But what about one current probe placed at the switch and another placed at a battery terminal? You are saying there would be no delay at all in the transition from voltage mode (E) to current mode (M)?
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, one end of the battery does not wait for "charge" to transit the entire loop. An actual physical switch and battery have dimensions, 100's of pico-seconds perhaps not the point.
BTW many connectors are notorious for being a discontinuity in impedance at a fine scale at ultra high frequencies. At audio you are talking pico-Henries and femto-Farads, besides the point SWR is virtually meaningless at audio frequencies. This is all the usual smoke screen of irrelevance.
At audio frequencies using a chemical cleaner such as De-Oxit on the connectors makes a significant measurable difference and one that can be heard on a good system by some folks. As pointed out before in most cable tests just unplugging and replugging the connectors often will clean them enough to make a difference.
No, I agreed with your statement. I find no to reason suspect NASA holds or even need any belief in cable directionality. I would suspect that supplier of NASA would ensure that no symmetric cables with weird directional properties (defects and faults) gets delivered to ensure payment and have a chance on future contracts.
Seems that Peter Higgs was absolved of proving his mechanism. I highly respect all the dedicated people funding and working at CERN who spend so much effort in picking up the onus of proof attributed to others.
Personally, I would like to see the cable direction guys do some experiments to see if they can collect any information for us.
Is hookup wire, or soldered wire directional? How would you find out?
If you leave connectors plugged in and cut a cable at both ends, turn it around and splice it back into the connectors, does directionality change?
If you have a directional cable, and you cut it in the middle and right next to one end, turn around that piece and solder it back together does that cancel out the directionality?
How come you guys aren't doing anything to try get to the bottom of it yourselves? You can't expect people who don't hear it to do those experiments themselves, because they can't hear any change if there was any.
Also, let's see pictures of your test setup including how AC cables are arranged and powered.
Regarding claims of high or low impedance, high or low voltage, please be specific. What does and what doesn't exhibit directionality? How about pictures, specifications, model numbers of equipment. Dig up the information yourself. If you think a high Z load is involved, make it low Z by soldering a load resistor inside the terminating equipment. Does that change anything?
Is hookup wire, or soldered wire directional? How would you find out?
If you leave connectors plugged in and cut a cable at both ends, turn it around and splice it back into the connectors, does directionality change?
If you have a directional cable, and you cut it in the middle and right next to one end, turn around that piece and solder it back together does that cancel out the directionality?
How come you guys aren't doing anything to try get to the bottom of it yourselves? You can't expect people who don't hear it to do those experiments themselves, because they can't hear any change if there was any.
Also, let's see pictures of your test setup including how AC cables are arranged and powered.
Regarding claims of high or low impedance, high or low voltage, please be specific. What does and what doesn't exhibit directionality? How about pictures, specifications, model numbers of equipment. Dig up the information yourself. If you think a high Z load is involved, make it low Z by soldering a load resistor inside the terminating equipment. Does that change anything?
Last edited:
Probably not so much a smoke screen as grasping at straws to explain something not understood.
Seems that Peter Higgs was absolved of proving his mechanism. I highly respect all the dedicated people funding and working at CERN who spend so much effort in picking up the onus of proof attributed to others.
It also remained a theoretical framework with a lot of legwork done around it until the appropriate experiment *could* be run. As far as I remember the major papers that gave him fame were on a "predicted" particle.
Don't think that'd be the excuse I'd use for audibility of cable directionality, when the claimants state that it's already audible but either immeasurable or hadn't been done.
Nor do I see a robust theoretical framework. As Mark wrote, lots of claims, but no one actually doing any sort of experiments to tease apart these mechanisms.I do realize you were being rather tongue in cheek, but there's also the litany of excuses people will come up with.
This continued assumption that audio signals are somehow 'special' or more 'nuanced' than signalling commonly found at the edges (and mainstream) of industry, the military and science is ludicrous.
High precision CAD manufacturing; accurate GPS positioning; fMRI; military sonar, radar and targeting; CERN setup and detection; gravity wave detection; ... these signals are in their different ways (Many) Orders of Magnitude more 'special' or 'nuanced' than audio.
(Experts please chime in if you know the specifics)
They all utilize cables that were designed to spec to capture and carry the ephemeral signals of their fields in suitable and adequate ways. I don't recall the medical equivalent of Monster marketing to hospitals that they could triple the resolution or detail of their fMRI machines by switching to the GX-36L cable set.
Again, get some good measurements first (ask here) THEN try to generate explanations by analyzing and interpreting the measurements themselves.
Then we can actually accomplish something, instead of chasing faeries.
Cheers,
Jeff
PS I'll add the laughing at Dowsers later
Last edited:
As stated earlier, I heard too subtle a difference to find the urge to investigate further. I heard more significant difference from other venue such as selection and matching of components.
As of late, I begin to entertain a possibility that both lack of published measurement data and discussion of the subject always going nowhere could be (at least in part) intentional, perhaps exploited as leverage against competition. I have no clear idea what to measure and would not spend much effort to investigate a difficult to measure subtle difference. Something like weeding out competition at the root level while maintaining some air of mystery. Some customers love and willing to pay more for exclusive mysteries.
Like I said, the signal from voyager 1 produces 10^-16 watts at the recievin antenna. You don't think the noise floor matters?
Doesn't that presume that the effect is real and unexplained? Has that actually been established?
Also, Indra, I just don't have time for those games. That remains the territory of people who need to make crap up to sell products rather than have substance. Sorry to be so divisive on this. It's one thing if you choose to go about a problem differently and want to sell that. There's only so many ways you can make a high voltage opamp with a high current output stage.
But if you want to make up stuff whole cloth, I'm out.
Last edited:
Oh, its probably real, at least in the sense of a real mental experience. That's as real as yellow is real, which is to say its only a real mental experience. What is causal is where we find most of the disagreement.
My guess would be if the cable direction guys were more willing to do some work to figure out why they perceive direction, they would soon get discouraged at only getting confusing results. Which would not be a good sign for their theories.
However, if they are right, they should make some progress getting to the bottom of it. Between that and blind testing it is up to them to make a convincing case.
Offering pseudo-scientific theories in a forum instead will get them nowhere, not ever. It hasn't in the past 10 years, and it won't in the next 10. Waste of time from the point of view of advancing their cause, belief in cable directionality.
If they want to be believed then they have some work to do. That is the only way I can see for them to move things forward in favor of their beliefs as to causation of perception.
It wasn't only the church but philosophers, academics, and scientists who had a problem with his observations, because they were incompatible with their models. Of course, the scientists of the time used very different methods, they were mostly in the business of turd polishing. They did not have mathematically derived theories, but a model based on the musings of Aristotle, which posited a heliocentric universe and circular motion. So even observational scientists spent their time working out maths based on circular motions (circles in circles in circles) to explain their observations. Galileo's jump from observing some "fixed stars" for a few nights and ascribing their movements to moons orbiting Jupiter was a leap to far for many. He should have been trying to figure out how to model his observations in their framework, or so they thought.
Far more interesting is the number of people who looked through his telescope and couldn't see s**t. Galileo spent a lot of time with his telescope and was a remarkable observer. People who believed and supported him could not reproduce his results, and couldn't make any sense of the little that they could see through his instrument.
If you think this is bad, why don't you ask him about the sound of audio files copied/transferred through different means. There is no point in debating with someone so firmly attached to delusion.
This shouldn't be a debate. Debates are about winning over an audience, not about truth seeking. Calling people names isn't likely to help either improve anything either. Then there is this: The Backfire Effect – You Are Not So Smart
Mark, you are going all hall monitor again on us. And I should point out that Dan is not above name calling. He called me a 'Whinging Pom' for starters.
But Chris had a more serious point. Dan has not changed his view on his 'experiments' and their audibility for some years now but has never put up an actual experiment that can be repeated. It is hard to accept that he is actually a seeker of truth at this point.
But Chris had a more serious point. Dan has not changed his view on his 'experiments' and their audibility for some years now but has never put up an actual experiment that can be repeated. It is hard to accept that he is actually a seeker of truth at this point.
EEr, I was one of the people that downloaded and listened to Dan's files.
I disagree, debate is usually good. On-line, others are following and evaluating.
Even if I can't influence the one, I can influence the many ...I like cognitive shimira " " ...
Last edited:
I'm not sure there was any name calling?
I don't see why there can't be a debate involving truth seeking. Anyway, we could argue semantics all day... but my point is that it's a waste of time trying to argue over what are basically unassailable beliefs.
The only point would be for the audience, I suppose, as the post above mentions.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.