Cal, I did remove about a millimeter of one lead to check material. That claim also proved to be false. Otherwise, you're entirely correct, they were tested exactly as received, despite John's urging of me to do disassembly. Since they were clearly and measurably no different than a cheap resistor, and they weren't mine, I didn't and don't see the point.
JN, I know exactly what you speak about, but I am not sure if I would be willing to spend my time with it, for it is useless. Who knows knows, who does not know would not be convinced either.
Instead, I am attaching some of my several years old measurements. Real world measurements, not simulations.
Attachments
You speak very true words.
From the vertical scale (200ma/div), it appears they are line input currents. While of the same shape as the "widget" waveforms, yours are a view of the "aggressor", while the widget waveform is that of the victim.
The victim voltage and current will be impacted by the victim loop impedance, coupling, and frequency.
jn
I cannot relate to tests and 'evidence' that aren't linked here.
Assessments and claims aren't scientific evidence, therefore are irrelevant to the point made here.
As for your links.
The first link: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...-purifier-measurements-double-blind-test.html is meaningless as a scientific evidence for the device not working as proclaimed.
1. No data was given as to the measuring equipment and the measurements procedure.
2. No comparison was made to a coil with the same inductance and DCR.
3. No data was given to the values of the noise measurements (what was the noise level, over what frequency range and the sensitivity of the measuring gear).
4. The measurements were done only on a dummy load, probably a resistive one.
5. The measurements were done only at full power, no measurements were done on normal listening levels.
6. The measurements were done only on one amplifier.
7. The THD at 20KHz indicates that the device does have an improvement here.
8. Even the conclusion states: "While there *might* be an audible difference,…"
All in all, this is by no means a scientific evidence for the device not working as proclaimed.
The second link: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...ee-quantum-purifier-measurement-analysis.html , the first post is a declaration about intentions to make measurements. No such measurements were given on first 6 pages of that thread. I'm not going to read the entire thread. You are welcomed to link to the measurements procedure and results. Then I'll be able to relate to it.
I related specifically to the only measurements linked here and showed that it is my no means a scientific evidence for the Bybee device not working as claimed.
If there are more measurements, give link to them and I'll be able to relate to them.
I'm not going to read the entire website and a search doesn't guaranty that I'll get at the specific measurements you refer to. Provide a link to those measurements and I'll be able to relate to them.
Arguments aren't scientific evidence.
Yes Cal, it could have been 'autosuggestion' and if you would say different, you would have been 'shut down' with a demand for a double-blind test.
Now, I have seen these devices for almost 20 years. I too, was very skeptical. I was paid by Parasound to make a determination, one way or another. I too, heard the difference by using STAX electrostatic headphones with the best possible electonics and familiar music. Then it became 'obvious', but normally the effect would normally be so small as to be virtually ignored.
Lots of stuff is commented on, but let me clarify what was MEASURED at AMES with the BMI 4800.
The original Bybee of about 20 years ago was a relatively large epoxy block with 2 ac input wires and 2 ac output wires. A large resistor 0.3 ohms (10W-25W wirewound) is put into each leg of the AC wires. Then, the Bybee device, which looked like a slightly longer than normal fuse (at the time) was placed in parallel with each resistor. These Bybee (Fuse like things) could NOT be soldered to, they had to be clipped into with a modified fuse holder. The point that I make here is that the 'Bybee device' is usually separate from the 'resistor'. This is the typical device that I have in MY hi fi system.
Over the years, things changed to the two very different versions that we have today. Your device (that is relatively small) allegedly works on the principles of what the Physics paper that I put up here implies.
The larger devices are an 'improvement' of the original Bybee 'fuse sized thing' and the resistor is placed INSIDE the hollow cavity of a ceramic form that is coated with a conductive coating.
I can say all this today, because the Germans took one of the larger devices apart and this is what they found. I also took one apart (destroying the device) and I found the same thing.
Cal, the device that you have, I have not personally opened, but I did look at the 'inside portion' of one of these devices with a 1000 power microscope, and found it difficult to find details, implying that the 'working part' is truly at the nanotube level, because when this device is whole, one measures 0.025 ohm resistance. I suspect that if you opened one of your devices, you would be as confused as I was. Yet, it originally measured 0.025 ohm resistance, now where is the resistor?
I realize that this does not explain what a Bybee does, but it might remove some of the confusion about the physical aspects of device.
Now, I have seen these devices for almost 20 years. I too, was very skeptical. I was paid by Parasound to make a determination, one way or another. I too, heard the difference by using STAX electrostatic headphones with the best possible electonics and familiar music. Then it became 'obvious', but normally the effect would normally be so small as to be virtually ignored.
Lots of stuff is commented on, but let me clarify what was MEASURED at AMES with the BMI 4800.
The original Bybee of about 20 years ago was a relatively large epoxy block with 2 ac input wires and 2 ac output wires. A large resistor 0.3 ohms (10W-25W wirewound) is put into each leg of the AC wires. Then, the Bybee device, which looked like a slightly longer than normal fuse (at the time) was placed in parallel with each resistor. These Bybee (Fuse like things) could NOT be soldered to, they had to be clipped into with a modified fuse holder. The point that I make here is that the 'Bybee device' is usually separate from the 'resistor'. This is the typical device that I have in MY hi fi system.
Over the years, things changed to the two very different versions that we have today. Your device (that is relatively small) allegedly works on the principles of what the Physics paper that I put up here implies.
The larger devices are an 'improvement' of the original Bybee 'fuse sized thing' and the resistor is placed INSIDE the hollow cavity of a ceramic form that is coated with a conductive coating.
I can say all this today, because the Germans took one of the larger devices apart and this is what they found. I also took one apart (destroying the device) and I found the same thing.
Cal, the device that you have, I have not personally opened, but I did look at the 'inside portion' of one of these devices with a 1000 power microscope, and found it difficult to find details, implying that the 'working part' is truly at the nanotube level, because when this device is whole, one measures 0.025 ohm resistance. I suspect that if you opened one of your devices, you would be as confused as I was. Yet, it originally measured 0.025 ohm resistance, now where is the resistor?
I realize that this does not explain what a Bybee does, but it might remove some of the confusion about the physical aspects of device.
Would you please make the same analysis to this evidence supplied by John Curl.
Attachments
Can someone please tell me how you block specific posts from showing up in this thread? Is there any way I can not see Joshua's posts anymore? If you look at his profile you will see that he says he is a retire electronic tech, that is very hard to fathom with his determined refusal to remember what he must have had to used as tech trouble shooting knowledge. He really chose the wrong field of work, he should have been a Lawyer or Politician, Nobody could satisfy someone who will always produce more objections to every reply. I have had enough, can I or can't I stop seeing anything that he has to say?
> I do not recommend removal of the safety bonding wire from any system.
Beware of your toaster !
Two prong devices which are listed undergo a specific set of tests and standards. Double insulated is one generic term used for such devices. I suspect the toaster is listed, and labelled somewhere on it to indicate such.
But you do raise a good point, in that a two prong device can be dangerous if the insulation integrity is compromised.
If you have a toaster which had a safety bonding conductor, you must eat a lot of toast..
jn
The link you provided doesn't give a scientific evidence to any claim. To begin with, there is no data as to the measuring equipment and the measurements procedure. It appears to be a marketing publication, rather than a scientific study.
However, a marketing publication being incomprehensive or inaccurate isn't a scientific evidence that the device doesn't work as claimed.
Please have some empathy. This is a fellow who cannot find a simple search button- how can you expect him to actually read and evaluate? I think that's a bit unfair of you, sort of like expecting me to run a four minute mile when I'm puffing after a few hundred meters.
Go find them yourself. Why would I want to hold your hand? You continue to say the same things over and over again despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
I would like to bring out once more the 'Measurement' put forth by Bybee. Here, although it is a LOUSY copy, and I scolded Bybee for it, Jack put in the circles and the commentary to point out to ME what the differences between having the Bybee module in, and the Bybee removed. It is NOT the residual error, but the fuzz on the residual error. You have to expand the graph to maximum to clearly see the difference.
Attachments
Not me, that image was originally posted by John Curl and I have only re-posted it.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/loun...ch-preamplifier-part-ii-4991.html#post3875369
- Status
- Not open for further replies.