 
|
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: Re: Couldn't have said it better myself... posted by Steve Eddy on August 03, 2003 at 23:06:11:
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.
Follow Ups:
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...
Cheers, John
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...
Cheers, John
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.
A tenuous walkway...
Cheers, John
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
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 © 2013, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Take5 ]
