 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Ok, so can you explain how these thermal effects might manifest themselves? posted by commuteman on August 23, 2003 at 17:29:51:
I'm not looking for temperature variations across the rig..In fact, I'm trying to eliminate them in my IA setup, as metal films are 50 ppm/C.What I'm talking about is the non linear conversion of currents into heat flow..At audio frequencies, that heat flow will be unable to travel fast enough to modulate the surface temperature..But, the conversion process is still fast enough to react to an audio signal.
What I'm proposing is to measure the I/V characteristics of 1000 back to back solder joints, copper to tin/silver (only have a pot filled with that, not tin/lead.
The non linearity should be visible in the dc realm..If so, it should also affect ac. I figure 1000 joints should be enough that if there is an effect, it'll slap me upside the head.. If not, then an upper limit for that possibility could be established, something on the order of "not greater than 1 uVolt per joint", my rough estimate for dc simple measurements.
""So we've had the usual pseudo-technical pissing match.""Peter
Do not confuse what has been transpiring here as a technical anything. Regardless of how technical I have tried to keep it, it's not possible to have a one sided technical discussion.
If 1k joints have a 1 millivolt effect, JC's rig would see hash across the spectrum at levels totally unmistakable. Or, it may be that there is no effect...time will tell..
Cheers, John
Follow Ups:
Oh sure, and when we change the cable to something else, the effects disappear. How does that happen? For the record, I have two different reference cables that don't significantly distort in my test. They are made by two different companies, and have two different metal compositions. They only share the fact that teflon is used as the insulator. Almost all other cables have specific higher order harmonics at low levels. Why? All I know, is that the test is repeatable with each specific cable, good or bad. Thermoelectric effects? Please show me how.
""Oh sure, and when we change the cable to something else, the effects disappear. How does that happen?""JCHmmmm...let's start with seebeck/peltier....If you look back at the work function coefficients, you will see that some metals have damn near the same numbers...copper, gold, and silver, for example..So cables using only those would have much less effect, than say tin, aluminum, nickel.. So, for Seebeck/peltier...you have to consider all the path interfaces.
Or, let's consider ground loop/shield resistance ratio..If the shield resistance is high, it will present a higher portion of loop intercept across the cable length, vs across the equipment ground..
""For the record, I have two different reference cables that don't significantly distort in my test. They are made by two different companies, and have two different metal compositions. They only share the fact that teflon is used as the insulator.""JC
For dielectric questions, I would defer to you and others, as I've not considered or worked with those issues..But, as I recall, I asked you if you had correlated the cable composition with the results...And your response was "I don't care what's causing it". And if you look at the work functions of the metals involved, you will see how some combinations of materials can look rather identical.
""Almost all other cables have specific higher order harmonics at low levels. Why? All I know, is that the test is repeatable with each specific cable, good or bad.""JC
And again...I have considered the fact that you have seen repeatable, cable specific differences in my thinking on the possible effects responsible.
""Thermoelectric effects? Please show me how.""JC
That is, of course, my intent to prove..it will either show yes or no..
But, having just a "tad" of experience at testing for things I would never have considered before, I refuse to be as glib as you when it comes to science and physics.
I will propose only scenario's and effects that can be tested for. Not hogwash..
We seem to differ in that respect.
Cheers, John
John:There are lots of metal junctions in any system using an RCA-terminated interconnect, so perhaps there is an opportunity for thermoelectric effects. You just haven't described any yet.
Assuming that there is something here, can you postulate how you think those might show up? Can you suggest any likely effects that would show up in John's 400Hz - 50kHz measurement window?
If we can establish a hypothetical link between the Seeback/Peltier effects and what we are seeing on a spectrum analyzer, THEN it's worth pursuing this further and testing it. If not, what's the point of this discussion?
Any ideas?
Peter
I have tried, apparently with little success, to explain it..I'll try again..
""In 1821, Estonian-German physicist Seebeck demonstrated the electrical potential in the juncture-points of two dissimilar metals when there is a heat difference between the joints. This was the thermoelectric effect and is known as the Seebeck Effect in Physics.""
(copied shamelessly from:
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/seebeck.htmlAs can be seen from this link, the efficiency of the device is a function between the electrical conductivity of the junction and the thermal conductivity of the materials.
http://www.uni-konstanz.de/physik/Jaeckle/papers/thermopower/node3.htmlThis link provides a slightly more technical version, and explains carnot efficiency and the such..keep in mind...a dissimilar metal junction with small currents will have low temp gradient, hence the carnot efficiency will be practically zero..meaning almost no (but not zero) heat transfer. And little chance of recovering the energy that is lost from the peltier effect.
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1996/Oct/abs940.html
Here is the thermoelectric series:NOTE how far away nickel is from the other typicals copper, silver, gold..
Now, from this link:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/th/thermoel.htmlThe text states:Joule heating.....I R squared...while peltier..rate of heat transfer proportional to current ONLY..NOTE: it is not dependent on the voltage across the junction, so does not obey joule heating, hence not a linear resistor.
http://www.xyroth-enterprises.co.uk/thermser.htm
OK after reading that stuff....here goes.
Take a copper terminal, and plate it with nickel..
If you run current into it, there will be heat flow across the metal interface as a direct result of the peltier effect. It will be small, so it will not produce a large heat flow..But, according to Peltier, it will exist.
There will be a small heat gradient across the junction. Because it's small, the carnot efficiency will be very small..
Now, drop that current...(like an audio signal does twice frequency rate)..
The already established heat gradient will now produce electricity, (well, at least according to Seebeck...but what does he know??))
And again, the carnot efficiency is low..so it will return the heat energy very poorly.
In the meantime, while the current is going to zero, the thermal conductivity of the metals on each side of the junction are trying to re-establish thermal equilibrium, by moving heat opposite to what the peltier effect did.
Now...Look at what just happened..the peltier effect took energy from the current and setup a temp gradient..the seebeck effect took some back, but both are low efficiency, and thermal conductivity prevented all the heat gradient energy from being returned to the system as electricity. (just like two buckets of water with a small pipe connecting each at the bottom. If you pump the water into one bucket from the other, you are putting energy into the system. with no leak, you can use the water levels to regenerate the energy (assuming a reversible, 100% eff. pump) but, the leak reduces your efficiency, and actually sets up a time constant, where high speed back and forth regains the most energy back, while slow back and forth loses more.)
The discussion of thermal diffusivity involves the rate at which heat moves in a metal..high conductivity makes it faster, high heat capacity slows it down..Aluminum has high diffusivity because of it's low heat capacity.
For junctions with metals, the high diffusivity is quite bad for efficiency, the heat causes a thermal short circuit..that is one reason thermoelectric heaters use semiconductors, to reduce the thermal conduction between sides.
Nowhere have I said that there is a DC/thermal gradient effect going on..I have continued to state that the metal to metal junctions will be non-linear in their I/V curve..IE..not a linear resistor.
""If we can establish a hypothetical link between the Seeback/Peltier effects and what we are seeing on a spectrum analyzer, THEN it's worth pursuing this further and testing it. If not, what's the point of this discussion?""peter
I have known of one for a while now...
""so perhaps there is an opportunity for thermoelectric effects. You just haven't described any yet.""peter
I have done so three times here...perhaps this time sucessfully?
Cheers, John
we're jumping posts again....you said:
Now, drop that current...(like an audio signal does twice frequency rate).. The already established heat gradient will now produce electricity, (well, at least according to Seebeck...but what does he know??))
Are you sure that's correct? I suspect the two effects exist in parallel at the same instant, rather than in a circular fashion.
When you "drop the current" and reverse it, you immediately begin to reverse the heat flow that happened previously, with a net of zero.
Also, the heat gradient has to result in a temperature gradient for Seebeck to apply. Given the high conductivity of these metals, the temperature gradient must be very small, since dQ/dt = -kdT/dx, right?
So, at 30mV signals into a 600ohm load, we have a current of 50uA. Signal freq = 5kHz, so one half cycle = 100uS
Total heating on one half cycle = integral of (diff in Peltier coeffs) x 50uA peak current over 100uS interval.
Temperature gradient dT/dx can now be determined from the heat flow (dQ/dt) and the materials' thermal conductivity.
Given that the thermopower coefficients of metals are down around 10 -5 to 10 -6 V/K, and we're depending on the heating caused by less than 10 -9 AmpSeconds of signal....
Don't have enough data in front of me to complete the math, but these are looking like very, very small numbers......
Peter
During the rise of the signal, the conversion is Peltier effect, setting up the thermal gradient..in a non linear current related fashion..After the peak, when the signal is dropping, energy will return as a result of the Seebeck equation. But, not at 100%, due to all the equation crap..(got tired of the verbage).
Then, the other half cycle does the same, albeit the heat flow and voltage swap polarity.
Then toss in the other confounding influence garbage...heat capacity, conductivity, plating integrity....major headache..
Hell, it's easier soldering a thousand joints than it would be figuring it out..
You said difference in peltier coefficients...The peltier efficiency will be a function of slew rate..I've no idea how to generalize or integrate the time dependent efficiency to develop a simple coefficient.
Cheers, John
""Don't have enough data in front of me to complete the math, but these are looking like very, very small numbers......""peterIndeed, they are. But so is 120 db below 30mV.
""I suspect the two effects exist in parallel at the same instant,""peter
Yes, they do..but for peltier, the highest efficiency occurs when the sides are the same temp, or the reverse temp, while the seebeck efficiency is the absolute worst when there is almost no gradient. So they don't exactly balance out.
What strikes me the most is the current dependence for heatflow, and not current times voltage of joule heating..
Now, to really open your eyes, Peter...
All along, I asked for technical discussion about the POSSIBILITY OF THIS EFFECT HAVING SIGNIFICANCE for the measured results of JC's..
I did not state that it is what is causing it...I asked if it was possible...to that I got "bull shit".
You are engaging in the technical aspects, which is a pleasant change from what JC did. Thank you ..you are at least willing to entertain those aspects without glibly dissing me..
Cheers, John
Comments:I'm not tracking with your assertion on the other thread that the effect goes away as the amplitude goes up. Shouldn't this result in a greater assymmetrical heating effect during each half cycle, and therefore increased non-linearity?
OK, back to the calcs (check these and tell me if I screwed up):
120dB below 30mV is 3x10 -8 V, so we're looking for a number in that ballpark.
In JC's test, the heat current peaks at (diff in Peltier coeffs) x 50uA, right? I can't find the Peltier coeffs, but they are related to the Seebeck coef by Seebeck = Peltier/T, so at 300K the Peltier coeffs should range from 3x10 -3 to 3 x 10 -4 . If you assume worst case diff is 3x10 -3 , then the heat current is
1.5x10 -7 Watts. Probably much lower....If the junction is 1mm square, the area is 10 -6 m 2 .
So, we have:
1.5x10 -7 Watts = 400W/mK x 10 -6 m 2 x (temp gradient)
(using 400 W/mK for the approximate thermal conducivity of CU and Ag at 300K)So, temp gradient is 1.5/4 x 10 -3 = 3.75 x 10 -4 K/m.
I'm stopping here for now...
If you estimated the thicknees of the boundary over which this gradient occurs, that would give you a temp diff, which you can use to calc the Seebeck effect.
I still think we will come in way below JC's numbers, but I'm not ruling it out just yet...
Peter
I'm at home, no data here..You said Cu at 400w/mk. there's gotta be a length in there somewhere..Cu is 10.2 watts/inch-degree C. (sorry about the units, they say memory is the second thing to go)
Assuming the effect is real...It gets kinda tuff calculating it, because the diffusivity of the materials comes into play..as the gradient formed at audio frequencies is heavily dependent on the speed at which generated heat flows, both away from and towards the junction..so I can't readily calculate the zone or boundaries over which the heat can spread..
I'm not sure I can calculate with any accuracy the total effect, if I include Seebeck, Peltier, Carnot, and Joule..
""I'm not tracking with your assertion on the other thread that the effect goes away as the amplitude goes up. Shouldn't this result in a greater assymmetrical heating effect during each half cycle, and therefore increased non-linearity?""peter..
I'm not sure..that's why I asked my initial question..
But, consider the effect conversion efficiency..When the hot to cold difference is greater, the peltier efficiency goes down..So, for higher amplitudes, less conversion occurs. Yes, for Seebeck, it goes up with difference, but for the lengths of material on either side of the junction being discussed, thermal conductivity plays the great dissipator role.
That modulation of Peltier efficiency will happen at audio rates very near the junction (remember I Wag'd about 10 to 100 microinches??).
Those distances are verifiable for silicon, just look at the transient thetaJc stuff in the IR hexfet books...
Hmmmm..consider this...Assume a junction...Then, instantly apply lots of current....
Immediately, the peltier efficiency is some value (nano time frame).
As heat is absorbed(gradient forming), the peltier efficiency starts to go down.
As the structure continues to settle in, the peltier eff. still goes down..
Eventually, the eff. will stabilize at some structurally related number..But, before that happens, it is dominated by diffusivity of the materials. Before it stabilizes, it is horribly non linear..
But the efficiency is actually tracking in some fashion the slew rate of the current...which is the derivative of the voltage.
So, the dissipative loss is a function of the current slew rate, and that is quite non linear..
If we can really calculate the possible peltier/seebeck losses, we have to compare them to the joule losses of the IC..and those are definitely low..30mV/10Kohm/milliohms....
I wonder if the thermoelectric conversion losses are really that low compared to the resistive losses of an IC..in series with the load resistance of 10K..
Cheers, John
You said Cu at 400w/mk. there's gotta be a length in there somewhere..Cu is 10.2 watts/inch-degree C. (sorry about the units, they say memory is the second thing to go)I found a couple of references to this number:
4 Watts per cm per degree C, which agrees with your 10.2 watts per inch per degree. Converting to MKS should give 400W per meter per Kelvin, unless I got the conversion the wrong way round and it's 0.04 W per meter per K....
Let me think this through....
The equation is actually something like:
dQ/dt (watts) = -k dT/dx (degrees/meter)
(the whole assumes unit area, BTW...)since dT/dx is degrees/distance, I think k has to be watts per degree per distance to be dimensionally correct....
Example: a 1 degree per centimeter gradient = a 100 degree per meter gradient, so....
I GOT IT THE WRONG WAY ROUND.... the thermal conductivity if Cu is 0.04W/m/K. Damn! So what effect does that have.....
The right calc is:
1.5x10 -7 Watts = 0.04W/mK x 10 -6 m2 x (temp gradient)
(using 0.04W/mK for the approximate thermal conducivity of CU and Ag at 300K)So, temp gradient is 1.5/4 x 10 = 3.75K/m .
Ok, now I need to go think about your Seebeck effect theory here...
Maybe tomorrow!
Peter
Again, havin fun with the subject line....When you said 400 w/mK, I thought you meant millikelvin...sorry..the guys here use millikelvin numbers in the dewars..ya had me major confused..that and a martini..
Ya gotta admit...it is interesting, isn't it??
Tomorrow, I gotta figure out how an optical encoder at 216,000 counts per revolution is losing 7.5 counts per turn..the magnetic analysis guy is roasting me cause of some harmonics on a serpentine quad I made using a computer thingy.....
I'm running out of things to test to find the drift error..pissin me off..big time..It must be the mechanical engineer's fault..it's always their fault...:-)
Peter, it's been a pleasure..later..
Cheers, John
Well folks, I didn't get an answer to my question. I got 'doubletalk' instead. What I want to know is how higher order harmonics can be generated by different cables of the same length and with similar RCA connectors, yet some others don't have much harmonic distortion. This effect diminishes at higher input levels. Also, I can 'corrupt' the my best cables somewhat, if I have 'dirty' connectors, so I clean them and all the associated components with industrial grade isopropyl alcohol, and other cleaners when I suspect any problem.
""Well folks, I didn't get an answer to my question. I got 'doubletalk' instead""JCI think I understand you now John..Your definition of "doubletalk" is any technical information you have not provided.
How many times will it be necessary to say it?????
THE SEEBECK/PELTIER EFFECT RESULTS IN A NON LINEAR I/V TRANSFER FUNCTION!!!!!!!!
Hellooooooo...are you there John??????
Non linear means that the voltage across the junction is not a linear function of the applied current..
Will it be necessary to explain how a pair of antiparallel diodes can affect a signal???? they have non linear I/V charachteristics..
Oh, maybe you didn't understand what I/V characteristic meant...if so, my apologies...It means that, when viewed on a curve tracer set to AC mode, the line produced is not a straight one, but shows the actual transfer characteristic.. I figured you knew what I/V meant...and it ain't for replacing body fluids.
Cheers, John.
Let's say, for the sake of the argument that Peltier effects can cause distortion like I am measuring. Well, why do some cables have it, and other cables not have it? Could it be that some cables are more 'distortion free' than others? That is what I am measuring. Of course, there is the matter of Dr. Van den Hul, who measured this effect, first, about 20 years ago. He couldn't know something about it, could he? So many questions, so many circles to go around. ;-)
""Let's say, for the sake of the argument that Peltier effects can cause distortion like I am measuring. Well, why do some cables have it, and other cables not have it?""JCHmmm...as I've said, it would be because of metal junctions in the current path. Plating junctions, connector junctions, dirty contact junctions(remember, your the one who said cleaning can affect it).
""Could it be that some cables are more 'distortion free' than others? That is what I am measuring.""JC
We wouldn't be having this discussion at all if I had simply discounted the possibility that some cables are more distortion free, as so many others have done...I am basing my discussion of Peltier/Seebeck effects on the possibility that what you are reporting is indeed happening.
You simply dissed me, attacked me and my motives, because you have gotten used to people attacking you and your results just because you are you, with your garbage attitude.
I came into the game late, so I don't know all the history of you..I do know that you have blindly sunk into a pattern of "if anybody questions you, then it is a personal attack", so you always see "commies" wherever you turn.
I choose to question the technical merits of what you are reporting..If you wish to discuss them, fine..I like that. If not, it's not my problem to deal with.
""Of course, there is the matter of Dr. Van den Hul, who measured this effect, first, about 20 years ago. He couldn't know something about it, could he?""JC
I wouldn't know...I've never heard the name "Van den Hul" in scientific circles, unlike Seebeck and Peltier....who is he? Has what he claimed to have measured been supported by other rigorous testing?? And, does he have a vested interest in the outcome of the tests??
And the worst question of all...did he use the same equipment you are now using? As I told Peter..it's useless to duplicate the exact same test using the exact same equipment using the exact same methodology if one takes into consideration the possibility that it is because of the equipment that the effect is being seen.
Why do some cables have it??? If you recall, I asked you if you had correlated the cable construction and materials and shield resistance with the results you obtained.. It was then that you attacked..so, to answer your question? I don't know, as I don't know what the cables you tested are made of..
It would appear you are getting close to actually discussing the technical stuff..I hope that is real.
Cheers, John
Of course, it could be a matter of junctions, but it could be internal junctions in the cable as well. Why not? Dr Van den Hul measured even more distortion than me, so far as I remember, and he measured at even a lower level with even quieter equipment. Of course, he only has a Ph.D in physics, what could he know or understand?
""Of course, it could be a matter of junctions, but it could be internal junctions in the cable as well.""JCI cannot discount the possibilities..that's why the models, the assumptions, the tests, the discussion..
""Dr Van den Hul measured even more distortion than me, so far as I remember, and he measured at even a lower level with even quieter equipment. Of course, he only has a Ph.D in physics, what could he know or understand?""JC
Hmmmmm....Didn't Fleishmann And Pons have Phd's?????? And what of Poletnikov with his PhD???. Who is the guy selling shares in free energy, he has a PhD also, doesn't he??? Oh yah, he's still avoiding federal fraud charges...runnin like hell, if I remember correctly..
Far as I know, cold fusion is still a pipe dream...as is gravity shields...Where did those PhD's get these people??? How many people get snowed by the fact of a PhD????
Yes, in most cases, a PhD does indeed show an elevated level of education, knowledge, and understanding...But it certainly doesn't guarantee it.. There are predators out there who will use a PhD to baffle others...that's why I asked...Does Van der Wall (sorry, van den hul) have a vested interest in the results he provided?? Is it possible that he is selling something that is decidedly better because of a test he performed and reported on, one which has never been duplicated???
I can't answer that question, as I've never heard of the man..so I can't speak of his legitimacy..
Course, he is not the director of a college program that has a faculty of two grad students and two visiting professors. Now THAT would be impressive..
Cheers, John
Fleishman and Pons are still working scientists. Or didn't you know that? Ok, let's see it's now: Dr Hawksford, Dr. Van den Hul, Jon Risch, and me. Anyone else? Anyone see a pattern here?
""Fleishman and Pons are still working scientists""JCAh, yes...but would you buy a used car from them...especially if they claimed it got 54 million miles to the gallon (of water?).
Imagine the response from the rest of the scientific community if they said "gee, now we really have cold fusion...trust us"
How many centuries do you think it would take before another paper they write on cold fusion would even get looked at, nevermind published??
John...you forgot Politnekov...he claims that he has discovered antigravity. Something called a politnekov gravity shield..a spinning disk of superconducting material that seems to reduce the weight of any object suspended above the spinning disk by two percent..Of course, in the five or ten years since he claimed it, scientists from around the world have been unable to produce even a hint of the effect he said he measured..So, who do we believe...All the other scientists from around the world, with their millions of dollars of re-testing the setup politnekov published(NASA included, with 1.5 million)....or politnekov??? Why don't you invest some money in the scheme, John???Surely you trust he has discovered antigravity??
How much money do you have invested in cold fusion there John???
What about free energy John...That guy had a PhD...Did you get in on the ground floor???
""Anyone see a pattern here""JC
They should, John...
The pattern is: it is not very smart to believe everything that is told to you by someone who is, or claims to be a scientist, physicist, engineer, designer, doctor, professor, lawyer, used car salesman, (name the profession there John) without so much as a questioning glance???
More of the pattern: anyone who claims that e/m field theory is as they say in an article printed for a select readership, with the intent of that article clearly stated within (let's play for the gallery), when half the theory and premises and conclusions are incorrectly pulled from various subsections of e/m theory...should be looked on with reservation...as some of the worlds smartest e/m field theorists laugh at the mis-steps. I notice you have never answered any of the questions I posed of the article..of course, you can't, can you..
And even more of the pattern: Anyone who claims that they have 30 years of experience, so their word is gospel....regardless of the foolishness of their attitude, or the ridiculous dismissal of nobel prize winning theory....should be considered suspect. The fact that you swerve the dialogue to "you're being mean to me" every time it gets too technical is not lost to all here.
And more: When someone claims to have measured an effect, then makes money selling you something that avoids that effect, and yet nobody in the entire friggen world has been able to either duplicate or scientifically support their claims....they should be considered suspect.
Let's talk pattern here John...
Every time, without exception, that I have raised a technical point or discussion of a technical nature with you, you run and hide, yelling over your back "Boo hoo, you are being mean to me, to hawksford, to van de hull, to Jon," That's the third time you've invoked that in this thread alone..
Be a grownup, John..Either discuss the technical issues, or state the obvious fact that you don't understand them. Cmon, now, John..You can do it...everybody sees what's going on here..
It's not a crime to not know there, John..Everybody does it at one time or another..
At least Peter is engaging the technical side of what I talk about..I'm not sure if he is correct that the energy levels are significant for what I've been saying, but he's not running away like you are.. He may prove me wrong..and that's OK. But he's certainly discussing it, which is what I was hoping for.
You...You seem to be a waste of a moniker..I have remained open to the possibility that what people tell me about you is simply slanted and biased...but you do nothing to prove them wrong.
Hope you re-discover the technical side of the world, John. It would be nice to see you not turn tail and hide when technical details show up.
Cheers, John
What, does he own a cable company? Or write articles? Who is he?Should I just accept with blind faith whatever it is he said he measured? How? what did he measure??
If he has discovered some kind of micro-diode-current-thingy, that's incredible!
Why is it none of the big equipment manufacturers like HP, Tektronix, IBM ever mention the effect in any of their nanovolt and picovolt measurement equipment, you know, the 10 digit accuracy stuff that can damn near measure you farting in another county.. They've had twenty years to incorporate those findings in the most advanced measurement equipment in the world..
Perhaps you should give them a call? Tell them about your 30 years as a designer..Then they'll believe you. I know I would..
Cheers, John
you seem to have a definite opinion about John Curl. My opinion about you is that you are behaving abominably.I find your attitude offensive. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth, trying to have it both ways. On the one hand you are saying that Van den Hul should be written off because the effect he found was never found by "big equipment manufacturers like HP, Tektronix, IBM" blah, blah, blah. And yet you expect us to believe a bunch of *your* techno-babble about Seebeck and Peltier, which I'm willing to bet was also never found by "big equipment manufacturers like HP, Tektronix, IBM".
I think you are a big blowhard trying to impress people with your "knowledge" about the world of superconductors at (I guess) Brookhaven. Well, in my book there is a big difference between your theory and Van den Hul's. His has been corroborated by thousands of customers and dozens of reviewers. Your is apparently some off-the-cuff nonsense with no backing whatsoever, of any type. Who cares about that? Not me.
Furthermore, your attacks on Van den Hul are ridiculous. The fact that he sells cables does in no way nullify his findings. That is akin to saying Edison's theory of the phonograph should be discarded because he sold them. If by some miracle it turns out that you have stumbled onto something valid with your thermo-electric effects, you *should* sell a cable based on those theories. More power to you. In the meantime, I find your "theory" to be a big yawn.
Charles Hansen
""I think you are a big blowhard trying to impress people with your "knowledge" about the world of superconductors""CHI reviewed the entire thread...and can't seem to find anything about superconductors...what are you talking about??
I make no apologies for where I work or what my experience is, nor my knowledge..
And still state "for the record", none of those facts should be considered as reasons to blindly believe any hypothesis I propose. I continue to request dialogue and challenges to what I've proposed..
I do not consider "bullshit" to be an adequate challenge at a technical or intellectual level. Nor deflection of the discussion towards bashing me.
Note of course, I didn't deny the "blowhard" description..:-) And I'm not big (yet), but those big mac's ain't helpin. Nor the Denali Moose tracks.
Cheers, John
""On the one hand you are saying that Van den Hul should be written off because the effect he found was never found by "big equipment manufacturers like HP, Tektronix, IBM" blah, blah, blah.""CHNo, no, no.. I have asked why it is the big manufacturers have not used, nor concerned themselves with an effect that was found by VdH 20 years ago. On which should be affecting the measurement technology on the leading edge..
""And yet you expect us to believe a bunch of *your* techno-babble about Seebeck and Peltier, which I'm willing to bet was also never found by "big equipment manufacturers like HP, Tektronix, IBM".""CHActually, the King of Sweden gave medals to some guys for finding the effect I speak of..
And, the effect I speak of is in constant use by Omega instruments in their entire product line. You should peruse their catalogs (boy, have they got some) to see the extremes they go to in order to maintain accuracy of their product against bot peltier and seebeck.
And why are you deflecting the issue here? running interference?? As I've stated quite a few times here, I have only proposed the effects as a possible solution to the measurements being reported.
So, if your gonna post your opinion, tell the truth instead. The truth being (go ahead, review the posts):
I am proposing a strange combination of known effects to explain the distortion being measured...
I am discussing levels of possible effect with Peter.
I have stated Peter might find me incorrect, which I state again, is OK.
Peter at the moment feels the effect may be at the levels necessary, and I have questioned that feeling (even though it's supporting my hypothesis.)
And, I have said outright, the statements and theories of all supposed guru's, salesmen, scientists, engineers (included because I'm one) must be questioned, and gave some classic examples of higher level guys who, even thought they had Phd's, were wrong.
You, in your "buddy buddy" post, have neglected to mention the fact that I have invited technical discussion of my hypothesis. Hello!! I'm inviting criticism and discussion of my hypothesis!!! Are you there? Can you read this? That would appear to be an entirely new concept to you as well.
""Well, in my book there is a big difference between your theory and Van den Hul's.""CH
I totally agree..My theory is being tossed up here with the intent of discussing it, modifying it, learning it, it's level of interaction, if any. That includes tossing it out if it indeed fails to explain what it is being used for.
Curl, and apparently you also, are revering VdH's theory, placing it abov reproach.. While, at the same time, you come up with this gem:
""His has been corroborated by thousands of customers and dozens of reviewers.""CH
I note with interest that you did not say that the theory has been corroborated by anybody with a high level of technical background. So who has duplicated his result? You failed to provide that information..
""Your is apparently some off-the-cuff nonsense with no backing whatsoever, of any type""CH
That is the way all good theories start. And all bad theories..Course, peltier and seebeck theory is adequate backing, don't you think?
The difference you are missing is the step in the middle, where the theory is hashed out, re-worked, used to provide predictions, and then tests devised to confirm or deny those prediction.
That is how science progresses Charles..not the bellicose "Phd, 30 years, nonsense..
I've no ties to my hypothesis..it's either right or wrong. but I toss it up for all to discuss. That's the way it works.. Not some "pay no attention to the man behind that curtain".
""Furthermore, your attacks on Van den Hul are ridiculous. The fact that he sells cables does in no way nullify his findings""CH
AHA. So he sells cables, and has a vested interest in maintaining an edge over others, which he does so with his theory and results.
Where have you been, Charles??? As I posted to Jon Risch with respect to blue jeans cables and their tests..Yes, they indeed have a vested interest in the outcome of their tests, but that does not necessary nullify the validity of their results..AND I stated that Jon WAS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in that the vested interests are to be concerned with.
So Charles, you call pointing out a conflict of interest w/r to VdH an attack here, while you allow the exact same thing Jon Risch stated about blue jeans cable to go right on by?? Talk about selective vision.
""That is akin to saying Edison's theory of the phonograph should be discarded because he sold them.""CH
Geeze, Charles....not only did he have a theory, he clearly demonstrated it and sold it..
Why not use a far more fitting example here Charles?? Try free energy. It's being hawked, sold, and yet it has never been duplicated by anybody anywhere..Like the gravity shield..But, investors are buying into it..
""If by some miracle it turns out that you have stumbled onto something valid with your thermo-electric effects, you *should* sell a cable based on those theories""CH
Hmmmm. not interested. And, quite impossible to patent, as posting it in the public domain makes that impossible..
So, I do not, and cannot have a vested interest in this theory of mine..I've only posted it as a possible mechanism for distortion.
""In the meantime, I find your "theory" to be a big yawn.""CH
You are also entitled to your opinion..
I find your unimaginative attempt at distorting the entire history of the thread to be a yawn..But, it was fun reading fiction..
You are also welcome to participate in a technical discussion of the theory if you wish..as is everbody. Even Curl, the one I first proposed the theory to, hoping for a technical discussion..
Cheers, John
PS.."you seem to have a definite opinion about John Curl""CH
No, I have an opinion about the content of his posts..I do not know him, nor will I accept the rather low opinions of him others have provided me..My opinion of him will be formed on his behaviour towards me.
""My opinion about you is that you are behaving abominably""CH
Again, your opinion...but you really should review all the posts before you glibly toss garbage up here.
My example of cold fusion and free energy and gravity shields was introduced solely to show that a title, or an education, or experience in some instances, does not make what is said gospel.It was provided with the intent of stating that all results, theories, hypothesis, pronouncements, should be questioned.
Not discarded, but questioned..
So do not erroneously assume that it was mentioned to categorize VdH's results as fraud or nonsense...but to question all..
That is how I view skin theory, grain boundary collisions, micro-diodes...that is also how I view my own hypotheses..with a questioning eye..
As to Edison...bad example..He provided a product, that of converting acoustic waves into physical modulation on a storage media..easily seen..easily tested, easily done in different ways, like flat disks. His technique fell into disfavor because each cylinder had to be recorded one at a time, and he had a hand in deciding what was to be recorded. At least the disks could be stamped. (imagine singing a tune a million times?)
VdH has measurements that have never been duplicated by the big boys, and after 20 years..never even considered as viable or valid..
I've not stated he is a fraud or charlatan..just that the big boys don't seem to even see the necessity.
It is possible his test was confounded by something the big boys have addressed, I wouldn't know..But, I would certainly question..
As for my theory being a big yawn? Most of this techno crap is a big yawn to the vast majority of the population. That's the downfall to being a geek..
Cheers, John
which suggests that the net effect should be zero for AC current. The junction is heated on one half-cycle, and cooled on the other.However, you're saying that the transfer function is changed during each half cycle, which is a cause of non-linear behavior.
In that case, shouldn't the non-linear component increase with increasing signal amplitude? As the current increases, the total heat increases before reversing (the difference in the Peltier coefficients times the current integrated over the half cycle)
According to John, the effects he's seeing disappear at higher amplitudes, more akin to a crossover distortion effect.
Peter
Not really, just wanted to lighten it up a bit, that last post to you gave me a headache..Read my post to you above, then this one.
""which suggests that the net effect should be zero for AC current. The junction is heated on one half-cycle, and cooled on the other.""peter.
Because of the delta T, the carnot efficiency will be low..and it's Seebeck effect for the opposite way..
I think the most important thing is that because the carnot efficiency is so low, there will be energy lost to the conductor, which will not return..
And because the energy conversion goes as current, the transfer occurs in a non linear fashion..It's that non linear part that got me thinking about the applicability to JC's results.
""However, you're saying that the transfer function is changed during each half cycle, which is a cause of non-linear behavior.""peterYes, I'm saying that it is a combination of Seebeck, peltier, and thermal conductivity coupled with finite heatflow speed away from the junction that gives the non linear behaviour.
""In that case, shouldn't the non-linear component increase with increasing signal amplitude? As the current increases, the total heat increases before reversing (the difference in the Peltier coefficients times the current integrated over the half cycle)""peter
Peltier and seebeck coefficients with carnot efficiency..
And don't forget, the levels of energy loss we are talking about are actually small, as is the joule heating loss..But, as the levels increase, the joule loss increases faster than the peltier/seebeck effect, so the effect gets smaller as the drive goes up..
""According to John, the effects he's seeing disappear at higher amplitudes, more akin to a crossover distortion effect.""peter
I know..that's why I've given so much thought to thermoelectric type effects and how they would have to fit into what is observed. It would be silly for me to try to fit it otherwise..
I visualize the problem as a pair of antiparallel diodes in series with a 1 Kohm resistor..at milliamp levels, the diode dominates (say, half a volt plus 1 millivolt of resistor drop)..but at one ampere, the diodes disappear (actually, about one volt out of one thousand)
It's good to actually discuss the technicals for a change. Thanks
Cheers, John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
