Whose facts, which truth?
jneutron said:
Explain how speaker wires are piezo-challenged?? Remember the analysis I did at AR?? Using total energy balance..and, bruce's data.
We had been talking about audio cables, these include line level IC's. In posts at AA, you conceded that they might indeed be susceptible to piezo electric effects. Regarding speaker cables, your analysis at AR was not definitive, it was a quickie shirt-cuff kind of calculation, which you later corrected, and it still may not be accurate, or even close to the truth.
Bruce's "data" by the same token, is not gospel, or some sort of iron-clad evidence.
So, your whole premise is that you, the scientist, have shown my supositions and theories about piezo-electirc effects intruding on the audio signal, to be wrong via one person's quickie "data", and your back of a napkin calculation?
It is a simple matter of level between IC's and speaker cables, you allowed that IC's might be affected, but are now absolutely sure that speaker cables are not?
You have not provided any sort of definitive proof or evidence, and coming from someone who claims to be a scientist, that is kind of funny (or sad).
jneutron said:
Explain how speaker wires are subject to motor generator?? Remember the analysis, again at AR? Energy balance equations, as you should recall..stored energy vs deflection of the wire centers..
Again with the napkin equations at AR. What kind of proof is this? Again, nothing. However, I have directly observed motor/generator in action, and performed the experiment with sand bags to damp it. Have you tried this, have you listened? No. Your stance is all theory, none of which has been verified or even double-checked by anyone else. My data is from actual experiments and listening experiences. Yet you shrug these off as if they did not exist. Fine, but then don't try to claim that you "explained this" to anyone's satisfaction, it is merely that you THINK that you have. Not exactly the same thing as The TRVTH.
jneutron said:
Explain how grain boundaries "add up". Remember the analysis I did? At cables, that one was. The one about mean free path?...and how, there are already tens of millions of collisions...and how several thousand more or less is meaningless..
I am not the only one who thinks that there might be something of an issue with copper crystal boundariers being a problem, see:
http://www.blackdahlia.com/tipindex/tip_25/tip_25.html
In any case, this is more of the same, you are convinced that you have somehow "proved something" when in fact, you have done no such thing, only convinced YOURSELF that this is the case.
You have not cited any real evidence in favor of your claims regarding this topic, merely made claims and statements that it can not be the case.
jneutron said:
Explain how strand jumping works...Remember the analysis I did? AR and cables..how the radial currents affect current profile, and how I corrected the belief that radial conductivity increases skinning, while radial resistance lowers skinning and increases internal inductance...there were lots of incorrect assumptions on your part there....
According to you, but that is not necessarily any sort of truth either, even if we allow for YOUR interpretation of what I said or posted. You often only comment on part of what I posted or said, and act as if it is the whole of it.
Of course, taking comments out of context, and away from the whole, makes them look very weak or confusing, but it is not what actually was going on, only what you make it look like. In other words, SPIN.
In point of fact, your input to the article here at AH gave more significance to the theory of strand jumping, you might say that you highlighted and backed up the working mechanism for it to occur. So in point of fact, instead of disproving strand jumping, you actually provided more evidence for it. Of course, I am sure that neither you, nor AH wants to see it that way, but anyone who can read, can also see the implications.
jneutron said:
Explain how YOUR cross connected coaxial arrives at it's inductance...Recall, I performed the analysis that derived it's inductance, to about 3 nH per foot...to match actual measurements. Remember, you had no clue. That analysis was at prop.
I have explained how my Cross-Connect speaker cable design works, in fact, it was you who was confused at first, you did not even know what the actual geometry was for quite a while, then, FINALLY, you bothered to look at my web site (AFTER denigrating the design, and me, several times for an imagined geometry that was not used), and figured out what it was I had done. I am not impressed by your "derivation", you had the numbers before hand to look at, to make your "derivation" match up to. Not too hard to do a least squares fit to the data, so what?
As for how the cross-connect speaker cable works, I have posted sufficiently on the subject, and none of it is incorrect or wrong, no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it. I completely understand how the design works, why it does what it does, and why it is not perfectly ideal.
I also realize the limitations of using the commercially available coaxial cables that I specify, and have explained numerous times that I feel the materials issues outweigh the imbalance in the copper, yet you have harped and latched onto this as if it were an Achille's Heel of the design. The proof is in the pudding, and the CC89259 speaker cables sound good, and are well regarded by virtually everyone who has ever made them. Could they be better? Yes, could this be done with existing commercial coaxial cables that most folks can afford? No.
In point of fact, they continue to have one of the lowest capacitance to inductance ratios of ANY speaker cable out there, by which I am including popular DIY designs, and all commercial/retail designs, and a reasonably low inductance to boot.
jneutron said:
Explain how a teflon wrap over pvc alters the wire drastically, when the wires are 2 inches apart? Recall, I derived the capacitance equations dispelling your verbage? Then, asked you if you did any tests whatsoever?
I have modelled enough E-fields to know that if you ADD a dissimilar dielectric to a wire, it will alter the E-field geometry around that wire. This is an incontrovertable fact, and nothing you can say will change that.
And I remind you that the whole purpose of that argument in the first place, was your defending Mudcat's claim that wrapping a set of PVC insulated wires with teflon tape, would make them equivalent to a set of teflon only insulated wires. This is obviously a false statement, and can not be defended, yet you will twist heaven and earth to try and make it seem that it is true.
Why you feel compelled to do this, I can not say, but it is a symptom of your slide into full and baseless cable naysaying.
jneutron said:
And, how over the years, I have had to correct your incorrect statements about superconductivity..you seem to think (although I don't know presently if you've understood reality yet..) that all the current within a superconductor is on the surface...it isn't. It is confined to the outermost volume of super, and progresses inward as the current increases, sweeping volume at the critical current density, J<sub>C</sub>.
Actually, you recently congratulated me on my description and explanation of super-conductors:
" I will admit, Jon...your explanation w/r to supers, although from a layman, was very good..considering the things I found incorrect are by no means available to people outside a very small clique.. "
that was at:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/100082.html
I readily admit that with respect to super conductor information, that you have more experience with it than I do, and I said my posted explanation was not meant to be an in depth discourse on superconductors, it was an explanation FOR a layman, with the idea that they would need to understand it, or there would be little point in posting it.
In any case, you continue to post about the real world super-conductors, the ones with quenching materials inbetween bundles of super conductive material, while I have been talking about the classic pure super conductors, and my description would be more nearly correct for those, rather than for the real world ones. You harp on this as if it meant something, when in fact, you have been ignoring (deliberately?) the different kinds of super conductors we are talking about. I mentioned this to you at least once, but you ignored it.
Oh well, the bottom line, is, that by working hard enough at it, just about anything I post or say can be deliberately misconstrued or badly portrayed.
You have taken your cue from mtry, just post a small portion of the truth, and the folks who WANT to believe you have posted all of it, will believe what you have posted is the absolute truth.
I am not even going to begin to bring up all the topics and subjects where you made bad asumptions, and lit into me, only be shown wrong later, or where you jumped on the bandwagon, only to find there was really nothing to base it on, just the heresay of someone else who was a naysayer and out to trash me. You have had more than your share of mistakes and bad posts, yet you want to act as if they never happened, and that you have the inside track on science and the truth, while I am somehow constantly off track, hopelessly lost, and don't have a clue. You know that this is not true, yet you paint the picture all the time. Shame on you John Escallier, for being a bully and a liar to boot.
Jon Risch