new scientist

At least, I suppose, when it's applied to Hifi, the "unscientific" approach is largely harmless (if expensive) fun. It's when it's applied to medicine and the like that you have to get a bit more worried.
 
Tenson said:
Maybe there is in-depth physics which shows that the direction of a cables crystal structure affects the signal
Click to expand...

Well, when you find it, please let me know, because I never have. In 30-odd (very) years in the chemistry/materials science business, I have never seen any scientific evidence for this. In any case, a metal crystalline structure is an entirely random thing - as a metal melt cools, crystalline regions form at nucleation points and they grow until they crash into the adjacent growing crystalline area. The drawing of wire from a metal does not alter this randomness.
 
DIRECTION: molecules on the flow of signal cable, i.e. copper are burned in a direction through current constantly flowing in a particular direction as long as floating earth is either non exsinting or equal at both ends,is as if you have a tube a meter or so in lenth say 3" diameter and 1" of sand in the base then by flowing water in one direction the sand will go with the flow "molecules" i thinks through practice and theory,regards nando.
 
But like we already said, music does not flow in one direction; it goes back and forward 20,000 times a second.
 
Tenson said:
But like we already said, music does not flow in one direction; it goes back and forward 20,000 times a second.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Surely the only way the cable could be affected by its direction would be if it somehow knew that one end was connected to an amp and the other to a speaker.

Maybe there are certain "quantum particles" who are scared by loud noise and all run along to the amp end to hide from it.
 
No, thats the job of the work-experience elfs who run along the wire and then shout the music out of the speaker. Don't know what all this quantum particle bollox is! :rolleyes:
 
'In any case, a metal crystalline structure is an entirely random thing - as a metal melt cools, crystalline regions form at nucleation points and they grow until they crash into the adjacent growing crystalline area.' This is interesting, is it possible, at all, that this could cause an overall effect which resembles directionality in a cable? I only ask out of genuine interest and would appreciate any speculations as to anything that could cause this phenomena. Thanks Tones.
 
Quite. The only caveat is if the cable is shielded, the shield ground one end AND the bits of kit connected are excessively sensitive to RF at these ports.

I have a mate who does wierd and interesting things in DC-RF measurement. So far he can't find any directional effect below 15,000 amps - and that turned out to be thermal in origin, a few uV of spuria that emerged from the noise floor because the bolted connection one end was tighter than the other. It's a very big bolted connection...
 
Owl37400 and Tenson you could very well be correct. It is possable that the cable is aware of which way it is connected. From what I was taught at university there have been several experiments that show just this. It has been observed in 'youngs slit experiment' when using an extremely low power light source (one photon per second) that a diffraction pattern is formed. This would logically prove a consciousness of each other by seperate particles of light. These are separated by time and space yet know where the other has gone previously and alter there course accordingly to form the light and dark banding. The hypothesis that was put forward to me as a possable scientific explanation was that there was an unknown field or wave acting in another dimension (unknown medium) which enabled a physical interaction between the two particles. The question I asked myself was 'Does this prove a living intelligance exists in everything or can it be explained illogically by science? (which is an oxymoron in grammar alone).
 
Or is it just lost in the noise floor for macro-scale measurement...i.e. audio.
 
Even for DC nandos argument is incorrect due to the reversal symmetry of the lorentz equations. Plus it has never been measured to exist - and our ears have no speciual status as measuring device contrary to the collective ego of audiophools.

Ben - particles arent concious. Its wave / particle duality not quantum entanglement which is something different. You have justaposed the two. Neither is relevent here and it doesnt depend on a single photon source. Nothing is "aware".

For entanglement, the quantum field acts in our dimension entirely and there is no physical interaction.

Its a short hop from physics to scripture and then to justify cables. This isnt science.
 
For cables the noise floor is thermal. Modern spectrum analysers can come within 5-10 db of this so have an SNR perhaps 6 orders of magnitude better than human hearing. Anything that low would be irrelevent.
 
Quite. Amazingly enough, it's quite possible to do measurement at home with a noise floor close to -150dB ref.2VAC RMS across the first 20KHz. All it takes is a refined homebrew preamp and a good soundcard. Which is basically BBV's point I suppose.
 
nando said:
DIRECTION: molecules on the flow of signal cable, i.e. copper are burned in a direction through current constantly flowing in a particular direction as long as floating earth is either non exsinting or equal at both ends,is as if you have a tube a meter or so in lenth say 3" diameter and 1" of sand in the base then by flowing water in one direction the sand will go with the flow "molecules" i thinks through practice and theory,regards nando.
Click to expand...
(a) There aren't any molecules - copper is atomic.
(b) The copper atoms are held in a rigid crystal lattice.
(c) Metals by their nature have mobile electrons, and these are what move through conductors when a potential difference is established between the ends of the conductor.
(d) Nothing is ever burned in - it simply doesn't exist as a phenomenon in metal lattices.
(e) And of course we're talking AC, with the voltage shifting direction rapidly.

In short, your analogy doesn't, er, hold water.
 
Well I used a rhode and schwarz top of the range signal analyser - I guess worth about £500k or so now. They can measure down almost to the thermal noise floor of the cable.

Tones points are well made also.
 
As far as the art of conversation, several here are lacking. The only thing I conceed to Brizonbiovizier is that the word physical could have been in inverted commas but in actuality the reaction would be as physical as anthing is physical. You will see the post is addressed to owl37400 and Tenson and this should give you its relevence. If you are not interested in an open discusion don't post. If it pleases you to highlight others lack of understanding then that is unfortunate. It would be better of you to try and explain something if it is clear to you that they do not understand a concept. If I say the experiment involved a very low power light source (resulting in no wave type interaction) then that is what I mean, do not presume to tell me I am mistaken. With regards the question I asked myself, you have come to the other conclusion, which is fair enough.
 
It gives me no pleasure however it is scientific to correct incorrect science when it is posted and this is a part of the process of open scientific discussion. The wave particle duality of photons is dependent upon the energy of the photons and the time and length scales of measurement - there is no link to the power output of the light source which is merely a means to make the interference pattern more visible under classroom conditions. Said interference pattern being due to the wave type interaction you have now said is absent.

I presume to tell you that you are mistaken as I have a PhD in theoretical physics and my training and subsequent career in research has made me well qualified in this area - no offence but you are completely wrong no matter that you are unable to accept it. I would be happy to point you in the direction of the relevent texts if you are sufficiently motivated.

Cable phoolery exists because pseudo science is used to justify it so my response is entirely appropriate.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top