|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.253.179.5
There has been much tossed about about things like the Himalayan Salt lamps, Ion generators, Tourmaline hair dryers and curlers, the battery ground tweak, and such. All seem to work on the same principle: a generator of negative ions (electrons) improves the sound quality heard. Typically the effect is described as being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.
No one has been able to provide an explanation for the perceived effects, however. One thing that has struck me is that electricity and electrons are basically he only subatomic particle we work with and harness on a daily basis. In that light, I suspect the ion generators are actually invoking the principles of quantum mechanics, where electrons can interact with other electrons at great distances instantly.
No one has an adequate explanation of how these surplus electrons can affect gear, and some have suggested that they are really affecting the human observer. While that may be true, electrons entering the human neural pathways will take a longer time to transit to the brain than what is perceived by most observers (users of the hair dryers say the aural effect is almost immediate). I suspect the quantum nature of the electron is what is affecting the circuitry.
Stu
Follow Ups:
> > “No one has an adequate explanation of how these surplus electrons can affect gear, and some have suggested that they are really affecting the human observer. While that may be true, electrons entering the human neural pathways will take a longer time to transit to the brain than what is perceived by most observers (users of the hair dryers say the aural effect is almost immediate).” < <
You say “no one has an adequate explanation of how these surplus electrons can affect gear (i.e can affect the audio signal)” but surely that is what has caused the most disagreements between you and I over these past few years ? You always seem to have been suggesting, repeatedly, that such things CAN and DO affect the actual audio system !!!
My major ‘bone of contention’ with you, Unclestu has primarily always been centred around the fact that you appear to want to explain EVERYTHING which affects the sound as ‘something having an effect on the audio signal travelling through the audio system’ or ‘something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room’. Whereas we, ourselves, have experienced so many anomalies which challenge such a narrow and limiting outlook.
At least Unclestu, in trying to figure out what might be ‘going on’, you have been more constructive than the more common simplistic and dismissive reaction of “Oh, it is auto-suggestion, or the placebo effect, or bias, or imagination, or effective marketing etc. etc. etc.
I can fully understand, however, how people would want to always believe that it is the audio signal or the acoustic air pressure waves which are being affected because the improvements in the sound they hear are sometimes SO striking that it MUST be because of more information being available !! Far MORE information seems to be available from the music of (say) Dvorak’s New World than one could possibly achieve from merely ‘being more relaxed’ !! And, the important question then arises “If that MORE information can be heard after a particular ‘tweak’, WHERE had all that information been BEFORE the ‘tweak’ ??
One thing which fuels the controversy surrounding ‘tweaks’ is that the people who do not try any of the ‘tweaks’ and therefore never experience the actual improvements in the sound which others are hearing and describing firmly believe that if they have the best equipment, then they must be hearing ALL the information available ! Whereas the people who DO experience striking improvements in the sound from certain ‘tweaks’ and are aware that what they are hearing IS more information, then they can recognise immediately when others describe a similar experience and are then not dismissive of others’ subjective experiences.
If you want to consider “something having an effect on the human observer”, then why do you want to think ONLY of ‘something transitting’ to the brain (and then entering the human neural pathways) ?? Why can’t you consider that it only has to be there, to BE IN THE ENVIRONMENT for it to have ‘an effect regarding the human being’ ? The human being can be affected (be reacting) without ‘whatever’ (electromagnetism, RF, microwave energy, ions, batteries, magnets, chemicals etc) actually “entering the brain” !!!
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
is based on my experiences and the various devices employed. For electron transfer within the human body, consider that electrons are really beta particles, and a sheet of paper will block them. In the past you have claimed that the "effect" was working on the human body. Yes, it does, to the extent that you can hear it, but I do believe the electrons are actually working on the equipment, not the human body.
Electrons are the only subatomic particle that we, as humans, can effectively utilize. Couple that with the battery ground tweak where we "unbalance" the electrical balance between positive and negative, and the ionizing devices are doing much the same, at least that is my speculation.
Stu
> > “In the past you have claimed that the "effect" was working on the human body. Yes, it does, to the extent that you can hear it, but I do believe the electrons are actually working on the equipment, not the human body.” < <
It is the words “ON the human body” I am reacting to. I do not say that the effect is ON the human body, I say that the human being is REACTING to what is going on in their environment.” - Which is something different.
> > “Electrons are the only subatomic particle that we, as humans, can effectively utilize. Couple that with the battery ground tweak where we "unbalance" the electrical balance between positive and negative, and the ionizing devices are doing much the same, at least that is my speculation.” < <
You talk about “unbalancing” the electrical balance and that is how the battery ground tweak works. But, Unclestu, just the mere PRESENCE of a battery – in the listening environment – adversely affects the sound. The battery, just by being a battery (i.e a polarized object) is a problem. As is a magnet – also a problem just by being present in the environment
You say that using the battery ground tweak will give you improvements in the sound. Which you would no doubt describe as :-
> > “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” < <
I have no reason to challenge your observations. But, you can get identical improvements in the sound without using the battery in a ‘grounding situation’. !! Take ANY battery which is in ANY device (say a remote control, a smoke alarm, a walkman device just passively laying around in the room, etc) and ‘treat’ that battery and you can then have the ‘treated’ battery in exactly the same position, still with exactly the same ‘polarity’ but now no longer creating an adverse effect. One of the simple (and free) ‘treatments’ is to put that battery through the freezing/slow defrost treatment and you will have an identical improvement in the sound - i.e identical to the description you have just quoted when using a battery as a ‘ground tweak’ !!!
Tell me, Unclestu, in the situations described, when the actual objects involved can be metres and metres away from any audio equipment, how on earth can they be “affecting the signal travelling through the audio equipment” or “affecting the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations” ???? Situations where you are NOT using the battery in a ‘grounding situation’ but getting identical improvements in the sound ?
Anomalies such as those are what I am talking about. ,
The adverse effect (on the sound) of the presence in the environment of such as batteries, cannot be explained by those batteries having a DIRECT effect on the human body – i.e. ‘beaming through or to the body’. So, if it is the human observer who is being affected then the effect must be from a reaction to those objects being present in the environment.
I have been actively involved in the audio industry for over 50 years so I am fully aware of such things as capacitance, inductance, resistance, electromagnetism, RF interference, Microwave energy, the dielectric effect, microphony, vibrations, static etc. etc and how the various things COULD affect the audio signal on it’s journey through the audio system but I also know, even stretching imagination to the extreme, what would NOT be affecting the audio signal to the extent to give such descriptions of improvements in the sound as :-
> > “Better pace & rhythm, better air and space around instruments, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements.” < <
To get any further along the journey of discovery, you have to look far more seriously at the anomalies one encounters.
Anomalies are the brick wall one comes up against. The best person to read on the subject of anomalies in science is Thomas Kuhn !!!!!!!!!!!!
Either researchers choose to ignore the anomalies because they are too difficult (for the researcher) to ‘deal with’, or the researchers ‘do not have time to investigate but intend to look at them later’, or they try to push, pull squeeze, bend, stretch the anomalies they are observing to try to fit in with their conventional training and conventional understandings.
So many so called ‘tweaks’ are not giving improvements in the sound by adding something, they are giving improvements in the sound by reducing an already existing adverse effect !! You can’t add new information to the orchestral score of Dvorak’s New World if that information is not already encoded on the recording.
So, the information which gives you the improvements you describe of :-
> > “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” < <
MUST have already been there, available, all the time. Until you did this, and that, and that and that TWEAK !!!!
And, therefore, if you can experience IDENTICAL improvements of :-
> > “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” < <
From doing things which cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be having an effect on the audio signal or having an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves, then whatever it was you do/did must be considered as doing the same thing – i.e reducing an already existing adverse effect !!
THAT is when you start on the path of discovery. By NOT avoiding, dismissing, ignoring anomalies !!
I see someone calling themselves edbk has just described ‘feeling’ worse AND actually hearing the sound ‘worse’ :-
> > “with all the rocks on the table I had a bigass midrange suckout for the few minutes I listened.” < <
With a variety of crystals positioned on a table in his listening room!!
It was one experience (a significant experience but one of many such) 30 years ago with something on a table spoiling our ‘sound’ that gave us certain clues as to what might be ‘going on’ in the modern environment !!
You are ‘thinking about’ positives and negatives, you are ‘thinking about’ polarities in an attempt to explain what you have observed but I still challenge you that you are pushing, pulling, squeezing, bending, stretching what you have observed to fit in with ‘something affecting the audio signal as it travels through the audio system’ or ‘something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves in the room’.
Positives and negatives can still be under consideration as can polarities because, yes, they are present in the environment. But not ALWAYS affecting the audio signal and not ALWAYS affecting the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room.
More and more people are HAVING TO consider the human beings reaction within the modern environment as a strong explanation for the ‘changes in the sound’ which many people experience.
Take for example Russell Lichter’s review of the LessLoss Blackbody device (StereoTimes July 2010).
> > “There are things going on here that I can't explain, that challenge my fundamental preconceptions of how electronic devices work. And some of those challenging concepts turn out to be quite audible in my stereo but have nothing directly to do with circuit type or design or components or room treatments, things that normally 'make a difference.' We have irrevocably entered an age of man-made electromagnetic radiation with the blind confidence conferred by hubris. ……….Our living rooms are no exception. If we could actually see these wavelengths, we'd be claustrophobic.” < <
And, during a lengthy discussion on the Stereophile Forum on the improvements in the sound heard from the tiny ART room devices, even John Atkinson was beginning to resort to suggesting “could it be the human being who is doing the reacting ?”
And I haven’t even touched on the subject of the effect (on the sound) of such as the Schumann Resonance device !!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
that it is you who has blocked out further investigation, claiming that all you know and have submitted to has already been discovered by none other than yourself and Peter.
Details of music may well be already contained in the information encoded on a disc or LP: that 100% retrieval of that information is already accomplished is another factor. There are many factors which affect that information retrieval, acoustics, component design, etc.
In other posts on Tweaks, I have noted that adding more batteries to more components in a system soon reaches a point of diminishing returns, where very little gain ( virtually nil in the parlance of se)is noted in the s/n ratio. I suspect it is the point where the information retrieval has been maximized by this particular tweak.
Now the addition of the battery gives a seeming 2 dB increase in volume, Do your tweaks do the same? In fact have you tried this particular tweak yourself, are are you basing it completely on the experience of others or past experimentation on other battery factors?
The fact is the ground tweak is mounted directly onto the circuit of the component. Your removal of batteries does not involve them directly inserted into a circuit of the audio chain. And to tell you the truth, since I have purchased batteries by the bulk ( I have 45 batteries sitting in my "listening" room right now), I hear no degradation in sound from their presence. I would submit that your position should also incorporate such "anomalies" and possibly a change in your position.
Then again having products for sale may preclude you from making a change in position until such product inventory is exhausted.
If you carefully read my past posts, I have never advocated mass distribution of crystals in a room. In fact my realization of the harm of such a practice triggered my experimentation: a large quartz cluster in the center of my listening area adding a harsh upper frequency "ring" to all my music. I have submitted my speculation about crystals and their preferred positioning based on the fact that many are truly piezoelectric, and their positioning should be placed in areas where there is a strong EMI field. The center of a room is generally not a locus of an EMI field. Here, you are taking things out of context, and loosely applying it to suit your argument.
And it is silly to say that the human listener is not reacting to the changes. Of course the human ear is reacting, but it will react to many different changes. The key here is to understand the why's and how's of creating such changes. You can claim morphic resonances, but morphic resonances do not aid predictability, nor effectiveness of such changes.
Just take your boy, GK, who often posts to try this and to try that without making any prediction of how those applications will change sound.
He's simply shooting off in the dark, seemingly without being very precise despite claiming to be a "scientist". Its like reading those claims put forth by the believers of Nostradamus: they can always see events which have already occurred as being predicted, but can't predict in advance.
In fact your post has me very puzzled. You are modifying your previous position in that now you are claiming that the body is reacting to changes in the environment. Now, how can that NOT be so? I've always claimed that the sensitivity of the human body far exceeds most instrumentation we have. Consider the example I've always used: that the best "noses" can distinguish one part per trillion as determined by spectrographic analysis of a cubic volume of air. Since many people seem to be more sensitive to sound than smell, how and what does that translate to hearing?
Stu
"I submit that it is you who has blocked out further investigation, claiming that all you know and have submitted to has already been discovered by none other than yourself and Peter."That's really funny considering that you have no idea what the Belt products are or how they work. "You submit?" Ha Ha Ha!
"Details of music may well be already contained in the information encoded on a disc or LP: that 100% retrieval of that information is already accomplished is another factor. There are many factors which affect that information retrieval, acoustics, component design, etc."
Well, now we're getting somewhere!
"In other posts on Tweaks, I have noted that adding more batteries to more components in a system soon reaches a point of diminishing returns, where very little gain ( virtually nil in the parlance of se)is noted in the s/n ratio. I suspect it is the point where the information retrieval has been maximized by this particular tweak."
Odd you haven't noticed how batteries hurt the sound. Oh, well.
"Now the addition of the battery gives a seeming 2 dB increase in volume, Do your tweaks do the same? In fact have you tried this particular tweak yourself, are are you basing it completely on the experience of others or past experimentation on other battery factors?"
What does her trying the tweak have to do with the price of spinach? Have you measured the 2 dB increase? Show us the data!
"The fact is the ground tweak is mounted directly onto the circuit of the component. Your removal of batteries does not involve them directly inserted into a circuit of the audio chain. And to tell you the truth, since I have purchased batteries by the bulk ( I have 45 batteries sitting in my "listening" room right now), I hear no degradation in sound from their presence. I would submit that your position should also incorporate such "anomalies" and possibly a change in your position."
You had better get your hearing checked Pronto! Actually, it's understandable you wouldn't notice the detrimental effect of 45 batteries sitting in your listening room as you've undoubetedly always had a lot of batteries in your house/apt/cave/whatever.
"Then again having products for sale may preclude you from making a change in position until such product inventory is exhausted."
Whatever the heck that means.
"If you carefully read my past posts, I have never advocated mass distribution of crystals in a room. In fact my realization of the harm of such a practice triggered my experimentation: a large quartz cluster in the center of my listening area adding a harsh upper frequency "ring" to all my music. I have submitted my speculation about crystals and their preferred positioning based on the fact that many are truly piezoelectric, and their positioning should be placed in areas where there is a strong EMI field. The center of a room is generally not a locus of an EMI field. Here, you are taking things out of context, and loosely applying it to suit your argument."
You jumped the gun *assuming* that EMI fields are involved with the quartz cluster between the speakers. Did you meaure the EMI fields? Anyway, completely understandable considering you see RFI/EMI behind every rock. That's what happens when your belief system doesn't allow you to consider any evidence that conflicts with your foregone conclusions.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." ~ old audiophile saying
"And it is silly to say that the human listener is not reacting to the changes. Of course the human ear is reacting, but it will react to many different changes. The key here is to understand the why's and how's of creating such changes. You can claim morphic resonances, but morphic resonances do not aid predictability, nor effectiveness of such changes."
Uh, Stu, she's not talking about the accuracy of human hearing, or the sensitivity of the human ear, she's taking about the human mind/body reacting to the surroundings. Geez, how many years have you been posting on this forum? .
"The more things change the more they stay the same." Old audiophile saying
"Just take your boy, GK, who often posts to try this and to try that without making any prediction of how those applications will change sound. He's simply shooting off in the dark, seemingly without being very precise despite claiming to be a "scientist". Its like reading those claims put forth by the believers of Nostradamus: they can always see events which have already occurred as being predicted, but can't predict in advance."
I take back what I said earlier, that now, we're getting somewhere. A scientist is willing to consider other, contradictory evidence and arguments, unlike yourself. You're simply being argumentative, the hallmark of close minded pseudo skeptics everywhere. In fact, you apparently don't even understand the proposition you're arguing so strenuously against! LOL
"In fact your post has me very puzzled. You are modifying your previous position in that now you are claiming that the body is reacting to changes in the environment. Now, how can that NOT be so? I've always claimed that the sensitivity of the human body far exceeds most instrumentation we have. Consider the example I've always used: that the best "noses" can distinguish one part per trillion as determined by spectrographic analysis of a cubic volume of air. Since many people seem to be more sensitive to sound than smell, how and what does that translate to hearing?"
You fail to understand her position, which nis that the mind/bidy react to the surroundings. Her position has precious little to do with how sensitive the human ears are. You're just being argumentative without understanding the position you're arguing about.
"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance." old audiophile saying
Edits: 05/22/11 05/22/11
"In that light, I suspect the ion generators are actually invoking the principles of quantum mechanics, where electrons can interact with other electrons at great distances instantly."As I pointed out already, negative ions have nothing to do with electrons. Electrons are always negatively charged. Negative ions are not surplus electrons.
The "principles of quantum mechanics," in particular Action at a Distance, is the next best thing to RFI/EMI absorption if you don't know why something works. LOL
Edits: 05/17/11
Quantum mechanics in the way I am describing it does not work except for electrons! It doesn't work for molecules.....
AS a "theoretical physicist" even you should know that....
LOL!
Stu
How can negative ions affect electrons? The electrons are already negative in charge. Maybe you can revise your theory to address positively charged electrons. LOL In any case, I suggest you leave theoretical physics to the professionals.
Tell me how easy it is to make a positron in a normal; home atmosphere.And who said electrons are affecting themselves? YOU did, not I. Instead of adding to the speculation you are jumping to conclusions on your own, which well suits yourself calling yourself a "theoretical physicist".
I believe the ions generated are contributing to the "pool" of electrons available for an electrical circuit.
LOL!
Stu
Edits: 05/18/11 05/18/11
Any yutz in town can can up with some whacky theory. The trick is that it should make some sense. Unfortunately, your theory doesn't make any sense. The reasons it doesn't make sense are that ions are not electrons, ions and electrons are not interchangeable, any more than protons and electrons, and ions generated by the machine do not "make a pool of electrons available" for a circuit or anything else. All the negative ion generator does is make more negative ions available. Follow, now?
for obvious reasons.
Stu
So, in addition to a complex regarding a crisis in education you have a Narcissus complex. You're a very complex person. LOL
Have you read your very own explanations of your devices?
It's more than just a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You claim morphic resonances for some things when you can't explain it any other way and then use something else when you try to fabricate an explanation. Yet you claim to be a "rocket scientist" and a "theoretical physicist".
Some rocket, some physics. Can't even read, jumps to conclusions when they are already refuted....., can't shift your very own mind set.
Your response tells the world the true state of your mindset and your very own (lack) of knowledge. You are the one showing narcissism and a lack of knowledge.
LOL!
Stu
nt
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
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
Ooops, off to a bad start. Electrons are always negative the last time I looked. Negative ions, by contrast, are negatively charged particles, i.e., atoms or molecules.
I was making the distinction between negative ions and electrons, trying to specify I meant electrons.
F- for reading comprehension, and for jumping to conclusions, theoretical physicist>
LOL!
Stu
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: