 
|
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: Because they are not truly objective posted by Jon Risch on March 23, 2004 at 18:24:49:
JonR, I feel the same way.
I find most of the 'physics' and engineering talked around here 'sophomoric' or the level one reaches by taking courses up though the 2'nd year in engineering-physics. Jneutron can sometimes bring out a few advanced topics, but they usually don't apply to our specific measurement situations.
For example, NONE of his comments and criticisms of my measurements of cables has shown to be useful. His criticisms of Dr Hawksford's work are also next to useless.
This is my conclusion, after re-reading Hawksford's paper and collecting references on 'internal inductance' in cables.
I don't know what criticisms that he has of your work, but I can be pretty sure that it will be at the same level as his criticism of Dr. Hawksford and me.
Follow Ups:
JC: "" Jneutron can sometimes bring out a few advanced topics, but they usually don't apply to our specific measurement situationsADVANCED TOPICS?????? Internal inductance, and the characterization of such, was put to print in 1947...you still do not show comprehension of it, and Hawksford certainly missed it..
JC: "" This is my conclusion, after re-reading Hawksford's paper and collecting references on 'internal inductance' in cables.
I have tried (apparently in vain) to teach you what internal inductance is (it's been known since at least 1947), and how Hawksford compeltely ignored it..and now you say you conclude that it doesn't exist, because you have collected references???
Try reading those references, John, instead of collecting them..
Then, try building some cables, John...design some...calculate what they will do...then measure them...prove that your design is correct, try doing some tests, John. All you are doing is talking..
I designed cables..I built them.
I tested them.
And it works..
And it repeats..
And, GOLLLLLYYYY....Maxwell's equations still stand....imagine that.
I'm doing something, John...building, designing, testing, verifying....reporting..
You are not...you are just pissin in the wind, trying in vain to discredit that which you do not understand...
I try to teach you the basic concepts, John....but you still haven't learned them...
After a coupla years of trying to teach you the fundamentals, I'm gonna reach the conclusion that you don't want to learn anything...
What happened after Bruno nuked all that diode test stuff you kept harping about existed in your cables??? When two separate people, in two different countries, using more modern and more powerful test equipment, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that your test setup was causing the stuff you were calling diode thingy's.....you disappeared...I thought maybe some aliens had abducted you, John..
If you want to learn the physics stuff....just ask...I'll be happy to teach you 50 year old concepts...
Don't keep me waiting forever..
Until you show any semblence of understanding e/m theory...you will continue to make yourself out to be....well, just some old guy up in the balcony, being a malcontent...yelling to the opera singer that she doesn't know how to sing...
This is a new age, John...writing an article, living on one's "title", or credentials, and expecting gross errors to just survive by the weight of the author, or what they designed years ago...doesn't cut it..this internet thingy, where people actually discuss things, makes disgustingly horrible and inaccurate articles stand out like a sore thumb...
Sorry, John....I'm not impressed...
Show me some physics understanding, and stop pissin in the wind..
TTFN, John
For my quick attack, I apologize..In thinking over your post, I feel that I over-reacted..
I believe that you, as JR, being people that are listened to regarding cables, should have a really good handle on e/m theory, as it is rather important for high end audio..
Your tenacious clinging to a horribly inaccurate paper just got to me...I should have known better than to expect you to accept the possibility that a credentialled person could be so dead wrong..
Cheers, John
But it was impressive that you apologized....That was a pretty nasty display of poor behavior. You keeping talking about wanting technical discussion, but you keep pouring gasoline on this fire......
Is it really impossible for us to stick to a technical discussion?
Peter
Peter: "" That was a pretty nasty display of poor behavior.Then I can actually state that you and I finally came to agree on something??? :-)
That was why I apologized to John...Hi Peter..
Peter: "" Is it really impossible for us to stick to a technical discussion?""
Actually, the thread wasn't technical...it was more opinion, attitude, and expectations...
The one below on my double braid design and spreadsheet stayed the course rather nicely...I just wish my friend would hurry up and try the cables..as a backup plan, I'm trying to get someone else with a good system to try some, preferably here on Long Island, so I can also try to hear what is claimed... Meantime, doing some analysis to try to get past that LC product floor.
Peter: "" You keeping talking about wanting technical discussion, but you keep pouring gasoline on this fire.
My question is...why the fire...why the floobydust...why the cheerleading posts.
I assume you understand english, as well as the topics being discussed..But, as you stated once before, you tend to ignore what you choose to ignore, when it comes to JR and JC's attitudes and statements..you choose to call to task only those who you do not seem to agree with.
As far back as I go, you have never said "" That was a pretty nasty display of poor behavior "" to anyone who should have been told that...you just "ignore" it when you choose..
Cheers, John
although I can't recall a post I might have "ignored" that was in the same league as yours...Actually, what's kinda sad is that genuinely technical discussion threads seem to die pretty quickly; it's only the flame outs that survive...
Peter
""Actually, what's kinda sad is that genuinely technical discussion threads seem to die pretty quickly; it's only the flame outs that survive...""Total agreement..
But, remember....the flame outs require absolutely no scientific method, no e/m theory and equation work, no purchase orders, no testing and building...so they proceed at a much slower rate, and many get sidetracked, by time..
John
Who proved WHAT????Where in the world do you get your science from?
Neither Bruno or the other fellow have proven any such thing.
Their measurements, using their equipment, and their techniques, etc. failed to come up with the same measurement results as John C.
And so?
This does not prove that John Curl's measurements are somehow at fault, or are to be dismissed.
These other fellows measurement's were hardly presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, we were not privy to all the details and specifics.
How can you possibly claim that JC's measurements are faulty, based on two casual non-published results that probably did not fully duplicate his ?
The fact of the matter is, based on the accepted scientific practices, you can't.
Neither do you have any reasonable excuse for the "holier-than-thou" tongue lashing you dish out.
[ I designed cables..
I built them.
I tested them.
And it works.. ]
Gee, this sounds familiar. I tried explaining that to you, and what I got several times was that I was full of cr_p.
Only, I can add that my work included controlled listening tests.
Somehow, my years of experience as an audio industry engineer mean nothing, and your casual interest in audio is completely superceding.
You have no lock on the the truth, no leg up with regard to high end audio physics, and virtually no real experience with high performance audio playback. You criticisms are often off the mark, or overlook some relevant issue, or just plain don't make good audio sense.
When your clones of the patented Wireworld cables get the Noble prize, then you can call us, until then, stick to the lab work you know and lay off people who are in audio and know what good sound is from direct experience.
Jon Risch
Ahhh, where to start..I won't even discuss John's irreproducible results, the ones with the 20 year old, old technology equipment..Steve did an admirable job there..
Pulled out of text""I designed cables..I built them..I tested them...
And it works.. ""JR: Gee, this sounds familiar. I tried explaining that to you, and what I got several times was that I was full of cr_p.
Yes, to the casual observer, it may sound familiar..but you know better, Jon..your smokescreen ain't working...
I ran the equations (you may be familiar with them), worked out the relationships between L, C, DC, and geometry, came up with graphs to help others build duplicates of what I do..
Then, I built them and tested them...not some hairbrained (or even perfectly good) testing a/b/c/d/whatever regimen using some scheme of hearing, permanently unable to repeat in public type of listening test...I actually used HP test equipment to verify my claims..and, everyone else in the world can do the same..
Unlike what you espouse...you know, the old "I'm Jon Risch, I heard it, this is the gospel according to me is..YOU'VE HEARD IT MANY TIMES, WHAT I TELL YOU IS THE PHYSICS BEHIND CABLES...YOU MUST BE EITHER A TROLL OR STUPID!!!!!""...even though you are in love with the words "can", "may", "possible", "seem to", ...you know..the weasel words you use for damn near everything you claim..
I provided hard, easily repeatable testing to verify my claims...no maybe, if, and, or suppose...this is what science/ physics, and engineering is all about...not your floobydust...
And now, everyone else in the world, who so desires, can create a speaker cable of any effective guage, out of any conductor and any dielectric, that exceeds the L/C/R performance of anything out there that I have found to date..
I'm to the point now, where I have started to chart the L/C parameters of all the cables I can find, plotting their performance against the ideal L-C curve, against mine, and various DC's up to 5. And then, begin to determine if areas of that LC chart correlate to sonic attributes..
This is called homework..the beginning of a scientific endeavor..it is unlike anything I've seen from you, as I am verifying with actual test equipment, everything I am doing.
I can now build a wide range of cables, using the exact same materials and construction techniques, to ascertain the "audibility" of the cable parameters L,R,C, in comparison to all out there.
Your typical "it's not just LRC" is hogwash, Jon..you have shown absolutely no controlled testing wherin you modify L/C at will, to determine sonic attributes..I am forming the foundation for that rigorous, well defined, test regimen..
JR: "" Only, I can add that my work included controlled listening tests.""
Big friggen deal...you are unable to present any of that for peer review, unable to prove to anybody in a rigorous, scientific way, or even a rigorous, unscientific way, anything you claim. You seem content to just sit back, and act like a guru, never providing an ounce of scientific method for your claims..
What I've done is document a method of creating a cable with any desired inductance, or any desired capacitance, with any effective guage, any metal, and any insulator..and that is an advance in the state of the art for cables...
For all your posturing, you can still only say things like "may", "can", "it's possible", "it can happen". You and I differ in that respect..I am judged by what I can prove, you do not embrace that concept..that I can see..
Materials may make a difference, geometry may, insulator may, metals may, L,C,R may. But your wholly unscientific method, your ridiculous posturing, and horribly inept conclusions in no way provide any semblence of a useable product for advancing the state of the art with cables...
You are in the way, Jon..in the way of real research and science.
Get out of the way..
You are welcome to contribute...I value that..and, the same goes for JC...it takes more than one person..
But, leave all your baggage at home...bring only scientific method.
JR: "" Somehow, my years of experience as an audio industry engineer mean nothing, and your casual interest in audio is completely superceding.
Ah, but you, as an "engineer", show absolutely no engineering expertise...only cans, mays, possibles...a real engineer does homework, uses actual equipment to test a claim...you do not..
And, my "casual interest in audio"?? It's not audio were talking about here..it's electromagnetic field theory. And I have just a tad bit more than a casual interest in e/m field theory..You wouldn't understand what I publish in that field..(most of the engineers on the planet wouldn't anyway, and few care ta boot.)..and to think, I'm one of the lower teir guys here in that respect...scary thought..JR: "" You have no lock on the the truth, no leg up with regard to high end audio physics, and virtually no real experience with high performance audio playback. You criticisms are often off the mark, or overlook some relevant issue, or just plain don't make good audio sense.""
Ah, so then, I should trash a coupla centuries of e/m theory, because you make some garbage, non testable, non reproducible claims?? I try to keep my explanations to you simple...perhaps I err in that respect.
JR: "" When your clones of the patented Wireworld cables get the Noble prize, then you can call us, until then, stick to the lab work you know and lay off people who are in audio and know what good sound is from direct experience.
Tis unfortunate you still don't understand....read this carefully, so I don't have to waste time repeating myself...
Wireworld spirals the conductors...they form a solenoid..the inner and outer solenoids do not cancel each other out, as a pure coaxial construction does..
I do not spiral either of my shields..nor, do I change the spiral angle to achieve the same inner/outer resistances.
And you have not demonstrated in any way, shape, or form, any experience whatsoever with scientific method, physics, or engineering..I am patiently trying to introduce those concepts to you...It may take years before you begin to understand, but I have years..You are best left to play with your wires and suppositions, attempting to maintain you're guru like status.....I prefer to live in the world of repeatable, testable, science and engineering..you are welcome to watch...but stand back, so you don't get hurt..on something you don't understand..
TTFN, John
PS..as I stated before, play nice, or this is what you get..
JRisch, Jneutron doesn't know squat so far as I can determine. Now, I don't want to be rude, BUT both you and I have more experience and about as much education as this guy claims to have. Where does he get off on insulting our knowledge base?
It would be great if he would contibute something that we could learn from, based on his immediate lab experience, but so far, I haven't gotten anything useful.
JC: Where does he get off on insulting our knowledge base?Ummm...what knowledge base???
Did you make any statements about e/m theory that I missed?
Actually, have you made any at all??
Nah, I didn't think so..
Fraid you've shown nothing I can even for one moment consider as knowledge..
I look forward to you possibly making some kind of technical remark..but so far, you have not done so..
JC: "" Jneutron doesn't know squat so far as I can determine
Hmmm...you never perused the web sites I created and maintain, did you?..oh well, you probably wouldn't understand it...even though I did try to keep it simple, so that my customers {high energy accelerator physicists} would understand it (oh baby, just had ta say that...:-)), some of the concepts may elude you..
I'm surprised you got nothing out of the LC equations, analysis, and graphs I posted.....I did my best to simplify it so all could understand..If you need it simpler, I will try to accomodate you..but maybe it would be better if you e-mail me your questions, as I'd hate to slow the rest of the people down so that the slow learners catch up..
John, you do tend to keep me laughing...thanks for the humor. As a caricature, you're absolutely the best..
Cheers, John
Ok..you may ge back at it.
slope
Hi Slope...you're always welcome to interrupthttp://www.bnl.gov/magnets/BEPCII/Overview.asp
http://www.bnl.gov/magnets/Linear_Collider/Magnet_Construction.asp
http://www.bnl.gov/magnets/J-PARC_Correctors/Magnet_Construction.asp
http://www.bnl.gov/magnets/BioMed/BioMed.asp
http://www.bnl.gov/magnets/HERA/default.asp
I've not documented a lot of stuff yet, like cryogenic diodes, field modulations, or wire pulse capabilities in liquid helium..it takes some time to develop the web pages, among all the other stuff..
Cheers, John
JRisch, Jneutron doesn't know squat so far as I can determine.And how exactly were you able to determine that?
Apparently you believe Jack Bybee knows squat, yet you yourself say you don't understand half the things he says. So how is it you're able to determine that Bybee knows squat but John does not?
Now, I don't want to be rude, BUT both you and I have more experience and about as much education as this guy claims to have. Where does he get off on insulting our knowledge base?
And right on cue here comes the old "credendtials" red herring.
In all the time you've been posting here, and in spite of all your "credentials," I haven't seen you actually DEMONSTRATE that you have any understanding of physics beyond the high school level.
Sure, you've parroted a few texts. Anyone can do that. But you haven't shown any sign of actual understanding. Your "knowledge base" seems to be nothing more than some books on a shelf. Not any actual knowledge or understanding on your part.
Not once have you directly addressed what John has been talking about. All you've been able to do is mumble "Hawksford's paper looks ok to me."
It would be great if he would contibute something that we could learn from, based on his immediate lab experience, but so far, I haven't gotten anything useful.
Well, I guess if it's over your head and beyond your understanding, you wouldn't get anything useful from it. That wouldn't be so bad in itself except for the fact that you show no real desire to gain any understanding of it. Instead, all you seem capable of doing is thumping your chest, dropping your pants and whipping out your "credentials."
You've obviously made this nothing more than a "personal" issue. You don't understand Bybee either, yet we don't see you running around saying Bybee don't know squat.
se
John Curl: "" Now, I don't want to be rude, BUT both you and I have more experience and about as much education as this guy claims to have. Where does he get off on insulting our knowledge base? ""Steve Eddy: "" And right on cue here comes the old "credendtials" red herring.
Ummm, Steve? did I hear him correctly? That the two of them have about as much education as I do???
Honestly... I've never added both their educations together to compare to mine...
Now...if you weigh all their technical posts...that's a different story.. but, the problem of finding one does rear it's ugly head...I find I don't have the time for that needle in a haystack thing..
Cheers, John
Their measurements, using their equipment, and their techniques, etc. failed to come up with the same measurement results as John C.Bruno used the same technique as Curl. Using much higher resolution equipment.
This does not prove that John Curl's measurements are somehow at fault, or are to be dismissed.
So how many failures to reproduce Curl's results will it take before Curl's measurements can be dismissed?
These other fellows measurement's were hardly presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, we were not privy to all the details and specifics.
What details and specifics would you like to be privy to?
How can you possibly claim that JC's measurements are faulty, based on two casual non-published results that probably did not fully duplicate his ?
They didn't even partially duplicate his results.
But again, how many failures to duplicate John's results using more sophisticated, higher resolution equipment will it take?
You want peer review? Ok, get to it. Instead of throwing up smoke screens, let's see some valid criticism of Bruno's measurements. You said you weren't privy to all the details and specifics. Again, what details and specifics would you like to know?
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
