then again it gets doubled by the distributor or retailer.
Jan Didden
h_a said:
I think the answer is that people are wishful thinkers but are not entirely stupid. Who is going to spend $4200 on a set of speaker connectors without having a justification to do so? I mean, it would be wreckless to waste that money - they could give it to charity or donate it to a child's college fund or whatever.
The seller knows that a justification is required to justify the buyers outlay. The time-poor buyer, or the one who lacks confidence in their own judgement, or the trophy collector is going to rely upon the sales patter. They will rely upon their trust in the salesperson.
Sometimes the salesperson can be trusted, sometimes they cannot. And I'm not saying all salespeople who cannot be trusted are outright dishonest - they may be mistaken, wishful-thinkers themselves.
Trust is confidence. Confidence can be instilled in many ways, including unintelligible technical patter backed up by alleged legitimacy of qualification. The "secret ingredient" claim is always a good one because it cannot be tested. Testimonials by other "trusted" people are also effective; even if those other people are no more qualified to judge than the buyer.
I merely query the cost structure of this particular product. I am curious about how much profit is being made and by whom. "Development costs" are profit. I see a set of four speaker cable connectors being priced at $4200.
doesn't quite work for perfume, where the production cost ~ 1% of the retail price. Nor CDs where it's about 8%.janneman said:
Just for sake of being clear: development costs I call all investments you had to do to be able to develop the product. That's not benefit, that's getting back your money 😀
I remember that too; also 2x 1/8 add up to 1/4 😉
Have fun, Hannes
In my industry (also mainly electronics related) it is like Jan said 2x for the manufacturer and 2x for the sales network.
Jack Bybee says that the nanotubes in his product cost 3 times as much as the gold. But nanotubes are somewhat lighter, so I guess he does slightly more than break even.
I have never personally made a significantly high percentage on anything that I manufactured myself. I might just make 20% profit, if possible, but then I am a lousy businessman and am considered too kind to my customers for my own good. 
nano Bybees
John, what about this: http://www.buffalo.edu/news/9998
Nanotubes superior to gold???
Cheers,
Edmond.
john curl said:Jack Bybee says that the nanotubes in his product cost 3 times as much as the gold. But nanotubes are somewhat lighter, so I guess he does slightly more than break even.
John, what about this: http://www.buffalo.edu/news/9998
Nanotubes superior to gold???
Cheers,
Edmond.
It is the nanotubes that do most of the work in the Bybee 'Golden Goddess' purifiers. Now, you too, can know about nanotubes, as we have, for the last 10 years.
So, ten years ago, you knew already what the authors of that article have published only a few days ago.
The electrical properties of nanotubes has been known and published since the '90's. The UB people are interested in the THERMAL properties of nanotubes, mostly. I'll give a reference, that even you might be able to find on the internet.
john curl said:
One even acts as a radio!
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/scientists-create-complete-radio-single-nanotube-14665.html
I found for you the article that I found most informative:
'Carbon Nanotube Quantum Resistors'
Stefan Frank, Phillippe Poncharal, Z.I Wang, Walt A. de Heer
'SCIENCE' 12 June, 1998 Vol. 280 no. 5370 pp. 1744-1746
I highly recommend this article to everyone interested in what Jack Bybee is doing, (in part).
'Carbon Nanotube Quantum Resistors'
Stefan Frank, Phillippe Poncharal, Z.I Wang, Walt A. de Heer
'SCIENCE' 12 June, 1998 Vol. 280 no. 5370 pp. 1744-1746
I highly recommend this article to everyone interested in what Jack Bybee is doing, (in part).
anatech said:
Forgot to respond to this part last night.
Posts, please? Where have I said that?
What I have said, repeatedly, is that people should listen.
The steps, as I've said many, many times, are quite simple:
Listen.
Do you hear a difference?
If not, then undo whatever you've done and say you heard no difference.
If so, does your system sound better or worse?
If worse, then undo whatever you've done and go on with your life.
If better, then leave things as they are and listen to better sounding music.
Simple, intellectually honest, and at least potentially rewarding in terms of sound quality. What's not to like?
john curl said:
John,
--If not here...where?
In one of his e-mail tirades, Chris said that such ideas have no place here at DIY. Switches vs. relays? Point to point vs. PCB? Silver vs. copper? Milled aluminum block as a chassis? At some point you have to push back or they win by default.
--Or what...get banned for suggesting things to try? If it comes to such an end, then that will speak far more eloquently than any words I could write as to what this site's moderators' attitudes are. I'm not selling anything, just as you aren't selling Blowtorches here in this thread (and I gather the unit has reached the end of its production life, anyway). It's not as though there's any money at stake--or at least none that you or I will make. You might be able to make a case that Bear or someone like Michael Percy might get some business, but I have no connections, business or otherwise, with anyone who might profit from such discussions.
Jeez, a lot of the things I've suggested are free. How could anyone see anything wrong in that? (Rhetorical question...clearly they do find it threatening...)
A dozen or so 'villagers wielding pitchforks' (a description I find apt) read and post in this thread for the simple reason that they want to pick fights. In my book, that's troll behavior and should not be tolerated. Chris allows them to act as de facto enforcers for his notions as to what should and should not be allowed. This is a thread about the Blowtorch, which, being your design, means that you will be found posting here. If the 'villagers' really, truly, find the copper vs. silver discussion so off-putting, then they shouldn't bother reading the thread, knowing that it's the sort of thing that you'd like to talk about. Instead, they do post, and frequently in an insulting manner. Hmmm...
I don't mess around in the simulation threads any more. The concept is fine, mind you, just not as reliable as I might wish. (Scott, hush, your proprietary software and manufacturing capabilities are not available to everyone.) The endless discussion about problems with device models and so forth strikes me as pretty pointless. I could post in there, and be just as much of a troll there as the 'villagers' are in this thread, but I reached the conclusion that it was better to let them have a place where they could be happy and talk about modifying device models to get closer to reality. Who knows? They might even hammer the kinks out and get consistent, usable results.
So why don't they extend the same courtesy, eh?
Because they wish to behave like trolls and people like Chris allow it. It's that simple.
Grey
If this has something to do with Mr. Bybee's resistors, then the output of a purifier would be also quantized ?
Does this mean, that current noise (as well as all other small signals), which falls below a certain threshold is "eaten up" or modulated into an even bigger amount of quantization noise, hopefully out of audio band ?
For me this sounds like sending the signal through a low resolution quantizer, hoping to get a higher dynamic range, without knowing what the original signal is ... strange thing 😉
So a two node, passive noise shaper or what ? Not really ...
john curl said:
John I'll remind you that they call it STATSTICAL mechanics for a reason. There are lots of interesting things that happen on the individual atomic level that do not translate into macroscopic behavior. If this has anything to do with Bybee devices I'll eat one.
Anyway make up your mind...
"It, has NOTHING, by the way, to do with quantum physics, in case that might upset you. "
- Status
- Not open for further replies.