|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.230.105.3
In Reply to: Re: JC why do you even get involved with these things? posted by john curl on March 31, 2007 at 22:16:04:
That is why I am somewhat more successful in designing audio equipment than some who don't trust their ears or the opinions of their associates.If people are to be expected to trust their ears, then what purpose does feeding them bullshit serve? If you have to feed them a bunch of bullshit, then you're clearly not expecting them to simply trust their ears. You're expecting them to trust the bullshit.
And if you're going to resort to feeding people bullshit, don't get your panties in a bunch when people point out the bullshit and call it what it is.
se
Follow Ups:
Steve, when have you given any really useful input here?
You just talk about things that you know nothing about or have not even tried. You condemn without examination. That's called prejudice.
Steve, when have you given any really useful input here?
You just talk about things that you know nothing about or have not even tried. You condemn without examination. That's called prejudice.
What I have done over the years is to question the claims made by Bybee. These have been legitimate questions. Questions any rational, thinking person might ask.
And over the years what have I ever got from you in response to those questions? Nothing but hand-waving and personal attacks.
So now when have YOU ever given any really useful input here?
Asking legitimate questions is a useful endeavor. What has been useful about your hand-waving and personal attacks?
se
Steve, you are lying about Jack Bybee in order to defame him on the other website. Jack does not say that he is using room temperature superconductors. He only says that SOME of the properties attributed to superconductors are used in his material. One of these is the formation of Cooper pairs to some degree.
Steve, you are lying about Jack Bybee in order to defame him on the other website. Jack does not say that he is using room temperature superconductors. He only says that SOME of the properties attributed to superconductors are used in his material. One of these is the formation of Cooper pairs to some degree.
How 'bout to no degree, John? He's invoked the BCS theory numerous times and claimed them to be "near-superconductive," when the things aren't even moderately conductive. The goddamn resistor in the thing is more conductive than his "near-superconductive" ceramic.
His invoking the BCS theory is a load of crap, John. Now go wax Jack's balls or something.
se
He stands on the decks of submarines as they descend to 10,000 feet!He risks prosecution from the DOJ by selling classified technology to audiophiles for peanuts!
He harnesses the power of quantum mechanics because, let's face it, Maxwell's equations just don't cut it at heroic operating frequencies like 20 kHz!
He is a martyr who makes daily sacrifices so that audiophiles can continue to pursue their dream of high-quality sound at low prices!
So the next time someone accuses Jack Bybee of being a fraud, a quack, a liar or a charlatan, instead ponder this question, "How come he doesn't get the Congressional Medal of Honor for his great sacrifices to audiophilia and indeed mankind in general"?
!
You've obviously never seen a pair of well waxed uh... huevos.se
Superconductivity is usually a sudden onset sort of effect. However, Cooper pairs can and do exist below superconductivity. You have no idea what the ceramic material does over all frequencies, both very high and low. I don't have the equipment to measure it, and Dan doesn't even know where to look.
Superconductivity is usually a sudden onset sort of effect. However, Cooper pairs can and do exist below superconductivity.
I'd ask you to provide a source for that, but I know you can't but let's say that they do. So what? Whatever Cooper pairs may form isn't even sufficient to bring the conductivity of whatever ceramic it is to anywhere near the conductivity of even the resistor.
Even if we assume that the thing is fully superconductive and had no resistance at all, the best you could say about it is that it wouldn't produce any noise of its own. Their simply being Cooper pairs wouldn't remove any noise upstream from it, nor any noise downstream of it. It would simply pass the noise along without adding any more of its own.
But since it's not superconductive, and the ceramic isn't anywhere near as conductive as the resistor and its resistance is essentially that of the resistor, it will produce the noise of a 0.02 ohm resistor, plus the noise from the additional contacts and solder joints involved.
You have no idea what the ceramic material does over all frequencies, both very high and low.
No, I sure don't, John. So why don't you fill us all in on how Cooper pairs remove noise from upstream and downstream of the devices?
I don't have the equipment to measure it, and Dan doesn't even know where to look.
Even if you had the equipment I'd take any measurements of yours with a large grain of salt after your claim of having measured diodes in wires.
se
For the record, those who make the actual Bybee device, not Jack Bybee himself, told Jack to recommend to me a short article that appeared in 'Electronic Engineering Times' p. 40 Aug 14, 2006. The title is: 'Phonons may drive high-Tc superconduction'.A short excerpt: 'Phonons are vibrations in the crystalline lattice of a material that interact with electrons by enabling pairs to overcome their natural repulsion to enter a lower-energy state called a Cooper Pair After pairing, they weave through the lattice without any of the usual atomic collisions that cause resistance.'
Also, ' If the mechanism that enables high-temperature superconduction can be quantified, then designers worldwide could craft materials that eventually would enable room-temperature superconductivity.'
And finally: '...reveals that the mechanism causing high-temperature superconducting may be phonons after all. '
Well, I can't claim to completely understand it, or exactly how it relates to the Bybee device, but it sounds a lot like what Jack Bybee says about his device.
Don't worry Steve, I realize that you will never understand or believe it. It is just to far outside your 'box', but I do hope that others get the hint.
Don't worry Steve, I realize that you will never understand or believe it. It is just to far outside your 'box', but I do hope that others get the hint.
No, John. I understand it just fine and have no problem at all with the article. You're the one who's utterly without a clue here. So much so that it's just plain sad.
For the record, those who make the actual Bybee device, not Jack Bybee himself, told Jack to recommend to me a short article that appeared in 'Electronic Engineering Times' p. 40 Aug 14, 2006. The title is: 'Phonons may drive high-Tc superconduction'.A short excerpt: 'Phonons are vibrations in the crystalline lattice of a material that interact with electrons by enabling pairs to overcome their natural repulsion to enter a lower-energy state called a Cooper Pair After pairing, they weave through the lattice without any of the usual atomic collisions that cause resistance.'
Yes. This is from the BCS theory of superconductivity, which is 50 years old this year.
Also, ' If the mechanism that enables high-temperature superconduction can be quantified, then designers worldwide could craft materials that eventually would enable room-temperature superconductivity.'
Certainly.
And finally: '...reveals that the mechanism causing high-temperature superconducting may be phonons after all. '
Yes.
Basically what the article is saying is that while the BCS theory has held for Type I superconductors (such as certain pure metals), they hadn't been able to observe this mechanism as being the cause in Type II superconductors (the metallic oxide ceramics). So magnetic resonance was postulated as a theory to explain superconductivity in Type II superconductors.
The article states that in the previous month, research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory indicated that magnetic resonance was the more likely cause, but that that more recent research at Cornell indicated that the BCS theory may still hold.
Here's the article for those who would like to read the whole thing rather than your carefully selected quotes:
Phonons may drive high-Tc superconduction
Well, I can't claim to completely understand it, or exactly how it relates to the Bybee device, but it sounds a lot like what Jack Bybee says about his device.
DUH! Well of course it sounds a lot like what Jack Bybee says about the device. That's because Bybee has been using the BCS theory to "explain" his devices since day one. I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR FIVE !@#$% YEARS, JOHN!
I've never had any issues with the BCS theory so don't give me this crap that I will never understand it or believe it because it's too far outside my "box." When you say shit like this it just demonstrates what an utterly clueless rube you truly are.
What I have had issues with is Bybee using the BCS theory to explain the device. Why? Because it's irrelevant.
I don't care what kind of ceramic Bybee has had cooked up for him. It's not superconductive at room temperature. It's not even "near-superconductive" at room temperature. Again, it's not even as conductive as the goddamn RESISTOR!
So while the BCS theory isn't bullshit, using it to explain how a device that's not even as conductive as a resistor is. But it's "good" bullshit in that the best bullshit exploits an element of truth, in this case the BCS theory. So that when people Google something like "Cooper pairs" they'll find something that's "real," instead of what they'd find if they Googled "pixie dust."
But this kind of bullshit relies on clueless rubes such as yourself who are so utterly devoid of any sort of critical thinking skills they'll never do any thinking beyond "Cooper pairs."
And that is why you are the one here who will "never understand."
se
Steve, what the article implies is that BCS theory might hold for high temperature Type 2 superconductors as well as type 1 superconductors that it already covers.
The direct connection with Bybee devices is just that he uses some material that apparently creates Cooper Pairs to some degree.
For some reason, you keep insisting that Coopers Pairs only are formed at very low temperatures, and when they do form at all, they make the material immediately superconductive. Then you go on to trash Jack Bybee, as you have for the past 7 years.
Here we go again!
Steve, what the article implies is that BCS theory might hold for high temperature Type 2 superconductors as well as type 1 superconductors that it already covers.
Uh, John, that's what I just said in my previous post. Did you not read what I wrote or do you have problems comprehending simple English?
The direct connection with Bybee devices is just that he uses some material that apparently creates Cooper Pairs to some degree.
But obviously not to any appreciable degree as again, the ceramic is not even as conductive as the resistor.
For some reason, you keep insisting that Coopers Pairs only are formed at very low temperatures, and when they do form at all, they make the material immediately superconductive.
Given the behavior of superconductors and the very rapid transition very near their critical temperature, this would seem to be the case.
Then you go on to trash Jack Bybee, as you have for the past 7 years.
Yes, because what you seem wholly incapable of undersanding here (and really, talking to you about this is literally like trying to talk to a five year old) is that even if we allow that there may be some tiny number of Cooper pairs involved in the conduction of the Bybees, that's not even enough to give the ceramic a conductivity equal to that of the resistor.
And even if we allowed that the ceramic in the Bybees was made from a room temperature superconductor and that all of the current flowing through it was by way of Cooper pairs, then the best you could say about that is that it wouldn't contribute any noise of its own.
Conduction via Cooper pairs wouldn't remove any noise produced upstream, nor would it prevent any noise being added downstream. Again, it would simply not produce any noise of its own. But in all these years you have demonstrated that you can't even grasp this very simple concept or apply any sort of critical thinking at all for that matter.
All you've been able to do is parrot what you've been told by Bybee while claiming that others don't understand anything.
se
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: