|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Okay, fair enough posted by kurt s on August 02, 2003 at 16:53:18:
I am perhaps more dogmatic than you because there are experiences and results of tests that I trust "enough" to go with it. It has a price when I find out later I was wrong when I didn't triple check the results.You don't need any tests to go with something. Just listen and go with whatever works for you. I'm not suggesting you or anyone else do otherwise. In fact, that's precisely what I do.
There is also the extreme position of being so agnostic as to never trust your own senses, ever.
Depends what you're trusting them to do. When it comes to telling me what I like and what I don't like, I trust my senses implicitly. However I don't entirely trust them to be unerring reflections of objective reality. There's just much too much evidence out there showing that this is simply not the case.
So to that end, I don't insist or assert that my subjective perceptions are anything but that; my subjective perceptions.
To what degree of confidence in an experiment will make you take a side? I'm sure logic, experience, and depending on exactly what the subject is will dictate the level, and it will vary.
Certainly.
But with regard to such issues as the audibilty of cable differences (beyond the obvious differences such as resistance, capacitance and inductance) there so far hasn't been any objective, independently verified proof.
So, if one MUST take a side, based on the preponderance of the evidence, we have...
On the one hand, a mountain of objective, independently verified evidence showing that our subjective perceptions are not always unerring reflections of objective reality.
On the other hand, not a shred of objective, independently verified evidence showing cables produce audible differences beyond their basic properties of resistance, inductance and capacitance.
Given this, what side would you take?
Would you wholly ignore that mountain of evidence and assume that somehow you're immune to the same weaknesses of every other human being and take the "yeasayer" side, or would you wholly ignore the fact that lack of evidence in support of something does not constitute conclusive proof against that something and take the "naysayer" side?
Or, would you take the side that says there simply isn't any conclusive evidence one way or the other and we simply don't know?
The extreme agnostic believes there is nothing that we can know, and would claim nothing at all, for all time. You can't even prove knowledge exists, so this is a fair assumption. But it's not practical.
I'm not taking agnosticism to any extreme at all. There's simply no conclusive proof in this matter.
I know not to stick my hand in a fire. I have experience with that one, and I don't like the results. I feel it's something I know, or know good enough.
Yet it would be a trivial matter to objectively prove that you're able to sense when your hand is exposed to a flame even under double blind conditions.
So philosophically we can claim agnosticism on everything. In practice, we don't do that. We are at least partial in some areas, and hence dogmatic. So yes I'm dogmatic that fire burns and cables have different sounds. By experience and experiment.
Then why don't you publish your experiments with regard to cable differences so that they can be reviewed and independently verified so that we can finally put an end to this 30 year old debate?
se
Follow Ups:
> > Then why don't you publish your experiments with regard to cable differences so that they can be reviewed and independently verified so that we can finally put an end to this 30 year old debate? < <I've been there, done that, and got the tee shirt. After prolonged debate on the internet some 10 years ago for a 20 trial DBT there was finally agreement from the audience to ignore the results, as is done every time. The mountains of evidence to the contrary is not overcome with one test, and not even a barrage of them. The mountain has to be overturned by a bigger mountain. That won't even happen. Scientific tests aren't conducted seriously in any thesis manner because the outcome is already obvious - they don't matter. And so you have your mountain of evidence that all wire and preamps and amps sound the same, too. I read that in Stereo Review - the statistics prove in total that they all sound the same. In total, it also happens to be a mountain of crap.
I could redo the experiment, and you would absolutely not accept the results. So why should I bother? Here's your reply to this set of tests:
"You demonstrated that your wife can reliably discriminate between two speaker cables to no more a degree than I demonstrated that I have psychic powers.
Sure, 6 out of 6 is indeed statistically significant in and of itself. But 6 out of 6 in just one trial of 6 does not have a very high degree of confidence. Which is why I'm no more confident in your wife's being able to discriminate between two speakers cables than I am in my psychic powers."
What were you expecting? A perfect one million out of one million over 10,000 systems and 10,000 participants from the statistics professor? I can't deliver that for you, Steve. So it won't happen.Any reasonable test I could give will result for me the same brush off from you, same to Jon Risch, same to EVERYONE with a positive result. Writing about this subject with you has already wasted too much of my time because you're not really a man waiting for proof. You're waiting to discredit everyone with your simple pedantry. You are what I would call an obstructionist. Nothing will get past your nit picking shit. So I am no longer going to spend the time playing your stupid game.
Game over. For me, at least. You can just keep on wanking over it for all I care. People give you too much tolerance, asshole.
I've been there, done that, and got the tee shirt. After prolonged debate on the internet some 10 years ago for a 20 trial DBT there was finally agreement from the audience to ignore the results, as is done every time.I don't recall being party to that debate. Where was it exactly that you published the specifics of your test? Is it still available online? And what has what some people said to you 10 years ago have to do with me?
The mountains of evidence to the contrary is not overcome with one test, and not even a barrage of them. The mountain has to be overturned by a bigger mountain. That won't even happen.
What mountains of evidence to the contrary? I'm not aware of any mountains of evidence to the contrary. The only mountains of evidence I spoke of was the mountain of evidence showing that our subjective perceptions are not entirely reliable. That has nothing inherently to do with cable differences and doesn't constitute any mountain of evidence to the contrary with regard to the cable issue. It only says that tests based on sighted listening can have enough ambiguity in them as to render them useless and points to the need to construct tests where the listeners are able to discern the differences based on sound alone.
Scientific tests aren't conducted seriously in any thesis manner because the outcome is already obvious - they don't matter. And so you have your mountain of evidence that all wire and preamps and amps sound the same, too. I read that in Stereo Review - the statistics prove in total that they all sound the same. In total, it also happens to be a mountain of crap.
What on earth are you talking about? Have you not read anything I've written? I NEVER said there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. In fact I have EXPLICITLY stated SEVERAL times already that LACK of evidence in support of cable differences DOES NOT constitute evidence to the contrary.
A listening test with a null result is just that. A null result. It proves nothing EITHER WAY.
Go back and read again what I've actually written because obviously you didn't read it the first time around.
I could redo the experiment, and you would absolutely not accept the results. So why should I bother?
Ah, the old foregone conclusion excuse.
How do you know whether I would accept the results or not? You're projecting, Kurt.
Here's your reply to this set of tests:
"You demonstrated that your wife can reliably discriminate between two speaker cables to no more a degree than I demonstrated that I have psychic powers.
Sure, 6 out of 6 is indeed statistically significant in and of itself. But 6 out of 6 in just one trial of 6 does not have a very high degree of confidence. Which is why I'm no more confident in your wife's being able to discriminate between two speakers cables than I am in my psychic powers."
What were you expecting? A perfect one million out of one million over 10,000 systems and 10,000 participants from the statistics professor? I can't deliver that for you, Steve. So it won't happen.No, I wasn't expecting a perfect one million out of one million over 10,000 systems and 10,000 participants from the statistics professor. Now you're just being absurd.
I didn't accept Bayside Bomber's results as being conclusive because they were no more conclusive than my having psychic powers, which I proved just as conclusively by getting a coin to come up the way I psychically willed it to come up six out of six times.
If a simple six out of six is sufficient to convince you of something, then you must be just as convinced that I have psychic powers.
So, do you believe that I have psychic powers? If not, why not?
Any reasonable test I could give will result for me the same brush off from you, same to Jon Risch, same to EVERYONE with a positive result.
What, are you claiming to be psychic too?
And by the way, getting a positive result is not difficult to achieve so positive results do not, in and of themselves, constitute proof of the assertion. Failing to account for such simple things as level differences can produce positive results. And positive results under such circumstances as that are worthless because you don't know if the differences detected were simply due to one set of cables simply having a greater resistance than another.
As jj has pointed out in the past, it's EASY to come up with positive results. The HARD part is coming up with a null result. That's because it can be easy to overlook proper controls.
Writing about this subject with you has already wasted too much of my time because you're not really a man waiting for proof. You're waiting to discredit everyone with your simple pedantry. You are what I would call an obstructionist. Nothing will get past your nit picking shit. So I am no longer going to spend the time playing your stupid game.
Now you're just making shit up again.
It's not me who's the one not waiting for proof. It's you whose standard of proof is so low that the word proof no longer has any meaning.
Game over. For me, at least. You can just keep on wanking over it for all I care. People give you too much tolerance, asshole.
So, you make shit up, put words in my mouth that were never there, create foregone conclusions based on that which has never happend and then you call me an asshole.
Brilliant.
se
which is why I've stopped replying to any of Steve Eddy's postings. If everyone here did the same, it would be almost as good as if he went away completely.
which is why I've stopped replying to any of Steve Eddy's postings. If everyone here did the same, it would be almost as good as if he went away completely.Careful, Charles. I have psychic powers you know. I can make a coin come up the same a statistically significant six out of six times. If you don't watch it, I'll make all your messages come up with nothing but
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.se
You are good with a computer, punk, but that's about all.
I stand by JR in almost everything. Why? I don't even know him. I don't think that I have ever met him. Our e-mails, while initially technical, are now reduced to occasionally chastising me for being rude, BUT Jon Risch is a REAL engineer, who has walked the walk, and now 'talks the talk'. The best thing that he ever did was to ban Steve Eddy from Cables. Now, if we could only ban him from other websites.
Steve Eddy is a 'spoiler'. He doesn't have to take sides. He tries to compromise almost everyone. This is a psychological problem, and it doesn't go away, no matter what we do or say.
Just look at this thread. What has been accomplished? Yet there are more than 100 inputs. Think it over, folks.
I stand by JR in almost everything. Why? I don't even know him. I don't think that I have ever met him. Our e-mails, while initially technical, are now reduced to occasionally chastising me for being rude...So your being Jon's toady wouldn't have anything to do with attempting to curry Jon's favor response to his chastizing you for being rude in hopes that he'll be more forgiving of your rule violations would it? You trying to become teacher's pet, John?
...BUT Jon Risch is a REAL engineer, who has walked the walk, and now 'talks the talk'.
Yet you don't seem very confident of that. Otherwise why would you feel the need to follow behind him and pop up every five minutes with an Oprah Winfrey-like "You go girl!"?
The best thing that he ever did was to ban Steve Eddy from Cables. Now, if we could only ban him from other websites.
And this just shows you're nothing but an intolerant prick who can't function in an environment other than one of a bunch of unquestioning sycophants and back-slappers. Admit it. You just want to turn Audio Asylum into the Audio Guru Mutual Admiration Society And Retirement Home.
Steve Eddy is a 'spoiler'. He doesn't have to take sides. He tries to compromise almost everyone. This is a psychological problem, and it doesn't go away, no matter what we do or say.
Oh, you mean I don't agree with everything everyone says? Well pardon me for not being part of the Borg Collective. I wasn't aware that refusing to put my nose up someone's ass simply because their name happens to be John Curl or Jon Risch or Charles Hansen was a psychological problem.
Just look at this thread. What has been accomplished? Yet there are more than 100 inputs. Think it over, folks.
Think what over? There are more than 100 posts because over 20 people chimed in.
se
You go JR! And you go away, SE! ;-) For the record, I support anyone who makes technical sense to me. Even SE on the rare occasion. I do defend others on this and other websites. I only think that it is fair, especially those who are not on this website at all, like Jack Bybee. This is where SE and I first went at it. Jack Bybee had a company with a website, and the description of how his devices worked, unfortunately was written up by his partner, who is an accountant. It was not checked by me or anyone else for accuracy. There were a few statements, that 'appear' to be wrong. Now, I know that from sophomore physics, they would be wrong, BUT from a quantum mechanical perspective, they were probably more accurate than most of you will ever know. I asked Jack to change the wording on his website, but he could not do it himself. I'm pretty sure that the last real computer he worked with was a Cray 1. I'm sure he had programmers to support him at that time. So, like me, he is not very computer literate, and it took months to change things somewhat. This is the essence of the interchange between SE and me.
This is where SE and I first went at it. Jack Bybee had a company with a website, and the description of how his devices worked, unfortunately was written up by his partner, who is an accountant. It was not checked by me or anyone else for accuracy. There were a few statements, that 'appear' to be wrong. Now, I know that from sophomore physics, they would be wrong, BUT from a quantum mechanical perspective, they were probably more accurate than most of you will ever know.Not even from a quantum mechanical perspective. Remember what it was that I poked fun at that caused you to get your panties all in a bunch? It was the claim that the electrons in our systems are coursing down the wires at velocities approaching the speed of light.
Their Fermi velocity doesn't even approach the speed of light.
I asked Jack to change the wording on his website, but he could not do it himself. I'm pretty sure that the last real computer he worked with was a Cray 1. I'm sure he had programmers to support him at that time. So, like me, he is not very computer literate, and it took months to change things somewhat.
And it's STILL full of crap!
And this excuse that it took so long to change the web site because Jack's a computer illiterate and was only able to manage to make some changes after stumbling around for months is also a load of crap.
Bybee's web site isn't even registered to Bybee. It's registered to a George Darrell Berglund, also of Half Moon Bay. Berglund is a self-help guru who also owns americandreams.com. He has an MBA and JD from Harvard (though the California State Bar Association slapped him with a public reproval with duties back in 1999) and he practices law in the areas of business, real estate, personal injury, enforcement of judgement, and family law.
Oh, and he also advertises that he does WEBSITE CONSTRUCTION! (though the only website he offers up as an example--cartoonjunction.com--is no longer up and running).
"americandreams.com would be honored to construct and broadcast a striking internet Website for your business, professional practice, organization or other endeavor... Simply telephone or e-mail me -- Darrell Berglund -- through the information and e-mail link provided below! Thank you... and best wishes!"
So is Berglund the "accountant" you blamed all those other errors on? You're telling us that in spite of the fact that Berglund owns Bybee's web site and is in the business of doing website construction, Bybee had to muddle along all on his own for months with only is old Cray 1 skills in order to make a few changes to his website?
He couldn't have simply called up Berglund, the website developer who owns his website and say "Ok, this is what I want the website to say..."?
I'm sorry, John, but everything about Bybee just smells to high heaven. The guy's playing you like a cheap fiddle.
se
Steve, this is what I know. You are both a slanderer and a fool! That has been proven, over and over. I have worked with Jack Bybee for years. He is for real, I might be suspicious about you, however.
Steve, this is what I know. You are both a slanderer and a fool!Um, John, when it involves the written word, it's called libel, not slander. And it's only libel if it's not true.
I've said Bybee is engaging in fraud. This was based on your saying that much of the information on Bybee's website was intentionally misleading, which is the very definition of fraud.
I've said Bybee is a charlatan. Well, anyone who claims to be a theoretical physicist specializing in quantum mechanics and superconductivity and then proceeds to make the claims made on the website which wouldn't pass the giggle test with any real theoretical physicist is pretty clearly a charlatan.
I've said that many of the claims made on his website are BS. And they are. Demonstrably so. And not just by myself, but by those who actually do hold Ph.D.s.
That has been proven, over and over.
What's been proven over and over is that Bybee is full of shit. Just because you choose to swallow the shit that he dishes out doesn't make it any less shit.
I have worked with Jack Bybee for years. He is for real, I might be suspicious about you, however.
I don't doubt that there's some guy named Jack Bybee. I'm sure he is a real person. But what I'm also sure of is that the claims he makes for his quantum purifiers is absolute bullshit.
When subjected to Bybee’s high-temperature near-superconductive material...
This whole "high-temperature near-superconductive" claim is absolute bullshit. The things have a resistance of 0.2 ohms. That's about the same resistance as 10 feet of 24 gauge wire. Which would make 10 feet of 24 gauge wire just as "high-temperature near-superconductive" as Bybee's quantum purifiers.
High-temperature superconductors don't become near superconductive until they approach their critical temperature, T c which in even the highest temperature superconductors known is far far below the room temperatures and above that the quantum purifiers operate in.
Again, it's just pure bullshit.
electrons tend to join in a beneficial manner, increasing the velocity of propagation (VP) by forming what are known as Cooper’s Pairs (one spin-up electron joined with a spin-down). Coopers’ Pairs have the unique ability to tunnel through the crystal lattice of the conductor (such as a copper wire) essentially unimpeded, therefore eliminating virtually all quantum noise phenomena.
First, Cooper pairs only explains superconductivity in Type I superconductors which are pure metals such as mercury, lead, tin, etc. Copper, silver and gold aren't superconductive at any temperature by the way. Second, Cooper pairs don't begin to form to any degree until you start approaching the critical temperature, T c . And in Type I superconductors, the highest T c is niobium, whose T c is 9.46 degrees K, which is -263.69 degrees C and -442.64 degrees F.
So unless you're operating your quantum purifiers somewhere in the viscinity of these temperatures, you're not going to have any Cooper pair formation to speak of.
And even if you were using one of these pure metal Type I superconductors at their T c , soon as they leave that environment, the Cooper pair bonds are going to be obliterated by the thermal energy in whatever conductors the electrons subsequently move into.
The high-temperature superconductors Bybee claims his quantum purifiers are made of are made from metal oxide ceramics. These are Type II superconductors and the behavior of Type II superconductors is not accurately modeled by the BCS theory (Cooper pair bonds) which so far only describes behavior in Type I superconductors.
Bybee's just tossing out buzzwords to confuse those who don't know any different. The ol' if you can't fascinate 'em with facts, baffle 'em with bullshit. The trademark of many a charlatan for centuries before Bybee.
In addition to being near-superconductive...
Again, something what measures 0.2 ohms resistance is NOT "near-superconductive." More absolute bullshit.
They induce no phase shift whatsoever, and are totally non-reactive—meaning there is no reactance between capacitance and inductance.
In other words, Bybee's just selling 0.2 ohm resistors.
When placed between an amplifier’s power transformer and diode bridge, for example, the Quantum Purifier eliminates undesirable impedance mismatches.
Then just us a 0.2 ohm resistor. This has absolutely nothing to do with superconductivity.
In an amplifier-to-speaker connection, the absence of reactance creates an optimal signal transfer and presents an easier load to the amplifier.
Sure, putting a 0.2 ohm resistor between your amp and loudspeakers will lighten the load on the amplifier just a wee bit. Hell, use a 100 ohm resistor and lighten the load even more.
Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with superconductivity.
When transmitting digital information, the Bybee Quantum Purifier eliminates the overshoot and ringing that can occur in the leading edge of the square wave.
Sure. It's called resistive damping. Again, absolutely nothing to do with superconductivity.
Face it, John. Bybee's just selling a 0.2 ohm resistor and calling it a quantum purifier. And adding a 0.2 ohm resistor will only add noise, not remove it. You can't remove noise without removing signal as well. At best all a superconductor can do (when it's actually superconductive) is not add any noise of its own.
Perhaps I should get into the business of selling 0.2 ohm resistors and claim that they reduce electron quantization distortion. At least there would be more truth to that claim than the crap Bybee's got on his website.
se
about superconductivity..Or even some minor ones....
about superconductivity..Or even some minor ones....
Sure. Don't need my permission. Just point them out.
se
Duh! I did, Steve...Pointed them all out, I did...Ooooh Yes indeedy...And I repeat....I would LIKE to point out some errors...as in....when I see some...... I will..:-)
Guess humor is also not one of my forte's...
Don't worry, I plan on keeping my day job...
Duh! I did, Steve...Pointed them all out, I did...Ooooh Yes indeedy...And I repeat....I would LIKE to point out some errors...as in....when I see some...... I will..:-)
Oh! D'oh! :)
Guess humor is also not one of my forte's...
Don't worry, I plan on keeping my day job...
Not your fault. I don't assume everything I say is always correct so I didn't assume there were no errors in what I'd posted.
I'm sure if I'd have scratched my head a it more I'd have got it eventually. :)
se
Steve, you are still a fool. I know Jack Bybee, and in fact, spoke to him this evening. If you keep up your 'libel' or 'slander' or whatever you want to call it, you could possibly get your butt sued by Jack Bybee. He has done it before with others, who have gone so far as to lie about what he sells to the public. For the record, it was Carl Brinkman, an independently wealthy audiophile, formally employed with Linear Technology as a financial officer, who wrote the 'explanation' of the Bybee Technology devices. He was indeed Jack's business partner for several years. He is still my friend and is now pursuing other interests.
I have approximately 50 textbooks on quantum mechanics in my possession. I don't claim any real understanding of the subject, but 'near superconductivity' is a reasonable term, in Jack's case. I have discussed it with Jack Bybee on occasion and am satisfied with the term.
When it comes to the Bybee devices, you are a complete ignoramus. You appear to have NEVER EVEN SEEN a Bybee device. That's obvious from your description of the device as only a .2 ohm resistor.
That resistor is only a minor added component.
Why you carry on like this is amazing.
Steve, you are still a fool. I know Jack Bybee, and in fact, spoke to him this evening.So what? I never claimed that Bybee was a figment of your imagination. Only that he's full of bullshit.
. If you keep up your 'libel' or 'slander' or whatever you want to call it, you could possibly get your butt sued by Jack Bybee. He has done it before with others, who have gone so far as to lie about what he sells to the public.
Great. He's got himself a Harvard lawyer readily available.
For the record, it was Carl Brinkman, an independently wealthy audiophile, formally employed with Linear Technology as a financial officer, who wrote the 'explanation' of the Bybee Technology devices. He was indeed Jack's business partner for several years. He is still my friend and is now pursuing other interests.
Fine. So what's this bit about Bybee slogging along for months through five feet of snow and no shoes trying to figure out how to change the text on his website when the thing's owned by a website developer?
I have approximately 50 textbooks on quantum mechanics in my possession.
Great. Someday perhaps instead of simply possessing them, you might try reading them.
I don't claim any real understanding of the subject, but 'near superconductivity' is a reasonable term, in Jack's case. I have discussed it with Jack Bybee on occasion and am satisfied with the term.
How is calling something which is NOWHERE NEAR superconductive "near superconductive" a reasonable term? You can be satisfied with it if you like. But all you're saying is that you're satisfied with bullshit.
When it comes to the Bybee devices, you are a complete ignoramus. You appear to have NEVER EVEN SEEN a Bybee device. That's obvious from your description of the device as only a .2 ohm resistor.
That resistor is only a minor added component.Since the quantum purifier's resistance is defined by that 0.2 ohm resistor, it's hardly a minor added component. If you've got a 0.2 ohm resistor, and you add your "near superconductive" material to it and it's resistance is still 0.2 ohms, then the whole issue of superconductivity is just a load of bullshit.
You'll swallow anything, John.
se
Well folks, Steve Eddy has got me! Yep, I obviously don't know what I am talking about, and Jack Bybee must be a bad guy, because Steve Eddy has figured this out from afar. Obviously, he has never seen the quantum device that Jack Bybee uses, as he presumes that the resistor is the most important part. For the record, the newest quantum devices use 0.02 ohm resistors. Steve Eddy is behind on his understanding of these devices. I'm surprised that he hasn't kept up to date. ;-)
Yep, I obviously don't know what I am talking about...You haven't shown that you do. And how many books you have on your shelf doesn't either. And of course you yourself said you don't understand it so how can you know what you're talking about regarding something you say you don't understand?
...and Jack Bybee must be a bad guy, because Steve Eddy has figured this out from afar.
Well I certainly don't consider those who engage in fraud to be good guys. How close do I have to be to figure that one out? You're the one who said that the information on his website was intentionally misleading. That's fraud. And Bybee's claiming he's being intentionally misleading in order to keep people from figuring out what he's doing doesn't change that fact. If he doesn't want people to figure out what he's doing, he should just shut the hell up and say "Here, give it a try." If you think those who engage in fraud are good people, fine. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Obviously, he has never seen the quantum device that Jack Bybee uses, as he presumes that the resistor is the most important part.
If the resistance of the quantum purifier is the resistance of the resistor, then clearly this "near superconductive" material isn't doing anything at all which has anything to do with superconductivity. Of course it's being operated at room temperature so it's not even as conductive as plain ol' wire.
For the record, the newest quantum devices use 0.02 ohm resistors.
Ok, so now Bybee's selling 0.02 ohm resistors. Still doesn't change the fact that there's absolutely nothing going on here which has anything to do with superconductivity.
Steve Eddy is behind on his understanding of these devices.
I understand that if one takes a 0.02 ohm resistor, slap a sleeve of ceramic over it and some end caps, wrap it up in some heatshrink and make up a load of bullshit about superconductivity, they can get you to believe anything.
se
You forgot an important ingredient. I'll keep you guessing. ;-)
Is that the ingredient that Steve missed?I'm not picking sides here from a standpoint of personalities. I'm just responding to what I've read in this last string of posts ( and by the way, it beats the hell out of any soap I've ever seen).
Lets re-cap. John, you're touting ( and really that's what you are doing) a product that you say you don't really understand how it operates, and that products main claim to functioning is by a technology or operating principal(quantum physics) that again you say you're not really up to speed on ( but you have fifty textbooks on the subject in general).
You also state that the ad copy at the Bybee site is intentionally misleading, though you qualify that misdirection as ok, because it's a protection of the technology (and monetary potential) and not to mislead any potential purchaser?!
I presume that a patent application has been discussed? No/Yes.
John, I am certain that you are vastly more knowledgable than I in matters concerning electronics and audio equipment in general. However I would question your business accumin to keep defending this product along the lines as presented in these posts.
In my line of business, confidential technical info is discussed regularly by essentially competing companies. But only after signing binding confidentiallity and non-disclosure agreements. I presume that Bybee is a private company,but my experience is that public shareholders would never condone this type of behaviour, once made aware of it ( both the advertising issue and having a spokesperson for that company admitting not understanding the product). Nor should private shareholders and partners for that matter.
Get the web page changed, I'm sure you could do it ( hell, my daughter designed them when she was 13 ). Then you can stop having to put out such a lame argument for the misinformation at the Bybee site. You are better to say nothing than intentionally mislead.
Sign a non-disclosure agreement with Mr. Bybee and get him to walk you through the technology. Then you're in the loop. Very important.
Read your fifty text books ( or at least one), or else don't bring them up.
There have been too many very public instances of high profile companies perpetrating fraud ( BRE-X, Enron ), that in this busimess environment it is necessary to not just be clean, but look clean.
Again, I am not picking on any personalities here so please don't take it as such (I am not as elegant a writer as some of the others here), I'm just responding to the what I've read as posted.
Best of luck in your ventures.
slope
""I don't claim any real understanding of the subject, but 'near superconductivity' is a reasonable term, in Jack's case.""JCThe usage of that term is arguable..None of the superconductor theorists trying to develop the most advanced supers in the world today will use that term..because above Tc, there is none.
For Nb3Sn supers, it is possible to see a blurred transition at about 12Kelvin, but that is due to the grain size of the precurser Nb6Sn5 before the reaction has finished, converting all the free Niobium with the Nb6Sn into Nb3Sn.
But, above any critical temp, be it Ti, Tin, Magdibromide, bisco, yibco....none of the best scientists in the world use the term "near superconductivity". Because they find nothing in support of it..they should know...they are making the supers...
Jneutron, basically I agree with you. Jack is apparently talking about the formation of 'Cooper pairs' in the ceramic material that he uses. I know that Jack's descriptions are' inaccurate' or misleading. They apparently are meant to conceal the operating mechanism from others as well a talk generally about his devices. I do think that Jack is sorting elastic from inelastic electron behavior in some way.
For the record, Jack Bybee is now using .02ohm resistors with his devices. Not .2-.3 ohms as he did 5 years ago. I have seen the resistors myself, they are real, mil quality, and expensive parts. I usually prefer a 10 cent resistor for most of my designs, this one costs many dollars.
""Jack is apparently talking about the formation of 'Cooper pairs' in the ceramic material that he uses.""JCThat doesn't happen above Tc..'cording to da best..
""I know that Jack's descriptions are' inaccurate' or misleading. They apparently are meant to conceal the operating mechanism from others as well a talk generally about his devices.""JC
That would be consistent with the desire to maintain a competitive edge in a tight market..after all, ya gotta eat..
""I do think that Jack is sorting elastic from inelastic electron behavior in some way.""JC
Hmmm..interesting thought...I'll certainly be pondering that for a while..lattice scattering mechanisms aren't my forte...
Jneutron, think about it this way: Jack Bybee is asked, perhaps ordered, by his accountant business partner to give an explanation of what his devices are and how they work, but without giving the essential mechanism away to knowledgable physicists, many who already have attempted to reverse engineer the devices, after they tried them out. He can't level, yet he doesn't just want to make up things, and the result goes to his accountant to type up. What a mess! Jack has told me that he wishes that he never had to say anything about his devices. This would have certainly made my life easier. ;-)
John...your preaching to the choir here..I already agreed that if one wishes to maintain an edge over one's competition, disinformation is certainly one way to do it..
Unfortunately, to do so opens oneself to accusations of "hucksterism and charlatan" type behaviour. That seems to be what Steve has been saying all along..
It also prevents oneself from attempting to legally attack those who point out that the "information" is indeed dis-information, as the use of dis-information in ad copy is considered fraud.
It also prevents oneself from attempting to legally attack those who point out that the "information" is indeed dis-information, as the use of dis-information in ad copy is considered fraud.I wonder if Bybee has told the Harvard lawyer who runs Bybee's website that the claims made are intentionally misleading? :)
se
I don't know for sure, because I still don't know exactly how they work. Still, I would say that Jack's description is generally accurate, but doesn't address how the device actually works.
I know, I know, how could this be? I don't know, but that's what I think at the moment. ;-)
Well, as far as other concerns, I do have about 50 books that are serious about quantum mechanics of the many hundred that I have on my shelves, under my feet, and in huddy little heaps all around my apartment. Hell, I have only 5 large bookcases, what would you expect? As far as reading them, cover to cover. I sure wish that I could. I am not the genius that I wish that I were. I can only pick and poke at them, hoping to glean a little more information about specific topics.
At least I own technical books, and know how to access them. Some of you can't seem to even get to the company library. I have my own 'company' library. I also own my own test equipment. Get to work guys, and catch up. ;-)
""Some of you can't seem to even get to the company library""JCObviously intended for me..
I would love to be able to go to the company library, and find all references to "near superconducting".
The first thing I'd do: a search by topic, to find the authors of the most recent, most current, most state of the art..in other words, the best in the world, why settle for less???
But then...alas...the term does not appear in the literature....
Now what???
Walk down the hall...tell the people who are the best in the world that they really don't have a handle on the subject??? Tell them that their peers, their vendors, all those physicist types they work with around the world...the best in the world...at all the national labs..that they are missing the boat???? That some guy who sells some kind of audio filter has completely scooped them with near superconductivity???
John......I give them enough to laugh about with my own gaffs..I don't need to give them even more fuel..After all..I went to them with fermi velocity quantum physics..got laughed at...then...Hawksford e/m theory..laughed at again...now I'm supposed to go to them with near superconductivity???Fool me once, shame on you..fool me twice..shame on me..I won't go for strike three..
Dis-information is just that..a diversion, a dead end street...not something to worry about..near superconductivity is that..
Cheers, John
I wonder if Richard Feynman laughed at Jack Bybee, when Jack worked with him as a consultant on superconductivity at Caltech, years ago. Just wondering.
I wonder if Richard Feynman laughed at Jack Bybee, when Jack worked with him as a consultant on superconductivity at Caltech, years ago. Just wondering.
Who knows..What I do know is that you have told us that Bybee intentionally misleads everybody with the information he has on his website..you have said that he has provided incorrect information to throw everybody off..so that he can maintain an advantage in the market..
Nobody else has claimed he has done so...just you..
So when you throw names and credentials around in support of his dis-information....tsk tsk..
Lets re-cap...
1. Bybee says near superconductivity and electron selection are the reasons his stuff works.
2. JCurl says Bybee is not telling the truth for monetary reasons.
3. Then JCurl says to believe Bybee because Bybee (insert appropriately impressive thing here).Reminds me of the movie Young Frankenstein, where Gene Wilder says don't open that door no matter what I say..then starts yelling "I was only kidding" from inside the cell.
Ya can't have it both ways John..Your statement that he is misleading us is the most plausible one.
You better be careful though, John...publicly accusing someone of providing misleading statements like that can be construed as libel..If I were Bybee, I'd consider slapping you with a lawsuit...:-)
Cheers, John
I wonder if Richard Feynman laughed at Jack Bybee, when Jack worked with him as a consultant on superconductivity at Caltech, years ago. Just wondering.Yeah? I used to be a consultant to Enrico Fermi. Just ask him! Oops, you can't. He's dead. Convenient, that.
Odd that Feynman would consult with someone who apparently hasn't authored, co-authored or even been cited in a single paper, article or lecture on superconductivity. Or anything else for that matter save perhaps for the bullshit on his website.
Oops. That's right. Everything Bybee's ever done is classified. Convenient, that.
se
I don't know for sure, because I still don't know exactly how they work.In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.
Still, I would say that Jack's description is generally accurate, but doesn't address how the device actually works.
Which description is that? You mean the description given on his website that's been shown over and over again to be not just generally inaccurate, but just plain out and out false?
I know, I know, how could this be? I don't know, but that's what I think at the moment. ;-)
I don't see any indication that you're thinking at all. All I see you doing is swallowing.
Well, as far as other concerns, I do have about 50 books that are serious about quantum mechanics of the many hundred that I have on my shelves, under my feet, and in huddy little heaps all around my apartment. Hell, I have only 5 large bookcases, what would you expect? As far as reading them, cover to cover. I sure wish that I could. I am not the genius that I wish that I were. I can only pick and poke at them, hoping to glean a little more information about specific topics.
At least I own technical books, and know how to access them. Some of you can't seem to even get to the company library. I have my own 'company' library. I also own my own test equipment. Get to work guys, and catch up. ;-)Catch up to what? One doesn't need a large technical library just so they can go "Duuuuuuh, 'near superconductive.' Sounds good to me. Uh yup, uh yup, uh yup." If that's all you're able to muster with such a library at your disposal, I'd have to say what a waste. Give it to someone who can actually make some use of it.
se
Allow me to repay the compliment by saying what a good toady you are.se
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: