Why can't companies be charged with fraud

[lsiberian]

It's simple if you want better base you staple the cable to the floor and if you want better want great highs staple it to the ceiling. And if you want an experience you will never forget strip the insulation off of the power cable.

 

[10010011]

High voltage wiring can't be loosely hanging ANYWHERE, according to the National Electric Code. It has to be fastened to the studs, joists (only where allowable), etc at regular intervals.

Oh, well then I take back everything, because if the household wire is held securely in place then an aftermarket power cord will indeed make a dramatic improvement in any system.

 

[Pyrrho]

The other side of the coin is to purchase a power cable from a source that allows returns. Some places have a satisfaction guarantee and all you are out is the shipping round trip.

That typically is not going to matter, as only true believers are likely to buy in the first place, and any time one makes a change expecting to hear an improvement, one is likely to listen more intently than usual, and, of course, listening more intently means one is likely to hear more details, and so one may easily imagine that the change is causing one to hear more details, when it really is that one is listening more intently that causes the difference in noticing more details. So suckers reinforce their errors in such ways, becoming absolutely convinced that they themselves heard the difference, and no amount of reasonable discussion afterwards is likely to shift such a solidly imbedded prejudice. Words from disbelievers afterwards tend to just go in one ear and out the other, as they believe that they heard it for themselves.

You can't ask the subjectivists to submit to some form of DBT and as an objectivist not at the very least be open to it also.

The only thing that I have ever asked of companies like AQ/Kimber/Shunyata etc is to do as others (Axiom/Emotiva/Outlaw/Ascend/ etc...): back up their belief in their product by allowing for a no $$ obligation to try their product.

Your expectation bias wouldn't come into play becuase you wouldn't know what cable is which. Have some one roll a 6 sided dice. Even it's cable A, odd it's cable B.

I am open to people doing double blind tests. But having the wires have a money back guarantee is not going to typically matter for sales for the reasons I already stated. Depending on where you live, you are likely able to find retailers with money back guarantees on the wires that they sell. Do you seriously think that most retailers have to take back very many of the overpriced wires they sell, among those that allow for a full refund for a few days or even a month for returns? Clearly, they have not had enough returns to make it unprofitable to sell them, or they would not be selling them for long.

 

[jinjuku]

I am open to people doing double blind tests. But having the wires have a money back guarantee is not going to typically matter for sales for the reasons I already stated. Depending on where you live, you are likely able to find retailers with money back guarantees on the wires that they sell. Do you seriously think that most retailers have to take back very many of the overpriced wires they sell, among those that allow for a full refund for a few days or even a month for returns? Clearly, they have not had enough returns to make it unprofitable to sell them, or they would not be selling them for long.

Well I only care whether or not I can return them. Any of the other morons that walk out of BB with a $120 HDMI cable, well that is there problem.

 

[jneutron]

You are keeping yourself very scarce here. Some/many appreciate your inputs, stranger

I lurk. Sometimes I actually have an intelligent thought, so post..

How ya doin??

I know with twisted pair the twists are there to act as an RF/EMI choke...

The reason for the twist is to decouple the pair from external influence by a time varying magnetic field. For cat5-e and up, the 4 twisted pairs were twisted with different pitches to prevent communication between the pairs. So while the twisting does indeed "choke" the rfi/emi, it does so by eliminating the reception of the nefarious stuff. The term "choke" is kinda like an element put in place to remove or block something that got in. Yes, it is a nitpicking distinction to your accurate statement, but I'm big on nitpicking.

I find it strange that you completely omitted my points on the gross graphing errors, cable diameters and lengths were not stated...

I did not think it necessary to repeat what you stated, you were quite concise and accurate on those points.

and the simple fact that no conductor that I'm aware of that plugs into a standard UAC approved wall outlet can carry 225 amps. Thats utter bunk if I ever saw it. The only thing the white paper would be good for is to clean up the pile of sh?t that this really is.

Actually, I've used 24AWG copper to carry 400 amps. It was at a temperature of 1.9 kelvin, and it was a pulse with a time constant of 200 milliseconds. Given those conditions, the wire never exceeded 100 kelvin.

One must make a distinction between the ampacity of the conductor/insulation scheme, and the results of a transient test. If you examine the trip curve of a standard breaker, you will find two areas of interest.. The thermal curve, which is used to protect wires from slight overloads which can possibly cause fire, and the magnetic curve where massive fault currents will clear the breaker within a few line cycles.

Since the graphs are in the microsecond realm, clearly a 14 awg run will not go up in flames.

Agreed; when considering the miles of transmission lines and the distance the wire travels from the pole to a house, than it's length inside the house. How does a 3 or 6ft power cord help?

Because the ground reference for the local audio system is at the wall outlet. It is not back at the powerplant. Don't think of it as nefarious stuff on the AC lines, think of the audio system and how a ground loop couples to bad stuff..

Cheers, John

 

[jinjuku]

I lurk. Sometimes I actually have an intelligent thought, so post..

How ya doin??



The reason for the twist is to decouple the pair from external influence by a time varying magnetic field. For cat5-e and up, the 4 twisted pairs were twisted with different pitches to prevent communication between the pairs. So while the twisting does indeed "choke" the rfi/emi, it does so by eliminating the reception of the nefarious stuff. The term "choke" is kinda like an element put in place to remove or block something that got in. Yes, it is a nitpicking distinction to your accurate statement, but I'm big on nitpicking.

I could have said cross talk or near field cross talk but more people understand 'choke'.

Again they don't state what target or problem they are even solving. That is a problem right there. I can go out and take varying measurements in my yard and when someone asks me what I a building I would simply have a blank look on my face and say 'nuthin'.

The don't even say what happened when each cable resolved that peak, did a circuit breaker trip? cable failure etc...

 

[jinjuku]

Because the ground reference for the local audio system is at the wall outlet. It is not back at the powerplant. Don't think of it as nefarious stuff on the AC lines, think of the audio system and how a ground loop couples to bad stuff..

Cheers, John

What does ground reference look like if I disconnect it at the panel?

 

[jneutron]

I could have said cross talk or near field cross talk but more people understand 'choke'.

Agreed.

Again they don't state what target or problem they are even solving. That is a problem right there.

If you read the white paperlinked to at the other forum, they clearly state what problem they are trying to resolve.

I do not concur with their premise however. What they are affecting is the reference loop, but they do not understand this sufficiently.

The don't even say what happened when each cable resolved that peak, did a circuit breaker trip? cable failure etc...

They focus on the haversine nature of capacitive input power supplies and the peaks resulting from that particular type of draw. Again, they created their own test setup using a low impedance source, a load, and some "low inductance test resistors to view current". I would like to see their low inductance resistor, as I would be inclined to believe that they may not know what low inductance truly is. They do not approach the current times time regime necessary to trip a normal breaker.

What does ground reference look like if I disconnect it at the panel?

The same, albeit illegal as a result of code violation. When you plug two 3 prong cords into one wall outlet, the ground connection establishes a closed reference loop, one that includes the two power cords, the amp and pre chassis, and the IC between.

Cheers, John

 

[jinjuku]

Agreed.


If you read the white paperlinked to at the other forum, they clearly state what problem they are trying to resolve.

The white paper wasn't posted when I asked about what problem they are trying to solve.

The same, albeit illegal as a result of code violation. When you plug two 3 prong cords into one wall outlet, the ground connection establishes a closed reference loop, one that includes the two power cords, the amp and pre chassis, and the IC between.

Cheers, John

Is ground referenced at the outlet or the panel?

 

[jneutron]

The white paper wasn't posted when I asked about what problem they are trying to solve.

Ah...ok. The writeup is concise enough for me to understand completely. Their premise is still incorrect. It is not what they believe. Their cord work however, accidentally helps reduce coupling.

Is ground referenced at the outlet or the panel?

The amp will see the local loop.

Code requires safety ground should be to the panel.

Cheers, John

 

[3db]

I lurk. Sometimes I actually have an intelligent thought, so post..

How ya doin??



The reason for the twist is to decouple the pair from external influence by a time varying magnetic field. For cat5-e and up, the 4 twisted pairs were twisted with different pitches to prevent communication between the pairs. So while the twisting does indeed "choke" the rfi/emi, it does so by eliminating the reception of the nefarious stuff. The term "choke" is kinda like an element put in place to remove or block something that got in. Yes, it is a nitpicking distinction to your accurate statement, but I'm big on nitpicking. Also like I stated before, if its peak current which is very short duration, I would suspect that the power supply caps are still charging during this state so whatever benefits this cable is trying to provide from a current carrying capability is actually reduced from the charging times required by the power supply caps.


I did not think it necessary to repeat what you stated, you were quite concise and accurate on those points.


Actually, I've used 24AWG copper to carry 400 amps. It was at a temperature of 1.9 kelvin, and it was a pulse with a time constant of 200 milliseconds. Given those conditions, the wire never exceeded 100 kelvin.

One must make a distinction between the ampacity of the conductor/insulation scheme, and the results of a transient test. If you examine the trip curve of a standard breaker, you will find two areas of interest.. The thermal curve, which is used to protect wires from slight overloads which can possibly cause fire, and the magnetic curve where massive fault currents will clear the breaker within a few line cycles.

Since the graphs are in the microsecond realm, clearly a 14 awg run will not go up in flames.

Cheers, John

Thats just it, the X axes are labelled in microseconds but no absolute value is given so I don't know if this sustained or peak. You don't know how many mirosecond this test was running for. Secondly, one does not know that its 14 gauge as this is not stated either. If its peak like you suggest ( which I think it is too ) what the hell would you connect Home Theater wise that would draw a peak current that large? Last time I looked, I have no 1/2 to 3/4 hp motors in my equipement.

 

[jneutron]

Thats just it, the X axes are labelled in microseconds but no absolute value is given so I don't know if this sustained or peak. You don't know how many mirosecond this test was running for. Secondly, one does not know that its 14 gauge as this is not stated either.

The actual axis labels are not significant. The fact that microseconds were invoked is all one needs to understand.

Nor is the actual guage important in the scheme of things. They have presented the concepts they used, the reader should be able to fill in the details.

It really did not take any time for me to understand what they were testing, how they were doing it, why they were doing it, and why they are confusing causality.

If its peak like you suggest ( which I think it is too ) what the hell would you connect Home Theater wise that would draw a peak current that large? Last time I looked, I have no 1/2 to 3/4 hp motors in my equipement.

Their paper clearly defines the haversine components of current they speak of. They use a ratio between peak and rms. One can easily argue the ratio to be used, but I wouldn't bother..that is a diversion from the real cause.

I'm suprised nobody has ranted about their statement that they have listeners who clearly hear differences in powercords...as far as I can see, they have provided no support of that statement. I can neither agree that others hear a difference, nor can I disagree. But they have made an assertion that is not supported by evidence, and everybody seems to be worried about the fact that a rudimentary electrical test may be questionable and ignores the bigger question.

Cheers, John

 

[jinjuku]

Because the ground reference for the local audio system is at the wall outlet. It is not back at the powerplant.
Cheers, John

Sorry to belabor this: Is ground referenced at the panel or at the outlet?

What is the differential from the outlet ground vs panel ground? (assuming a straight shot from the panel to a single outlet).

 

[jneutron]

Sorry to belabor this: Is ground referenced at the panel or at the outlet?

What is the differential from the outlet ground vs panel ground? (assuming a straight shot from the panel to a single outlet).

Your initial question made no sense to me. Your followup cleared it up nicely.

It is not IR drop. Think faraday's law of induction..

Cheers, John

ps..I drew a picture but cannot upload it to this forum...sigh..

 

[jinjuku]

Your initial question made no sense to me. Your followup cleared it up nicely.

It is not IR drop. Think faraday's law of induction..

Cheers, John

ps..I drew a picture but cannot upload it to this forum...sigh..

Got it. Either the ground level is at the outlet taking into consideration the length of the romex (LCR) or if there is a break in ground, well there is no ground.

I think we are talking about the same things, just getting it on the same page.

 

[jinjuku]

BTW, not labeling Axis on a plot regardless of if it is absolute voltage or useconds is just plain sloppy.

 

[3db]

The actual axis labels are not significant. The fact that microseconds were invoked is all one needs to understand.

Most likely yes but can you absolutely tell how much time had passed? Why is this not signifcant?

Nor is the actual guage important in the scheme of things. They have presented the concepts they used, the reader should be able to fill in the details.

Why do you say that?

It really did not take any time for me to understand what they were testing, how they were doing it, why they were doing it, and why they are confusing causality.


Their paper clearly defines the haversine components of current they speak of. They use a ratio between peak and rms. One can easily argue the ratio to be used, but I wouldn't bother..that is a diversion from the real cause.

Explain to me this haversine components please. I still fail to see what would be connected from a typical Home Theater perspective that would induce this much peak current draw .

I'm suprised nobody has ranted about their statement that they have listeners who clearly hear differences in powercords...as far as I can see, they have provided no support of that statement. I can neither agree that others hear a difference, nor can I disagree. But they have made an assertion that is not supported by evidence, and everybody seems to be worried about the fact that a rudimentary electrical test may be questionable and ignores the bigger question.

Cheers, John

Understood.

 

[jneutron]

Got it. Either the ground level is at the outlet taking into consideration the length of the romex (LCR) or if there is a break in ground, well there is no ground.

I think we are talking about the same things, just getting it on the same page.

I'm not sure. I'll try to verbalize what I drew..

Do not consider the grounding back to the service panel..

Connect a source and an amp to one outlet with 3 prong cords, and run an IC from the source to amp. You have now formed a complete ground loop. What is the amp going to consider as the zero volt reference ground for it's input? It's input ground? The source's outputground? The outlet ground? When this loop traps time varying magnetic field flux, where will the reference ground then be?

The ground reference loop becomes important whenever any magnetic induction can creep into the loop, as most home audio systems with single ended signal paths do not control for the loop currents.

BTW, not labeling Axis on a plot regardless of if it is absolute voltage or useconds is just plain sloppy.

They are not being sloppy, they are simply not providing information. Had they submitted this paper for publication in a professional venue that I referee, then yes...I would have called it sloppy...

Most likely yes but can you absolutely tell how much time had passed? Why is this not signifcant?

Because the effect they are citing is of no consideration. Invoking the microsecond realm with large currents such as they have depicted tells us that they are not considering the romex back to the service panel. In this time domain, a 50 to 100 foot run of romex will look line a T-line with a characteristic impedance of about 100 to 150 ohms. This impedance cannot source 225 ampere microsecond level peak currents.

Indeed, their paper suports what I say, they created a low impedance source to do the test.

Why do you say that? edit: I said ....(They have presented the concepts they used, the reader should be able to fill in the details.)

Well, I easily understood everything they did, why they did, and what they did wrong..perhaps I should have stated the "e/m theory knowledgeable reader..

Explain to me this haversine components please. I still fail to see what would be connected from a typical Home Theater perspective that would induce this much peak current draw .

A capacitor input power supply draw spikes of current at the input voltage peak. Most equipment uses this type of power supply topology.

Honestly, the only contention there would be is the ratio used when converting from system max draw to haversine harmonic peak values.


Oh, and they stated that pfc circuits will only make the matter worse, requiring their product even more... That is of course, incorrect. The european standards are used to reduce harmonic loads from equipment, not increase them.

Cheers, John

 

[3db]

Because the effect they are citing is of no consideration. Invoking the microsecond realm with large currents such as they have depicted tells us that they are not considering the romex back to the service panel. In this time domain, a 50 to 100 foot run of romex will look line a T-line with a characteristic impedance of about 100 to 150 ohms. This impedance cannot source 225 ampere microsecond level peak currents.

Indeed, their paper suports what I say, they created a low impedance source to do the test.

Well, I easily understood everything they did, why they did, and what they did wrong..perhaps I should have stated the "e/m theory knowledgeable reader..

Agreed and understood. But coming up with an ideal test conditions in no way represents real life and many a reader will not have the background to discern the difference. And the other question remains, becuase this data is omitted, you can't tell with a 100 percent certainty that what you have implied is what they actually tested for.

A capacitor input power supply draw spikes of current at the input voltage peak. Most equipment uses this type of power supply topology.

I realize this..hence the remark...the charging times of the filter caps would be much much longer in duration and much less in amplitude than the current spike they depicted by the graph so the limits of this cable is never going to be reached from the charging times of the filter caps alone let alone the effects of the miles of wire attached to it once connected to the outlet.
[/QUOTE]

 

[jneutron]

Agreed and understood. But coming up with an ideal test conditions in no way represents real life and many a reader will not have the background to discern the difference. And the other question remains, becuase this data is omitted, you can't tell with a 100 percent certainty that what you have implied is what they actually tested for.

I have implied nothing.

I have stated directly that testing in the microsecond domain has nothing to do with the starvation of the supply caps in an amplifier. Beefing up a supply cord to solve this "problem" is useless.

I can tell with certainty, as I do this kind of thing for a living. And as the white paper is now out, I can see that I was absolutely on the mark with respect to what they test, how they do it, and why they err.

I realize this..hence the remark...the charging times of the filter caps would be much much longer in duration and much less in amplitude than the current spike they depicted by the graph so the limits of this cable is never going to be reached from the charging times of the filter caps alone let alone the effects of the miles of wire attached to it once connected to the outlet.

Haversine currents are odd harmonics of the powerline frequency. The stiffer the transformer, sharper the bridge rectifiers, the lower the supply cap esl and the higher the capacitance, the higher the haversine currents will be. As I stated, only the ratio they have used could be of contention.

Cheers, John