new scientist

with all due respect ben, i believe the correct phrase is 'owned'


whenever i read a post on the forum and the guy appears to have attitude i naturally assume, and generally correctly, that it is either my interpretation of his intent or the limitation of the media we use to converse that is flawed.

in this respect i'm seldom wrong, unless the other guy is a total dick.

 

BBV, please continue in your correction of bad science. Whether it's a result of genuine misunderstanding, lazy procedure, or deliberate distortion as a means to financial, political or other ends, it needs to be corrected as a matter of principle, along with other more serious types of claims based on plain inaccuracy that end up with people getting hurt and suchlike.

 

I think maybe Nick would need a costume to go with that job lol!

Ben, I think you are only getting a bit of a hard time as you are new here and your posts have come across as subtly saying 'I know more about it than you'. If you choose to continue posting, which I hope you do, I think you will fit in alright By the way, I was serious about the work experience elfs... nothing to do with particle whatnots.

 

For someone with "a PhD in theoretical physics", and from your opening remarks, you don't seem to appreciate the subtlety of the experiment ben556473 was alluding to in post 30 of this thread.

If people are interested in assessing your ability (rather than being impressed by your "qualifications"), they can read this:

The most beautiful experiment

 

"The question of truth", wrote logician Gottlob Frege in one of his most influential works, "would cause us to abandon aesthetic delight for an attitude of scientific investigation."

 

Please point out where what I have said is at odds with this article or some subtlety has been missed and I will be happy to admit it if your analysis is correct. My "qualifications" are in fact qualifications just for the record

 

Can I just ask a question which I am aware shows a basic lack of understanding of the processes involved but none the less causes me some puzzlement in discussions such as this?

Taking speaker cable as an example and using non-scientific and quite probably inappropriate terms; at one end of the cable is a current source, at the other is a device which converts electrical into mechanical energy. Does this difference in activity have any relevance what so ever to the topic under discussion?

 

How about this .....why do cable makers insist on using coax type cable ? would it not be far better to have conductors that are the same .......

I have heard some strange things but never cable directionality [unless pseudo balanced ].

just remember that electrons can behave as particles or waves ...and we normally use a probability curve to predict the position of said electron in its orbital .....As far as I can see theres still a great deal more to find out about sub atomic particle relationships to glibly discount everything that some people think is impossible.

 

Its a good question - but as music is AC then its hard to see how it could happen. Tones point about electron sea conduction would rule it out even for dc I fear.

I agree we should keep open minds but we do have to observe scientific knowledge and process.

 

Isn't the point here that no-one has actually ever demonstrated there is an audible difference? Is that not what really matters?

It just seems a bit strange to me to discuss possible causes of an effect that hasn't been shown to exist. Even if someone could provide an uncontroversial theory as to why cable direction might make a difference, so what, if the difference can't be perceived?

It's like going into the back garden, doing a rain dance, observing that it doesn't rain, then going back inside to work out how dancing in the garden might affect the weather.

 

Indeed. There isnt a shred of rigourous experimental evidence or any supporting theory.

 

Ben wrote -

Which is the kind of mysticism that gets exploited by snake oil merchants to sell cables based on all sorts of irrelevant features, from the metal of the conductors to the colour of the sheath.

What BBV posted was correct. Why would you expect the intensity of the source to affect the distribution of the light?

Paul

 

Exactly the reason these pseudo-scientific statements must be challenged.

 

If any cable makers would like some bullshit to sell directionality consider the energy, which largely flows from the source to the sink. And that electrons move in the conductor at glacial speeds compared to the signal, so perhaps the electromagnetic field is cause rather than effect, and that is also generally travelling from source to sink.

So there's two easy to grasp unidirectional aspects to audio travelling along a cable...

Paul

 

How much longer is this Hi-Fi accessory consumer schpiel going to go on for?

Directional cables, shakti stones, blu tac, ping pong balls and now even the kitchen sink???

 

Cup of tea, anyone? -State which direction you want it stirred, clockwise or anticlockwise!

 

Doesn't that depend which side of the equator you're on?

 

Why specify 'directional'? Just 'cables' qualifies.

Paul

 

hardly, if one type of cable did everything that all the others did there would be only only one type of wire, everywhere in everything.

you'll be denbying the effects of zobel networks next.

 

I didn't think I'd need to add anything about basic fitness for purpose. There's always one.

Do you know what a Zobel network is?

Paul