All I have to say on this and similar matters is: "Double blind listening test, or no test".
Golden Ears magically become Cloth Ears when the eyes cannot see the testing procedure...
Golden Ears magically become Cloth Ears when the eyes cannot see the testing procedure...
How can somebody be a 'pseudo skeptics' [sic]? 
Gramatically that makes no sense, unless you're trying to say that somebody is pretending to be skeptical. I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but I'm certainly not pretending to be skeptical of that twaddle -just cheerfully calling it out as what it is: an advert, attempting to gull some innocent punters.
Gramatically that makes no sense, unless you're trying to say that somebody is pretending to be skeptical. I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but I'm certainly not pretending to be skeptical of that twaddle -just cheerfully calling it out as what it is: an advert, attempting to gull some innocent punters.
I think we're back to Gold Tooth and King Willie in Predator 2 again...
'King Willie says, not only do I have to kill you: I have to take your soul. Voodoo magic. F#[£ing voodoo magic, man!' [cue dodgy laugh]
Some of those magazines were great. I seem to recall a certain departure from the strict confines of reality, but the 'true story' ones were totally believable -National Geographic eat your heart out. The report on the incident of the 'Man Hungry Hussy of She-Devil Island' should have won a prize for journalism (incidentally, my used N-ray generator is still for sale -any takers?). It's amazing 😉 how those lunatic Nazi stormtroopers managed to be protecting her on a tropical Pacific Island surrounded by snapping, native hippos.
Last edited:
Hmm, that looks like an Ad Hominem. Here's some more you can use:
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_...logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html
“Second: It is suspicious that all (!) values from direction 2 are higher than from direction 1. Assuming that there is directionality in the fuse, you would not know a priori, which direction is tested first.”
It doesn’t mean that at all.
It doesn’t mean that at all.
Perhaps we should not scoff at the concept of the directionality of cables.
The quantum world keeps getting bigger. A recent experiment on crystals made from 10 billion atoms proves that even large objects follow the weird rules of quantum mechanics.
A cable may function on the principle of quantum entanglement whereby the properties of the electrons within the connected equipment are linked with the properties of those within the cable.
If the owner determines that the crystals within the cable have a measurable directional state then, by some spooky action at a distance, that directionality will be transferred to the electrons in the equipment.
Bell's Theorem provides a standard test for the existence of entanglement as outlined in the diagram below where the polarity of the signal path is established by the setting of the BS switch.
The quantum world keeps getting bigger. A recent experiment on crystals made from 10 billion atoms proves that even large objects follow the weird rules of quantum mechanics.
A cable may function on the principle of quantum entanglement whereby the properties of the electrons within the connected equipment are linked with the properties of those within the cable.
If the owner determines that the crystals within the cable have a measurable directional state then, by some spooky action at a distance, that directionality will be transferred to the electrons in the equipment.
Bell's Theorem provides a standard test for the existence of entanglement as outlined in the diagram below where the polarity of the signal path is established by the setting of the BS switch.
I think that ordinary transmission line theory suffices for explaining what is happening on both conductors🙂
But: there is in fact one aspect, where directionality might play a role: The "pig tail" problem, described (with measurements!) very well in Henry Ott's book Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering:
When a cable screen is connected to the plug by winding the screen wires (or foil) to a "pig tail", the impedance changes at the cable end. This imbalance converts the cable into an antenna, which nicely receives the nearby FM stations and sends the HF noise to the next non-linear part in the amplifier. When both cable ends show different amounts of pig tails, they will differ in their antenna action, and hence, directionality might show up. This (in my opinion negative) impact is induced sometimes by adding a "grounding box" to the speaker terminals or to the amplifier outputs. "Grounding boxes" are nothing else than top-loaded antennae, where you can tune your HF noise to your liking...
But: there is in fact one aspect, where directionality might play a role: The "pig tail" problem, described (with measurements!) very well in Henry Ott's book Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering:
When a cable screen is connected to the plug by winding the screen wires (or foil) to a "pig tail", the impedance changes at the cable end. This imbalance converts the cable into an antenna, which nicely receives the nearby FM stations and sends the HF noise to the next non-linear part in the amplifier. When both cable ends show different amounts of pig tails, they will differ in their antenna action, and hence, directionality might show up. This (in my opinion negative) impact is induced sometimes by adding a "grounding box" to the speaker terminals or to the amplifier outputs. "Grounding boxes" are nothing else than top-loaded antennae, where you can tune your HF noise to your liking...
“All I have to say on this and similar matters is: "Double blind listening test, or no test".
Golden Ears magically become Cloth Ears when the eyes cannot see the testing procedure...”
A negative result of a double blind listening test doesn’t prove anything. It’s not even good evidence. I was wondering how long it would be before controlled blind testing reared its ugly head.
pseudo skeptic’s favorite mantra: I bet it can’t pass a controlled blind listening test.
Golden Ears magically become Cloth Ears when the eyes cannot see the testing procedure...”
A negative result of a double blind listening test doesn’t prove anything. It’s not even good evidence. I was wondering how long it would be before controlled blind testing reared its ugly head.
pseudo skeptic’s favorite mantra: I bet it can’t pass a controlled blind listening test.
Last edited:
"A negative result of a double blind listening test doesn't prove anything. It's not even good evidence"
Wrong! A negative result disproofs (based on evidence) the hypothesis that there is a difference.
Wrong! A negative result disproofs (based on evidence) the hypothesis that there is a difference.
AudioQuest, a high end cable manufacturer, explains directionality, put on your listening ears. I’m not saying this is proof, only evidence.
https://www.audioquest.com/theory-education/article/83-directionality-its-all-about-noise
https://www.audioquest.com/theory-education/article/83-directionality-its-all-about-noise
Well, it's evidence of a kind -evidence that some people will swallow even the most self-evident bollocks.
You do realise you're defeating your own object here, since the only definition for a 'pseudo sceptic' that makes any sense is somebody pretending to be sceptical. Aka 'not a sceptic'.
Are you quite sure that's what you mean?
Last edited:
A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.
Faint heart ❤️ ne’er won fair maiden.
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.
Faint heart ❤️ ne’er won fair maiden.
I know I shouldn't reply to this sort of thread, but the idea of fuses exhibiting directional resistance is intruiging, so I thought I would see if the results of the GECOM document are reproducible.
Test Setup
I took a random 5A BS1362 fuse from my drawer-of-many-fuses, and measured its resistance with a DE-5000. I used ordinary test leads with crocodile clips on the end, running the meter's built-in calibration to subtract the lead's resistance. The meter only has a 1mΩ resolution and measures at a small current instead of 3A, but let's try anyway...
Test Procedure
I connected the clips to the fuse and measured 24mΩ. Then I rotated the fuse 360°, measured again and got 25mΩ.
So maybe there's something to it! Or maybe it's because the end caps are silver plated, and have become covered in resistive silver sulfide after years of exposure to air. If the crocodile clips I used for the test aren't crunched down hard enough, they don't break through this layer completely, which affects the resistance.
Test Setup
I took a random 5A BS1362 fuse from my drawer-of-many-fuses, and measured its resistance with a DE-5000. I used ordinary test leads with crocodile clips on the end, running the meter's built-in calibration to subtract the lead's resistance. The meter only has a 1mΩ resolution and measures at a small current instead of 3A, but let's try anyway...
Test Procedure
I connected the clips to the fuse and measured 24mΩ. Then I rotated the fuse 360°, measured again and got 25mΩ.
So maybe there's something to it! Or maybe it's because the end caps are silver plated, and have become covered in resistive silver sulfide after years of exposure to air. If the crocodile clips I used for the test aren't crunched down hard enough, they don't break through this layer completely, which affects the resistance.
When your meter has a resolution of 1 mOhm and your first measurement reads 24, the second 25 mOhm, this is perfectly fine! Why? With a resolution of 0.1 mOhm you may have measured 24.4 mOhm rounded down to 24 in your 1mOhm resolution instrument, the second measurement might have been 24.6 rounded to 25mOhm. So I am sorry, there isnt anything to it, it is trying to measure differences smaller than the resolution of an instrument.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.