He did not say there was. He was explaining superposition. You have interpreted what he said incorrectly. Either you choose to, or you are being too hasty, or there is a language disconnect.
Now, you said measurements confirmed.
I ask again, what type of measurements?
Jn
Yes, You are mostly right.
And my patent, for sure, is citing "crarupezided" (in russian) cables for telephony (with conductive mu-metal shield or non-conductive with HIGH PERMEABILITY) as a prior art. But as about mu-metal - is a common mistake: the METAL. My shield is made from INSULATOR and does not directly affect the current or conduct the current. That is the main difference over prior art.
Capacitor soaking is another side of skin-effect.Oh well ! Another BS thread.
Please start a double BS with not only skin effect that does something to the effective wire resistance, but convolute it with wire capacitance from a capacitance BS gallore that has built up here.
A good stater: Capacitor soaking, a real effect. Convolute it with skin effect another real effect. I bet we can get fantastic stuff at audio audibilities ?
As far as realities are: At audio frequencies the skin effect makes a small resistance increase in a wire. So what !
Dielectric absorption - Wikipedia
Wikipedia INCORRECTLY describes the reality. In reality our friends electrons (not very friendly to each other) ARE PRETTY SLOW guys. Many radio- engineers do not understand that while electric wave is FAST (speed of light or so), the electrons are SLOW.
Skin effect is forcing slow electrons to move to the surface and re-distribute closer to surface of wire or capacitor. When the external voltage is turned off at capacitor, the slow electrons are slowly moving from the surface. There are some quantity of excessive electrons close to surface out of balance. This is an "overcharge" of capacitor, commonly knowing as "capacitor's memory".
This is by skin-effect too.
My cables also has the feature of SHORTER warm-up time. "Warm-up" in electronics is not about temperature, it is a time, when slow electrons are re-distributing across the wire and posses their balanced stable positions to conduct the AC wave of a signal.
Me too. I dont understand his "linear skin-effect" empty claims as opposed to Maxwell and even wikipedia. That guy is probably super-genius, and his advocate too.
Indeed.
Resurection occured at post #23 An old BS with a new twist. Now, that is snake oil from Ukrania.
за ваше здоровье
Last edited:
I listen such short non-constructive non-informative angry sentences for 23+ years. Half of the radio-engineers in Russia and Ukraine spitted to my face after all my articles, starting from the very first. This does not work for them.
But the cables and electrons do work for me. You can hear it, simply.
P.S. Today I will leave this forum for two days of Eastern Church Easter (Pascha), so will not respond.
Cheers.
Yes, that must be the problem. Maybe I should hand back my PhD?Alex Ra said:
You seem to be as confused about this forum as you are about electromagnetics. The proportion of skilled educated engineers here is well below 90%. Those that are genuinely skilled are mostly fairly satisfied with the sound they get, although there will always be exceptions. They come here to argue with others, to teach others (where possible), learn from others (where possible), and maybe build yet another system which is possibly just slightly better than the previous system or maybe just different.
What has that got to do with the physics of skin effect?
University books on physics and engineering generally contain much more truth than audio websites. You still haven't explained to me how a linear phenomenon (Maxwell's equations) acting on a linear medium (a conductor) can give rise to a nonlinear effect (your claim for skin effect).
We can agree on that; truth does not depend on who says it.
No haste. Frequency of DC is 0Hz. DC participates in superposition just like any other frequency component.academia50 said:
Of course, in a finite universe what we call DC is not actually 0Hz but just a very very low frequency. If you use your equipment for an hour then the 'DC' will have a strong component around 0.28mHz or 0.14mHz.
Is it? Skin effect happens in conductors, where electrons are free to move. Capacitor soakage happens in dielectrics (i.e. non-conductors), where electrons are constrained to merely shift their position a little and create polarisation.Alex Ra said:
Skin effect has nothing to do with electron drift velocity. Most competent radio engineers are aware of the difference between drift velocity and wave velocity.
We are now entering pure snake oil territory. We must tell Jodrell Bank and LIGO to make sure they always warm up their cables carefully before taking measurements.
There are some very good radio engineers and physicists in Russia and Ukraine. I learnt a lot from Landau and Lifschitz - maybe you should read them too?
Except an electron beam in a vacuum is a terrible analogy to the free electrons in a conductor. The mis-understanding of the basics here is profound, attempts at explanation with "physics" is interspersed with nonsense about Fourier and superposition not applying to "complex music signals".
Since post #23, we have most ingredients for a good snake oil.
_The patent (obscure ).
_The university lab, research, thesis (obscure )
_ Engineers, references, are wrong ( except a few selected obscure ones ).
_Physics is revisited in ways no one had seen before.
So far we miss quantum mechanics. I expect tunnel effect at the wire skin. Magnetic tape, applied there as a plug to the tunnel to make sure electrons well behave.
Prosit !
_The patent (obscure ).
_The university lab, research, thesis (obscure )
_ Engineers, references, are wrong ( except a few selected obscure ones ).
_Physics is revisited in ways no one had seen before.
So far we miss quantum mechanics. I expect tunnel effect at the wire skin. Magnetic tape, applied there as a plug to the tunnel to make sure electrons well behave.
Prosit !
Last edited:
So the beam passed through the rings? If so, they created a soleniodal field, the electrons would helix around the field lines. As a gradient, off axis would be trying to follow curving lines which varied in density and direction. If the electrons were impacted a small fraction of the helix path, the end position would be a function the deflected path caused by the dipole coils (H and V).
Nice to know, thanks. The particle physics community uses solenoids for something like this, things like e-cooling. Would you happen to know if they were oriented attractive or repulsive?
That said, OP's understanding that deflection coils focus the beam is not correct.
Jn
His lawyer intervened before he is appointed defense counsel, he will not charge fees this time ....
That's what I know, zero hertz in a chemical battery ....
I did not know that after a period of previous warm-up some "CA" can filter through what you say, but in any case it is no longer a source of pure DC but a conversion through the PSU ....
I will also go to my old books to review some concepts, one can not remember everything, I have been away from the electronics for years, in spite of myself because I am passionate.
Another thing that I read out there was that Ohm's Law is basic or something like that ..... that's a simplification, Ohm's Law is not only the mnemonic triangle, it's very extensive and quite complex ...... .
Last edited:
Indeed, focusing and deflecting are two different things.
As far as I remember focusing is done by electrostatic lenses. Plates with a hole for the 3 beams to go through. Thanks to DC voltages applied to each plate, it develops an electric field in 1/R that acts as optic lenses on the beam curving in dR/R.
In a CRT TV; deflecting is magnetically done. Current in a mag coil is swept in a ramp at the image line frequency while current is swept in another coil at the image frequency, this to provide beams deflections to raster scan the screen.
These focusing and deflecting are highly accurate.
I happen to have as a student seen this, electron optics works good and nice on paper.
It is another story to make it work.
In a student lab work to make such an electron beam gun, from scratch. ( A vaccum glass enclosure with the double vaccum pump, plates you coul adjust and change, hight voltage PSUs, heating, etc ).
The best focusing we were able to get was about 8 millimiter diameter....Very disapointing !
Since then I have a deep respect to the accuracy they got in the CRT technology.
As far as I remember focusing is done by electrostatic lenses. Plates with a hole for the 3 beams to go through. Thanks to DC voltages applied to each plate, it develops an electric field in 1/R that acts as optic lenses on the beam curving in dR/R.
In a CRT TV; deflecting is magnetically done. Current in a mag coil is swept in a ramp at the image line frequency while current is swept in another coil at the image frequency, this to provide beams deflections to raster scan the screen.
These focusing and deflecting are highly accurate.
I happen to have as a student seen this, electron optics works good and nice on paper.
It is another story to make it work.
In a student lab work to make such an electron beam gun, from scratch. ( A vaccum glass enclosure with the double vaccum pump, plates you coul adjust and change, hight voltage PSUs, heating, etc ).
The best focusing we were able to get was about 8 millimiter diameter....Very disapointing !
Since then I have a deep respect to the accuracy they got in the CRT technology.
Last edited:
The mere fact of writing that phrase is a personal disqualification, not a technical discussion.
I do not talk about measures, I think you mix the foristas here
In my opinion, it would be a matter of the physical location of the components.
My amplifier weighs 30 Kg and each cabinet another 50 Kg each, it would be a guaranteed divorce to try to connect the components.
The cable solves everything !!!!!
(There are many cable brands with prices below US $ 5000 and they look pretty cute, round and chunky or flat and stunted, a matter of taste)
No, it is not. It's very simple. The words show a misinterpretation of what was stated. Either it was by accident, or on purpose. I did not blatantly state that misinterpretation was the only option.(that would make me as guilty as you). It was one of several possibilities. That you focus on one of the three possibilities tells me that you indeed have an agenda here.
I on the other hand, gave the benefit of the doubt.
I repeat what I stated: ""You have interpreted what he said incorrectly. Either you choose to, or you are being too hasty, or there is a language disconnect.""
You are correct, I mixed up posters. My apologies.
John
- Status
- Not open for further replies.