|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.253.179.5
In Reply to: RE: Looks like I struck a nerve. LOL nt posted by geoffkait on May 18, 2011 at 17:08:09
I'm sitting here trembling....LOL!
Unfortunately, like your theories and explanation for how things work, they are all figments of your rather infertile imagination. LOL.....
But I haven't forgotten, nor have any readers, the fact that you are a "rocket scientist" and a "theoretical physicist". That, BTW, by your own gloating admission. It is simply a shame that you have not contributed anything that reflects that training, if you really had the education as you claim. All the Phd's I know have quite a list of papers published and peer reviewed. Ever Google your name?
LOL!
Stu
Follow Ups:
Too bad none of those PhDs belong to you.It would be interesting to see if milk shoots out of all your PhD buds' noses when they read your "quantum mechanics" explanation of negative ions creating a pool of electrons. LOL
"Ever Google your name?" Yes, I have. Apparently, there's a lot of undereducated monkeys like yourself out there. LOL
Edits: 05/19/11
I'll tell my doctor I got permission from the Asylum. Now where is that bottle of Talisker?
and here you are arguing and name calling with an uneducated "dolt". LOL!
Until four weeks ago you had not even realized that the piezo effect could work backwards. LOL! Not bad for a "theoretical physicist" and a "rocket scientist". You were unaware that a quartz crystal has way more than six facets and that the pyramidal top section has 6 facets, three of which point more to the side than the top. You give educated people a really bad name, especially after they read your "explanations" for the tweaks you espouse.
Stu
The really hilarious thing is that you still don't know what the piezoelectric effect is. You apparently continue to use the word because you're proud you actually know a couple of scientific sounding terms and can use them in a sentence. LOL Along the lines of "RFI channeling" and "re-radiating RFI." LOL
J.B.S.Haldane: this is in regards to theory acceptance.
step 1: This is worthless nonsense.
Step 2: This is interesting but a perverse point of view.
Step 3. This true but quite unimportant.
Step 4: I always said so.
You followed through his steps quite nicely in accepting my piezo explanations. Maybe you are quite literate after all.
Stu
I would have thought you knew more about Haldol than Haldane.
As I already said, you still don't even know what the piezoelectric effect is. But I wouldn't expect a steelworker to know, so no biggie. LOL
Tootles
All one has to do is to read your past posts on Tweaks to realize yopur total inadequacy in understanding piezo electricity. Then you make the stupendous leap and say I attribute everything to it, which as readers know is very, very far from the truth.
You not only spout lies, but then you attribute your lies to others.
You give "rocket scientists" and "theoretical physicists" a very bad name. And then you compound it all by blatantly using the forum to push your "products".
Stu
Nope, never said it. You're just a big fat liar, one who doesn't even know what the piezoelectric effect is.
You can still be a "rocket scientist" and a "theoretical [physicist" in your own mind.
And just where did you ever get the idea that ionizing a CD player and LP improved the sound?
LOL!
Stu
Acoustic Revive has a product Ionizing cd's using tourmaline, some other companies are selling similar products
There's also the Tourmaline Gun from Xtreme AV, Furutech's Static Charge Eliminator (ionizer), and Mapleshade's Ionoclast. Not to mention the plethora of commercial room ionizers that have been suggested on these pages. I won't begin to address the raft of other anti-static treatments for CDs, including Nordost anti-static spray and all the myriad CD liquids and gels most of which contain an anti-static agents in addition to mold release compound agents, optical cleaners, optical enhancers, etc.
Edits: 05/21/11
Just can't shake that steelworker inferiority complex, eh? So, you're sticking to your ridiculous theory of negative ions freeing up extra electrons? I guess steelworkers just don't know when to give up.
"And just where did you ever get the idea that ionizing a CD player and LP improved the sound?"
Have you been living in cave?
I attribute the effects on CD and LP to degaussing.
Stu
"obviously not in the cave you live in"
See what I mean? You're using my material again, get your own material.
"I attribute the effects on CD and LP to degaussing."
That's why you're the steelworker and I'm the theroetical physicist.
a bit sensitive, aren't we. I believe your argument, that you are a theoretical physicist, is an appeal to authority. Classic argument but one not borne out by any proof from you.
At least I have a theory, not necessarily mine, but one which is borne out by experimentation. We are still awaiting proof of the time shift created by your clock, BTW, and a handy explanation of how with one clock and no adjustments you correct time shifts from recordings made over century apart.
Now as I said before, a lucid explanation,ought to garner you a Nobel Prize.
Somehow I doubt if that will occur.
At any rate, attempting to get any lucid explanation from you is pretty impossible. so in the future I believe I will ignore your posts unless you really have a contribution to make. Trying to forward the science
from a guy who can only claim to be a rocket scientist and a theoretical physicist and has nothing else to contribute is a waste of my time, and mind you, that's coming from a dummy blue collar worker.
LOL
stu
The accusation of Appeal to Authority is not very relevant when the person making the claim actually is knowledgeable or perhaps considered an expert in the area under discussion. Of course, even experts in a given field can disagree, that's why arguments can sometimes go on forever. A more accurate example of Appeal to Authority would be if Arthur C. Clarke, an expert on satellite communications, offered his explanation for why birds migrate. See the difference?While you were apparently sleeping I published the explanation for how the clock works last year on my web site. What, you haven't read it?! A Nobel Prize sounds yummy. And, yes, the explanation accounts for records produced 100 years ago.
"Trying to forward the science from a guy who can only claim to be a rocket scientist and a theoretical physicist and has nothing else to contribute is a waste of my time, and mind you, that's coming from a dummy blue collar worker."
Yes, a frustrated dummy blue collar worker. LOL
Edits: 05/23/11 05/23/11
Hate to interrupt the major medication discussion there, but it would seem to me the negative ions, having that negative chage and (usually) most stuff is willing to 'give up' the negative charge.. Which charge IS an extra electron. to the environment?
So the negative ions are acting in some manner as free electrons in that they make more electrons available to something (like a bit of kit) that is using them. Even a small increase in the availablity of electrons to move in the circuit would be (perhaps) useful? Since the negative amp leg is the one 'giving' electrons.
(Feel free to resume your prior discussion about psychotropic meds..)
Electrons are negative, and perhaps the most commonly encountered subatomic particle we meet in daily life.
By the quantum theory, electrons behave both as a wave and as a particle. In its wave state electrons can traverse large distances almost instantaneously (speed of light essentially, and unmeasurable). The unique thing, as revealed by the famous, or infamous double slit experiment is that electrons ( and a few other subatomic particles) can appear simultaneous in more than one location, the wave nature making the electron appearance defined by probabilities rather than an exact location.
Thus, it is my belief, that the so called ionic generators: things like the pyroelectric tourmaline found in those hair dryers and other devices are exciting the "free" electrons and this energy is then being transmitted to the ground sources in the componentry. As a wave form, direct electron exchange may not be occurring or even necessary, The wave form would transmit a portion of the energy released by the "free" electrons into the ground circuitry and release more electrons contained within.
Remember that molecules of copper, or silver or aluminum are made conductive by the fact that their s orbitals (remember them from high school chemistry for studying valences and such?) have only one electron where they could hold 2 electrons, thus contributing a "free" electron. This electron is easily dislodged, making them available. It does take energy to dislodge them, however.
Stu
"By the quantum theory, electrons behave both as a wave and as a particle. In its wave state electrons can traverse large distances almost instantaneously (speed of light essentially, and unmeasurable). The unique thing, as revealed by the famous, or infamous double slit experiment is that electrons ( and a few other subatomic particles) can appear simultaneous in more than one location, the wave nature making the electron appearance defined by probabilities rather than an exact location."Actually, none of what is contained in that paragraph is true.
Some electrons travel quite slowly; the "drift velocity" of electrons in wires conducting electricity is only around 1 Meter/Hour. The Fermi velocity of free electrons in metals is on the order of 1 or 2 million meters/sec, considerable slower that the speed of light (which we all know is 300,000 kilometers/sec).
Your statement that the velocity of electrons is "unmeasurable" is also not true. (As we all should know) the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle stipulates that the electron's velocity AND its momentum cannot be *simultaneously* measured with a high degree of certainty. But either velocity or momentum of the electron CAN be measured with a high degree of certainty.
Finally, again sadly for your argument, the double-slit experiment with electrons demonstrated that electrons act as waves as well as particles, but it was the electrons' waves interfering with each other that produces the "interference pattern" on the screen in front of the double slits, not that the electrons are appearing in two places simultaneously.
Even in the single slit experiment the pattern formed on the screen is not due to the electrons being in more than one place at a time, it's due to the diffraction of the electrons by the slit. The uncertainty of positon doesn't refer to the electron being able to be in two locations at once. In order to pass through the slit, the electron has to have a known position, with uncertainty equal to the width of the slit. However, to get through the slit, the electron interacts with the quantized atoms of the slit material, producing a scattering into a range of directions, thus destroying the certainty in x-component of momentum.
Edits: 05/23/11
Arguing about the problems in the post but never about the actual message is funny Geoff.
You go after the trees and miss the forest.
The explaination of the availability of the electrons gets ignored, and you attack the least important issues in the post.
Like your answer to MY post, it said nothing of any importance about the topic at hand.
Sorry that sometimes you miss the boat.
Perhaps what you bring up is true, but it does not further the topic at all.
Nor does my critique, but it needs to be said.
And just for the record, the ion generators ions are very active, and give up thier electrons fast. to anything that is nearby. Thus the dirt getting on walls when a generator is in place. the dist and particles take or are given the electron/charge easily and quickly. And that charged dirt/dust heads for the surfaces. So a product (like an amp etc) which has a deficit if electrons would benefit from a flow of them from the air.
All this is not to pick a fight with you Geaoff, it is to actually discuss the topic. Which you often get on some 'mission' over, Wind up explaining crap that doesn't matter, and ignore any real contribution to the discussion.. and miss the point entirely.
thanks for letting me wack you up the side of the head.
assertions GK states, most of modern physics would be dead. Feynman;'s excellent lectures on QED would be totally worthless and not even taught in today's physics classes and all the Wikipedia entries would be obliterated. That they are not, speaks volumes as to the verification and assertions of GK.
What GK forgets is that the fields generated are instantaneous in their extent. That is part of the theory. It is funny to see him quoting "quantum" theory and still claiming Sheldrake's Morphic resonances as an explanation as well as claiming that his digital clock has mastered the dimension of time. Such contradictions. Seems like he has to put his ideas in many boats because he can't find an adequate explanation for his "theories" in just one. Just look at his back pedaling about the piezo effect. It is simply not worth the effort to straighten his thinking out.
Stu
PS: incidentally he forgot that the speed of light itself is not constant. It changes dependiong on the material it is in: hence our use of lenses.
GK only has a BS. So much for his loud proclamation of being a "theoretical physicist". By his standards, there are a hell of a lot of theoretical physicists walking about.
Stu
But there are less theoretical physicists walking around than steelworkers with high school GEDs.
There you go again, name dropping. Why, it's almost as if by uttering the name Feynman you suddenly know something about quantum mechanics. What name's next - Einstein? Lot of laughs!
Edits: 05/25/11 05/25/11 05/25/11
"Arguing about the problems in the post but never about the actual message is funny Geoff."I thought I addressed Stu's post quite well, actually. My post addressed principles of quantum mechanics, at the center of Stu's whacky theory, remember?
"You go after the trees and miss the forest."
No, actually I go after the underlying principles, the one that you and Stu have all wrong. Apparently you wish this forum to be some sort of remedial class for high school graduates.
The explaination of the availability of the electrons gets ignored, and you attack the least important issues in the post.
No, I did not ignore the availability of electrons - if you re-read my response to you from the other day I explained that there is not an availability of electrons using an ion generator. There is only an availability of ions. Since there is NO availablity of electrons, as you incorrectly postulate, the entire argument they can be useful for circuits is nothing more than a strawman argument.
"Like your answer to MY post, it said nothing of any importance about the topic at hand.
That's not true either. I pointed out in my response to your post that ion generators produce ions, not electrons, and that the surface of amps or other objects, like CDs and LPs and cables, in the room is neutralized by the flow of negative ions.
"Sorry that sometimes you miss the boat."
Maybe sometimes, but not this time.
"Perhaps what you bring up is true, but it does not further the topic at all."
If what I bring up is true and related to the physics or the quantum physics of the discussion how can that not further the topic?
Nor does my critique, but it needs to be said.
And just for the record, the ion generators ions are very active, and give up thier electrons fast. to anything that is nearby. Thus the dirt getting on walls when a generator is in place. the dist and particles take or are given the electron/charge easily and quickly. And that charged dirt/dust heads for the surfaces. So a product (like an amp etc) which has a deficit if electrons would benefit from a flow of them from the air."Actually, the negative ions attract the positively charged particles in the air, such as dust, thus neutralizing them.
"All this is not to pick a fight with you Geaoff, it is to actually discuss the topic. "
I have been discussion the topic. Have you been sleeping in class again?
"Which you often get on some 'mission' over, Wind up explaining crap that doesn't matter, and ignore any real contribution to the discussion.. and miss the point entirely."
I think you should go back and review what has been said in the subject and I think you're realize I have been contributing to the topic. I suspect you're miffed because I've contradicted Stu's theory, which apparently you feel strongly has some merit. Most likely this is all simply a case of you following the wrong sheep. LOL
"thanks for letting me wack you up the side of the head."
You're welcome.
Edits: 05/25/11
The positive static charge on the surface of an object is produced by the relative lack of electrons in the atoms on the surface of the object, relative to the number of protons. Neutralizing that positive static charge with negative ions would increase the number of electrons in the atoms on the surface of the object - so there would actually be less "free electrons" available for whatever.
Besides, even if "extra electrons" could somehow be employed for electronic circuits, it doesn't explain why ionizing CDs, LPs, and cables works.
Tootles
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: