|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
165.212.186.27
[Sunday, 05-06-2012]
PLEASE NOTE: The following article is a work of satire. Many or most of the facts and opinions presented in the article are deliberately false or distorted. Why did I write this article? For no reason in particular. It is intended to be humorous, nothing more or less. The reader is encouraged to come to whatever conclusions he desires after reading the article.-----
It occurred to me that with all the misunderstanding on the forum about Modern tube amp design, it might be a good idea to post a primer on the important subject of Modern Physics. My goal is to give the non-technical reader an overview of the basic concepts of Modern Physics, show how these concepts are relevant to tube amplifier design, and then to discuss what this means about the relationship between science and audio engineering in general.
Up until the early 20th century, science was governed by the principles of Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is a very good, very practical description of the behavior of matter and energy at the macroscopic scale, which is to say at the relatively low energies and ordinary dimensions that we observe in our daily lives. In the last century, as scientists began to explore the bizarre and often counter-intuitive realm of subatomic particles, it became apparent that matter and energy behave very differently at high energies and over very small distances. Thus the field of Modern Physics was born.
Modern Physics is relevant to audio design because, by definition, audio designers are concerned with information at the finest possible levels of detail. The traditional models of electrical engineering (standard circuit analysis: resistors, capacitors, and inductors in other words) stand directly on Newtonian assumptions. What is not taught in the undergraduate EE curriculum is how these circuit models increasingly deviate from real-world behavior as the resolution of measurement tends toward the microscopic. The higher the degree of resolution required, the greater the error in the standard models, until we reach the point that traditional circuit analysis is wholly invalid and circuit behavior can only be modeled accurately in terms of quantum field theory.
What this means to electrical engineers who wish to advance the state of the art in audio design is that they must learn to look beyond their traditional training and learn to think unconventionally. This is not to say (as some have asserted) that engineering is incompatible with hi-fi design. But it does mean that we should be extremely skeptical when an engineer declares flatly that obvious (to us) subjective phenomena are "impossible" because they "violate the rules of science."
To begin, I would like to go over several very important laws of Modern Physics that will guide us in our Modern amplifier design quest. I will try to explain these as simply as possible, and I beg the patience and forgiveness of more advanced readers who may take exception with one or two nit-picking details.
1) Shannon's Information Theorem:
Shannon's Theorem states that the maximum amount of information that can be transmitted by a particle equals one-half the velocity of the particle. Fast-moving particles have more momentum, travel in straighter lines, introduce less delay, and are less likely to be perturbed by outside influences.2) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: The Uncertainty Principle tells us that the more precisely the position of a particle is known, the less information that particle can store. This is really just an extension of Shannon's Theorem. To precisely know the position of a particle, its velocity must be zero and therefore it cannot store any information.
3) Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: The General Theory of Relativity is summarized by the well-known equation, E = mc^2. Because E (energy) and m (mass) are on opposite sides of the equation, this means that as the energy of a particle increases, its mass decreases. Since the energy of a particle is proportional to the factorial of its velocity, this puts an upper bound on how fast a particle can travel. As velocity approaches the speed of light, energy approaches infinity, mass approaches zero, and there literally is nothing of the particle left to push against. This also explains why objects moving at the speed of light don't age: a massless particle cannot interact with the universe, and thus cannot be influenced by any object or force that would cause it to degrade.
4) Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: The Incompleteness Theorem states that any logically consistent system of inference cannot be complete. Conversely, any complete system of logical inference cannot be consistent. This is a profound result. It literally proves that science, which by definition must be consistent and logical, cannot completely explain nature. Any scientific theory that hopes to explain all of nature by necessity must be logically inconsistent. This, in turn, is irrefutable proof that a complete understanding of the laws of nature cannot be attained though science, but only through faith.
Now, we can use what we've learned to explain and affirm the rules of Modern amplifier design:
* Prefer high voltages over low voltages
High voltage electrons move faster and therefore carry more information. This is why tubes sound better than transistors, and high-voltage transmitting triodes sound best of all.* Prefer vacuum to solid state
A particle traveling in a vacuum is free of influence from external forces. It moves at the speed of light in a perfectly straight line, and therefore has infinite information carrying capacity.* Prefer straight conductors to curved ones
Forcing electrons to go around curves causes them to lose information. Avoid twisting signal wires whenever possible.* Prefer thin conductors
Thin wires (or foil) have low mass and therefore exert less gravitational force on the electrons moving through them. This reduces "gravitational drag" that slows down the electrons, causing them to shed information.* Prefer light-colored or uninsulated wire
Light colored insulation has fewer additives and therefore lower mass, reducing gravitational distortion. Light colored insulation also has a lower index of informational absorption, helping to preserve signal integrity. For these reasons, whenever possible, the best wire insulation is no insulation.* Prefer widely-spaced conductors
When conductors are routed in close proximity to one another, the attractive force of electrons moving at different velocities disrupts the smooth flow of the signal.* Prefer triodes to pentodes
The extra grid in a pentode slows down the electrons and forces them to travel in curved lines, introducing distortion. This is why triodes are more linear than pentodes.* Prefer a stiff chassis
Vibration in a conductor causes the electrons inside to rattle around and bang into one another and the molecules of the conductor, disrupting the orderly signal flow and converting low-level information into heat.* Prefer low-value capacitors
For a given amount of charge (e.g., information carrying capacity) a smaller capacitor has a higher terminal voltage than a larger capacitor. Higher voltage translates to higher velocity, and therefore higher information retrieval.* Prefer low DC resistance
Resistance slows electrons down and perturbs them from straight-line motion, severely restricting fine information carrying capacity.Well, I think this about covers what I have to say for now. I hope this explanation and set of design guidelines proves useful to anyone interested in making the transition into the exciting new world of Modern amp design!
If this posting proves useful to DIY enthusiasts, I may follow up in the future with more information on this profoundly important subject.
-Henry
Edits: 05/04/12 05/04/12 05/06/12Follow Ups:
Profoundly important indeed
Can we have part 2 , please ?
Al
Not exactly the same topic, but interesting from an historical perspective...
-Henry
Wish I knew as much about electronics as I do about engines.
nice article there.
you should write a few articles like that on how tube amps work for those of us looking for a better understanding.
it's a great use of your talent and appreciated here (by me).
Thanks. I hope you realize the motorcycle series was full of even more baloney than my Modern Physics primer. I tried hard to make every single statement as absurd as possible.That was a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
I do agree there is a need for good (serious) basic articles on how tube gear functions. A lot of my posts here get into what is, for newbies, pretty esoteric stuff.
-Henry
Edits: 05/10/12
This site is a lot to take in for newbies like myself.
I figured you'd have some sarcasm sprinkled in there.. I won't spend too much time on it. :)
It was inspired humor, really, but you have to understand motorcycle technology pretty well before you read it to catch the jokes.
Ah, if you can believe it, in my youth I was even more of a character than I am now...
-Henry
Profoundly important indeed
Can we have part 2 , please ?
Al
Part two will be published in the Sunday comic section of your local newspapers.
The "essay" will be fine bathroom reading material and can double as TP is case one runs out of White Cloud.
Have a nice day,
dt 667
Thank goodness that somebody here can actually smell the Soylent.....
It's about bleedin' time that we moved back to the future and left that fuddy duddy RDH nonsense to old timers who actually think they know something.
I think you missed the Gödel part: no design will ever be complete and you will be compelled to fiddle with it forever, to limited avail.
The following article is a work of satire. Many or most of the facts and opinions presented in the article are deliberately false or distorted.
Why did I write this article?
It's in response to the extraneous babble of "modern day amplifier design"
from the cult following, led by the High Priestess Fraker.
Due to silence of said cult, they've retreated to the Temple Mount once again to regroup. The cynical annihilation by H. Pasternicus has left them slamming their heads against the belends of their Triads!
Kudos -H.P.
The epic battle imagery has its appeal, but mostly I just enjoy a vigorous debate.
-Henry
At least you are honest about the intent...to drive "the cult" from the forum. Congradulations.
If Henry wrote an essay ripping into Dr.Bose and his product line, do you think Dr.Bose would bother to respond?
Dennis is probably laughing at all of the attention he gets (good or bad) and how it has been helping his search engine rankings.
If I want to follow the lead of an EE type, I would pick someone like Pete Millet ,the guy from Tube Lab or Paul Joppa & Doc Bottlehead.
Those guys actually have produced something useful for the amp builders as opposed to just writing high-minded comedy material.
If Henry wrote an essay ripping into Dr.Bose
And if George Armstrong Custer, only had a helicopter!
Sorry I respectfully disagree with that bad analogy. Dr. Bose doesn't post here.
Due to legal restrictions that topic is off limits on AA.
"Dennis is probably laughing at all of the attention he gets (good or bad) and how it has been helping his search engine rankings."
Deathtube 667,
Dennis retired from posting and regularly reading this Forum a year ago. He will not waste his time and energy here. He has only posted one time, about a month ago, when I brought something to his attention, and asked him to comment.
I spoke to Dennis about ten times this weekend, we are working on something non-audio, and never once did he give me any indication of having read this satire by Pasternak.
My comment remains, Pasternak is smart and the very best thing he does is he writes well, but if the gloating posters A-Bed the amps they were using, versus Dennis' design, on high efficiency speakers well, its all over then.
So, in terms of audio performance, in MY humble opinion, their stuff is lacking, sometimes by a fair amount. The truth hurts, people don't like hearing that, and their "science" can't explain it all. I will stand by that.
I will give Pasternak an A- for his writing, and Dennis an A+ for his amp's performance. So, do you wanna read Henry Pasternak over the weekend, or hear the music properly ?? In your face.
Cheers,
Jeff Medwin
MY humble opinion
There ya go; may I suggest using this rhetoric when presenting your POV?
Cheers Jeff!
I have added an important edit to the top of my original article that may be of interest to some readers.
-Henry
Unfortunately, it's also somewhat easy to make these kinds of things up when you're as knowledgeable as yourself. Yours was better than most attempts at satire and therefore could be taken serious. It sounded sincere, and satire never goes over understood well in some cultures. The British get it, though. That IS their kind of humor.
Real funny satire is where I think enough clues are left to show the person writing (speaking) is sometimes truly daft where otherwise it sounds okay overall. Then the clever gems have to be picked out at another reading to dig for them.
Henry
You were right about at least one thing: if C is a constant and M=0, then E=0 if E=MC^2. Watch the skies!
Paul
"Light colored insulation has fewer additives and therefore lower mass, reducing gravitational distortion".....
That's a new one. I guess you've never worked with titanium dioxide.
The problem with modern physics is it does not exactly work. Everything gets broken down to a single point like a pixel. As we observe quantium physics it changes the physical properties as observed in the famous experiment shooting a photon thru two slots.
So, it also appears when we focus, the environment around us becomes focused. I am pissing my pants thinking we could be living in a software generated program. After all, why waste storage data to have everything focused everywhere all the time.
How is that for ya.
Henry,
Your satire of "modern" tube amplifer design elements is rather amusing considering how much time you had put into proving the "flywheel" filter.
I am not seeing the big mindcrime in experimenting with these kind of tube amp circuits.
You are only generating more interest in what Dennis and Jeff are doing by drawing attention to it constantly.
Have a nice day.
dt 667
Henry is starting to sound needy. That said, I generally agree with Stephen R below.Attention does not equal interest. The mindcrime (was that in Henry's post or your words?) is not in the eperimentation, but the preaching.
Jeff is a passionate character and I applaud his commitment to the development of LSES and encouraging others to experiment with it. The 'only one true path' type mantra is a fallacy and delusional. Religion. I was going to try it but frankly, the shear lameness and inappropriate promotion ad nauseam has turned me off; I am looking elsewhere and think I have found a 'better', for me, solution.
Jeff's defence of the particualr SET topology, that Dennis' gear was awarded Best Sound of RMAF by a few people (a person?) back in the day means little to me. It certainly does not strengthen Jeff's arguments regarding the True Path; it simply means it is likely one of many valid approaches. Others have stated Dennis' systems to sound rough and honky; yet others claim his amps sit at a sonic quality level as Welborne's DRD amps. Jeff's response is that they were not heard on a good day, the sound improved the next day, not happy with the room and other excuses... that the owners of Dennis equipment hold a higher level of credibility than us and they deign not to communicate the musical ecstasy they experience through his gear - they don't associated with the great unwashed. Unsubstantiated Tosh. Different contexts, different folks, different strokes.
I think Dennis' amps are likely very nice - I'd love to hear them one day - and would suit a certain type listener, as does most interesting audio gear. Ditto the LSES approach. Personally, despite the interesting claims and engineering, Dennis is likely a nice guy that believes very much in what he is doing. Jeff is likely doing him a disservice by spruiking his wares and using said wares to spruik his own religion; more a hindrance than help.
Cheers.
Edits: 05/06/12
Hiah RC,You wrote a good post and have good insight.
My claims about Dennis' amps come strictly from ME listening to them, in a variety of venues, and at about five RMAF shows. It took me that long, about five years, to figure out what they are really capable of doing.
The mention of the Six Moons Best Sound of Show review was something I mentioned for the readers of this Forum to easily hang on to, and that review does not mean that much to me at all. What I HEAR, over a variety of systems, is all I personally care about and trust.
Besides the Six Moons review, in Terry Cain's 2005 RMAF room there was a shoot-out of amps, after hours, and a Serious Stereo 2A3 amp, with only eight hours on it, got a standing ovation led by Joe Fratus, when A-Bed. Moray James was there. I wasn't. It is just a tidbit, and as I said, I can only judge the amp on what I have heard over five years.
I have many decades-long audio friends who build amps and who I respect, and I do not think my amps, or my friend's amps, will compare to Dennis' total approach.
As to the use of Modern Power Supplies, do as you like. Besides me using them, I am in the company of John L. Hasquin, John Swenson, and Larry D. Moore, and these persons, have embraced the approach fully - as is evident in reviewing the Hasquin-Swenson Forum compilations.
It is true, except for one nice Canadian, the people who use Dennis' amps do not usually post here, and would tend to avoid the bickering of this Forum. Privately, ask Thom Mackris and his wife (Galibier Turntables) who own the amps, or Dave Davenport (Raleigh Audio) who visited Dennis at RMAF 2011, what they hear with Dennis' amps, and you will see the King absolutely has his clothes on !
Cheers,
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 05/07/12
Hi Jeff,
I am glad that you could read through my hyperbole to my main points. Thank you for sharing some details about some of the owners of Dennis gear; I think helps some.
I genuinely appreciate much of what you do; unfortunately your enthusiasm and style of communication can lead to folks misinterpreting your intent. I would not want you to tone down your passion, but more care with communication might be worth a shot. Take care not to make simple absolutist type comments, especially when they are directly opposed to the accepted norms... Better to say you like what you hear in x more so than what you hear in y, suggest what you think could be the reason, even ask for assistance re what might be occurring - collaboration... Your use of an accepted method, modelling LSES in PSUD, is a fine example. Feel free to ignore my advice though.
Ultimately though, trust your ears – I think they are good ones; just remember, your ears are just that, yours. Not a path to Truth.
As for the ongoing palaver, this latest stunt is too clever by half - it is interesting to observe the irony lost to both sides; each is becoming a parody of itself. I’d like to think those involved would feel embarrassed, if not so smug.
Cheers.
Raymond, I understand your criticism, but I slightly resent your calling me "needy," "too clever by half," and a "parody of myself." I also think you're fooling yourself if you expect Jeff to take your advice, regardless of how good it is. You're not the first person to make these suggestions to him.
WRT my latest "stunt," this was something I threw together from the germ of an idea hatched during my commute to work, and typed in in bursts while I waited for software to compile at work. I did not labor day and night to produce this piece. I knew full well that some people would get the joke immediately, while others would be taken in. It's a techie joke and judging by the response, the people I expected to get it understood and appreciated it.
There are, IMHO, things to learn from satire.
Regarding some of the other people who have weighed in here, I almost always act as a free agent, and you shouldn't assume I'm part of some "gang" with an agenda to drive Jeff and others off this board. Contrary to what Death suggests, I would be perfectly delighted if my postings here generated publicity for Dennis's business. I believe in putting ideas out in public where they can be discussed.
Like Jeff, I am a passionate person. What I'm passionate about is getting people to question authority and to dig into facts when forming opinions. The reason I go on so long in my postings (aside from the fact that I'm just a wordy person) is that I don't want people just to accept what I say on the basis of authority. I want to give them some facts to work with and show that there is a way to apply these facts to form well reasoned conclusions.
I want people to judge the substance of what I write, so I don't go out of my way to be friendly. Yes, it's a flaw. I create a barrier to entry because the people I want to reach should be motivated enough to see beyond the popularity contest aspects of the conversation.
I get personal email from people who ask me smart technical questions and who thank me for my contribution. Talking with these people is very rewarding.
Unlike Jeff, I do not prescribe a specific formula for success (except to use your brain thoughtfully) and I don't criticize other people's design sight unseen (ears unheard). I judge people on the quality of their ideas. I do not believe amplifier building is a competitive sport. I don't believe in "shoot outs" or other forms of audiophile chest beating.
I like my hi-fi, and am pleasantly surprised when I make changes that increase my enjoyment of it. I do not seek out nor obsess over its limitations.
Reading and posting here is just a recreation. I write articles because it's an enjoyable challenge to organize my thoughts and put them in writing. My advice to you is not to read too much into that.
-Henry
Hi Henry,
Fair cop - judgements of character and intent really are inappropriate. I am not in the position to respond this evening but will give it a shot tomorrow.
Cheers,
Raymond.
Jeff,
Defending Dennis and yourself to these people is a waste of time.
I deal with this mentality in my business. The conventional industry has their science that proves their methods to be the "correct way" and use it to ridicule my methods. My methods work in the real world for me everyday and that is all I need to know.
Just out of curiosity, what is your business?
I don't think anyone has a problem with what Jeff and Dennis are "doing". It's the techno babble nonsense explanations that are the issue. Making up science can't be done. Science is about proof and there has been none presented.
If you like the result, that is fine. That there is only one true way is not. There never is, never has been, never will be. That is the problem not the "doing".
Constant thread hijacking with the "one true way" only pisses people off.
cheers,
Stephen
Henry
As I understand your take on "relativity", mass decreases with velocity! From this it would seem that an ever decreasing amount of force would be needed as an object is accelerated nearer the speed of light. So it seems like we would'nt need any such trickery as a "space warp" to reach light speed, and the whole thing would be fuel efficient too! I dunno how you would stop this relativistic ram jet though. Anyway, don't be so modest. Ditch Einstein's name and call it Pasternak's Theory of Relativity.
NASA should be giving you a call soon
Paul
P.S. I'm surprised that Jeff has'nt bit on the last sentence of #4, but I guess he must sense a trap ready to spring.
nt
Are you sure you're posting to the right forum? There are other websites where help is avaiable, if you're finding it hard to cope.
The image = the Humanity! 8^)
Whoa, that's kind of vile.
Unfortunately, some responses prove only one thing true:
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!" is a way to make lots of money in marketing a product to the general public.
Once the religion takes hold, the customers become more loyal. You're a natural snake oil salesman! It's just easier to write these when you don't have to be factual. Just bend the premise, then the rest of the BS just falls in place as natural inferences.
If you cant dazzle them with the forest then confuse them with the tree's!
Please don't think I'm gloating. Hopefully, eventually everyone gets it and in the process exercises a little skeptical thinking.
-Henry
Based on several of the responses, I need to go into the gobbledygook business.
It seems if you can spread it just right, people will eat it.
Henry, thanks for the comic relief.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
If you where around ten years old in 1969 you would know exactly what gobbeldygook is!
"This is a truly maverick word, not only because it is surprisingly modern and also one whose genesis we can pin down to the day, but also because a maverick coined it —Maury Maverick, a Texan lawyer who was at various times a Democratic Congressman and mayor of San Antonio.He used the word in the New York Times Magazine on 21 May 1944, while he was chairman of the US Smaller War Plants Committee in Congress, as part of a complaint against the obscure language used by his colleagues. His inspiration, he said, was the turkey, “always gobbledy gobbling and strutting with ludicrous pomposity”. It met a clear need for a word with which to castigate unintelligible language, especially jargon or bureaucratese, and quickly became part of the language. It is sometimes abbreviated slightly to gobbledygoo.
Word coining runs in the Maverick family, since Maury Maverick’s grandfather, Samuel Maverick, a Texas rancher, was the inspiration for maverick, originally an animal not branded to identify its owner (because Sam Maverick didn’t brand his own herds), later an unconventional person, and later still a politician who stands aside from the herd, refusing to conform to the party line."
I probably didn't use this word correctly. I should have chosen a different word.
Maybe "nonsense".
"Nonsense is a communication, via speech, writing, or any other symbolic system, that lacks any coherent meaning."
Edit to ask, 10 in 1969? I was 14. Fill me in please.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 05/05/12
OK I thought I might have one but I am a little char-ed around the edges now. But none the less, Mattel created the creepy crawlers in 1967 or so. A few years later they came out with an edible version that you could make with this liquid called gobbledygoop. Both creations burned down a lot of homes!
"an edible version"
Oh yeah, I remember that stuff.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I figured this post would degrade soon, but thanks for taking the time to try and elevate the discussion here a bit.
Mr Spock, I am lying.
Robot, but Mr Spock is incapable of lying, but if he is lying then he most be telling the truth,but if he is telling the truth the he is lying,this is illogical this is illogical!!!
NT
Observe, don't think
Norman, coordinate...
Yep!
Marvellous.
Note that a post in response is preferred.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
Okay, smartiepants, how does 'Modern' physics explain the superior accuracy of aural measurement over other, more conventional, flat-earther methods such as the digital voltmeter and the oscilloscope, pray tell?I addition, how can it account for the well-known fact that the thickness and structure of a conductor outside a magnetic field has a profound effect on transfer efficiency but inside a magnetic field it does not matter?
Edits: 05/04/12
Henry, you jest?!!
This reminds me of an old teacher I once had. His favorite comment
was "all those ten dollar words are just a bunch of horse s**t."
Could be, though, the thing about bending wire and electrons taking a corner. Think about it, when an electron needs to make a turn it is
going so fast it just might fly right off the wire then have to
reestablish itself with the other electrons (the slower electrons)
Did somebody say smearing? :))
Thanks Henry, your posts continue to amuse.
Cal
... especially at true class-A operation. Nothing is strained. Everything is running within their linear range. Plus, chaos theories bound the billions & billions of quantum actions & reactions required to comprise a single micro-ampere such that it's very continuous.
IMHO, there's so much generic real-world garbage involved that component tolerances are surreal if we were discussing quantuum theories. And, those tolerances are tight compared to speakers IME. If it's immeasureable today, then someday it will be (as jitter was).
The non-linearities usually arise from other continuum theories. Charged plates in tubes flexing from the signal's varying attracting & repelling forces (much like electro-static speakers). Micro-phonics from vibrating chokes & transformers which vibrate (much like magneto-dynamic speakers), plus their radiating EMI effects current flowing through on wires & other components. Then, there's mutual capacitance & inductance. Also, we have background radiation as in cell-phones & microwaves & high-power lines & house-wiring (not so much big-bang echoes)... yada, yada, yada.
I chose this point to stop because it offers the near definitive point of contention. Some want a Faraday cage to shield your components from this. However, if you do, you're reflecting your own component's radiation back onto themselves. Sure, you could add some radiation absorbent materials, but then your tube amplifier would overheat. You could use shielded-wire but that won't help your components & adds other issues.
On odd behavior, Jon Risch has good stuff on how continuum theory breaks down on the copper surface/interface due to caustic treatments on silver plated wire. Similar issues occur during vapor-deposition in metalized-film capacitors. (It's not all tension of wrap to reduce tube-like micro-phonic plate vibrations.) I also like his non-bypass inductor stuff if you have tank circuit issues from unintended capacitance in large Henry coils.
Then, there's RFI from switching noise. Although, this seems more of an issue in solid-state & a @#$%& curse in class-D amplifiers, IMHO. The RFI from tube amp rectifiers at least seems less, in my limited experience.
... just my 2˘♪ moderate Mart ♫ ☺ Planar Asylum
where speakers are thin & music isn't
High voltage electrons move faster and carry more information.
I think an X-ray coupled optoisolator would be the foundation of the
very best USB isolator money could buy.
Also it would need a lead box, which also uses the "Stiff Chassis" axiom.
Ideas? Comments? Schematics ?
Henry,
Once again you have provided palatable explanations for complex subjects as it relates to our passion of music reproduction.
Thank You
I especially like your take on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle from the analog point of view, I have always seen this observation having great potential in the digital application in that a particle may be in multiple positions simultaneously by virtue of it's shear speed...gives me chills.
Stuben
Thanks Henry.....my infantile questions about modern tube amp design were in jest...
High voltage electrons move faster? WTF is a "high voltage electron"? Seriously?
Good question. Voltage is just a measure of electrical potential energy, which is equal to one-half Planck's constant times the electron mass, times the factorial of the velocity, given in electron-boltz. It's pretty basic stuff...
-Henry
I need some of that on a Friday ...
lighter colored insulation.Can you prove it? Seems to me that often the coloring agents are lighter in mass than the plastic based carriers....
And what in the world is informational absorption: something you made up? I've heard of dielectric absorption, is that the same thing?
StuPS: Poor Gusser, I can see him throwing his hands up in the air with disgust.....
Edits: 05/04/12
I can clearly see the humor. Can you?
Informational absorption is a direct consequence of the principle of Transfer Efficiency and the law of Conservation of Information. Since information can neither be created nor destroyed, and since a coefficient of Transfer Efficiency < 1.0 implies information loss, the information has to go somewhere.
At non-relativistic information densities, the average energy per quantum of electricity is insufficient to overcome the potential barrier created by the insulation dielectric. Electrons whose velocity vectors take them to the wire/insulation interface can either be reflected or absorbed, or a combination of both, depending on the angle of incidence and the ratio of the coefficients of informational absorption of the two materials. Lighter colored dielectrics have a very low coefficient of IA, whereas conductive metals have a coefficient very close to unity. The information impedance mismatch causes the electrons to bounce back into the signal stream in what is almost a purely elastic collision. Provided the wire is thin enough and the signal velocity high enough, the resulting energy loss and signal path distortion is minimal. But for materials like black insulation, with coefficients in the range of 0.5 or lower, half or more of the information is lost. The tendency of electrons to cross the interface is heavily influenced by surface roughness and inhomogeneity on the inner surface of the insulation layer. The molecular weight of the pigment agent plays a major role in determining the change of electron momentum that occurs in the collision. The process itself is highly nonlinear and dependent on the Van der Waals cofficients of the respective materials. For this reason, the Ideal Gas Law does not apply to electron clouds flowing in the conductor. I would get into a more detailed proof, but it quickly gets complicated. My old mentor, sadly deceased, Dr. Kurt Bokonon, had a way of explaining this that made it all incredibly clear, but I'm afraid I lack the skill he did at explaining difficult technical concept with such clarity...
-Henry
From the First Book of "The Books of Bokonon":
Warning from title page: Don't be a fool! Close this book at once! It is nothing but foma!
Verse 1: All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies.
Henry,
You shit head. Dr. Kurt Bokonon??...Do you think no one has read Cat's Cradle??
Please don't fuck with us...
Stuben
Hey, the poor man was a dear friend, and now he's dead.
So it goes.
-Henry
:> )
If information cannot be destroyed, why does no one seem to know anything anymore?
Is it because all of the vacuum-tube texts were sold at Friends of the Library sales to be used to decorate yuppie condos?
heard of energy referred to as information... But then interesting gobbledegook.
Stu
Midterm exam question:
Calculate the ratio of two dollar amounts: C1 / C2, where the numerator and denominator are prices expressed in dollars, for example calculating an inflation rate.
Now express this ratio in decibels.
Do you use 20 or 10 in the decibel formula?
Answer: use 10, since money is power.
To be honest, Henry, I'm having a hard time buying all of this.
"Thin wires (or foil) have low mass and therefore exert less gravitational force on the electrons moving through them. This reduces "gravitational drag" that slows down the electrons, causing them to shed information."
The delay of a length of wire is related to a parameter called 'velocity of propagation", which, in any real world conductor, is less then the speed of light. So what you are implying is that I should see a measureable change in propagation delay if I place the wire close to a heavy object (as opposed to open space).
"Forcing electrons to go around curves causes them to lose information (move more slowly). Avoid twisting signal wires whenever possible."
So if I measure the delay of 100 feet of wire laid out in a straight line (about 150 nsec), it will be less than if I wrap the wire around a 6" diameter coil form. But if I were to tightly wrap the wires close together, I've just formed an inductor. So if the delay is greater, what is the cause - inductance or "gradational drag" due to the influence of adjacent wire mass? Of what consequence is this additional delay in an audio application?
"Light colored insulation also has a lower index of informational absorption"
Huh? How did you determine that? I haven't seen that information specified in any wire document.
While I appreciate your theoretical analysis, I'm doubtful that they are of much consequence in an audio application.
Serious point about a satirical post:
Wires don't have an inherent propagation delay.
Putting a wire into a practical circuit makes a transmission line, of more-or-less good properties, and the propagation time down that line must be slower than the speed of light in vacuum. Putting the wire closer to a ground plane affects the propagation time down the transmission line.
You can also wind inductors from the wire and make a delay line, of more-or-less good properties, and get an even slower proagation time.
The actual drift velocity of individual electrons in the wire is amazingly slow: this is given by the mobility factors that are important in solid-state device design. The charge-carrier velocities are proportional to the E-field within the solid.
A technical co-worker of mine, whom it would be unfair to name here, is politically a wingnut. He therefore denies global warming and evolution, due to ideology. Similarly, he does not approve of quantum mechanics. I told him that therefore he must avoid solid-state electronics, which requires quantum mechanics to function, and use only vacuum tubes, which are almost explainable by classical physics.
All I can say is, keep your damned gubmint hands off my medicare...
-Henry
You forgot the Medwin 7ohm iron rule... Unfortunately my latest amp uses paralleled tubes (smearing) , black insulation (smearing) and the output stage is a big , fat cathode follower (smearing) . Input choke is 1.4H 12 ohms (pure crap)
How on earth do you find time to write these posts ?
Al
> How on earth do you find time to write these posts?
I make them up in my head while I'm walking or doing unimportant work, then I type them in really, really fast (high resolution).
-Henry
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: