new scientist

You were the first one to mention "entanglement" - don't go beating him up for an assumption you made.

Try saying why it is incorrect.

Again, "Why?"

No, it isn't

Finally, we're almost getting somewhere. WIth that "hint" can you now explain why the experiment is irrelevant.

No, you didn't because you started wittering on about light ("power output of the light source which is merely a means to make the interference pattern more visible under classroom conditions.").

The significance of the experiment is that it works with single particles! Which is completely at odds with your statement about power.

You are simply making a statement, and it is true. However, you are using "proof by repeated assertion". I am asking you to explain how you came to the conclusion (what "facts" or "science" are you using).

Actually, he didn't. You assumed that that is what he was alluding to.

You are the one thinking of the "O-level" experiment. I'm refering to an experiment that opens the door to the whole of quantum mechanics.

Go read the section "The beauty of the double-slit experiment" within the link I posted.

That someone is willing to pay you £25 per hour and that you have a piece of paper (your doctorate) doesn't automatically mean you are a scientist (let alone a good one).

 

paul ,maybe i should sign up to an electronics lesson from Brizon and he can explain to me what a zobel network is.

and then maybe i'll come back and explain to you why fitness for purpose is exactly what we are talking about when discussing one cable being different to another.

if you accept that fitness for purpose exists, then by extension some cables aren't up to job, so differences in cables must exist.

and how do well assess that fitness for purpose, we listen to it....

ergo: cables have audible differences. (but directionality isnt one of them).

 

I know. Its in the lyrics to my 'MC. Stephen Hawking Super Song'.

Time, surely, IS a perception? Without perception everything would just be a probability wouldn't it? Time is a head-fuk @_@

 

Going back to the original article that appeared in New Scientist - as a diversion from the forum jousting as entertaining and informative as it may be - the HFN writer claims to have measurements that demonstrate cable directionality. The writer is, incidentally, Russ Andrews.

What is thought about the apparent reluctance to produce these measurements? Is this a cover up because in truth there aren't any? To put my mark on the card, that's exactly what I think. Or at least if there are some measurements they would not stand up to wider informed scrutiny.

What is this doing for the credibility of HFN? If indeed you think HFN is a credible source of information?

 

I think you've got that about right .....to see the results of the measurements would be very informative ..not conclusive [But don't think I'm an anti...I've just not heard it in 25years messing with cables]

So now someone will explain to me why dowsing offers the following ..... which suggest that a single wire [conductor] reluctantly doesn't have an up or downstream....ie it slightly knows? Two conductors don't, three definately don't, so the more strands the less hint of dirrectionality. The higher the strand count the more powerful the dowsing reaction....

just thought you'd like to ponder that........

As I get older its clear that "there more in heaven and earth, horatio......etc" as the saying goes. What I would have dissmissed years ago when I thought science had all the answers ...now has a different edge.


as an aside to add some [more] strangeness to the post
3d sonics was kind enough to send me a set of three "time and space harmonisers" these arrived with no explaination as to there use.....so I employed them as feet for a modded AA5z wow great effect .... wrong use though!

these wooden discs ...feel odd they are not like other wooden discs ...when one is passed over the other a slight pull ..a bit like a pair of magnets has been noted by at least 10 people who have tried it .....

theres something odd happening .....I can't explain it ...

this just goes to illustrate even the best scientific up bringing can't offer a rational explaination.....

I'm going to post more on these feet thingies latter ....so be prepared to suspend your belief for a bit longer .

 

Ben referred to the process of entanglement but without naming it explicitly.

I did say why it is incorrect.

A cable cannot "know" anything. Quantum effects occur at the quantum level anyway.

The experiment can work with a single particle however it doesnt have to and the results are not dependent on the intensity of the source hence my statement stands.

There isnt a signle piece of theory or experimental evidence linking cable directionality to entanglement or youngs fringes. Thats all that is needed in the absence of some supporting argument showing that it does. In fact there is no evidence at all that cable directionaility even exists and I dont need to go further than that.

I did read that section - the point is that the experiment with light and the experiment with electrons are exactly the same - a point you have missed. Photons and electrons both exhibit wave particle duality according to the measurement scales in a manner determined by these particles underlying wave functions.

No one has yet paid me £25 an hour I was being facetious. Actually, having a legitimate doctorate, publishing dozens of peer reviewed papers, giving invited talks at international conferences and spending 15 years in research does make me a good scientist. Having watched a couple of episodes of Horizon however doesnt make you qualifed to say otherwise

Cables do sound different but this can be perfectly well explained by their RF rejection, earhting and LCR characteristics. Sadly my electronics is not up to giving lessons.

Tenson - yes time or the thread of time is a perception I agree.

 

I think I have found the source of the measurements, so we can all relax, and be happy in the knowledge that there is no cover-up and it's all based on good science after all.

Russ Andrews' website provides some useful information ...

http://www.russandrews.com/article-Truth-or-Myth-Cable-Directionality-russdirectionality.htm

Here is an outline of the experiment and measurements conducted:

"I tested the effect on my wife (a blind test, not telling her what I was changing) and asked her to describe the change in sound. She described exactly what I had heard, so I knew I wasn't imagining it, even though my electronic 'education' said it couldn't happen."

So I think that closes the debate once and for all.

And just in case you are having problems directionalising your cables at home, follow this procedure:

"Don't do too many repeats if you aren't sure because it just becomes too confusing, try a different piece of music instead."

Yes, remember, it is always a bad idea to repeat your experiments, because you might end up with a different result, which would place the original result in doubt. And that would just be confusing.

I'm off to stick some arrows on some wires.

 

Somehow I think that what we should really be discussing here is the subtleties of psychology and the human brain. Our minds are infinetely more complex than a length of copper wire and it seems logical to suggest that any unexplained phenomena are much more likely to have their origins here.

Just think of all the electrical activity and forming of new connections that must take place in your brain as you unhook the cable, turn it around and sit down with the knowledge of having done so.

I suspect that whatever has changed in the cable pales somewhat into insignificance, in comparison.

 

Of course differences between cables exist. They have differing LCR parameters. And in some applications the topology matters, screened/unscreened etc.

No we look at the cable manufacturers specs.

Directionality is no more or less unreasonable than any other claimed cable difference not related to the bulk electrical characteristics.

Paul

 

wow, you buy cables based on manufacturers specs, what a novel idea,i audition them and buy the one that sounds the best.

i'm intrigued as to what specs you'll be looking at when you purchase your next car, maybe i can benefit from the same approach...

 

I may be wrong, but i suspect Paul is talking from a professional point of view. If that is the case it is a perfectly sound statement.
We also look at spec before we buy, we buy data and power cables, we need to know they are spec'ed correctly for the intended duty, not what they sound like

 

So you do believe cables sound different in mystical ways?

So how do you know they aren't directional?

Paul

 

Or maybe he doesn't know what it will sound like from the spec so he has to listen to them.

 

The spec tells you whether the cable is 'fit for purpose'.

Beyond that it's magic. Squiggle believes that the colour of the cable sheath is worth 'listening to' but that the direction of connection isn't. This is somewhat inconsistent.

Paul

 

i never mentioned that the colour of the cable was worth listening to.

but seeing as you mention it, i do believe it is, but amazingly i have virgin PTFE,unbleached cotton,and the knowledge base on dielectric constant to support my experience. so its hardly magic..

what do you have to support your belief in directionality?

can you hear it? can enough people hear it to make the numbers significant.

you have neither a weight of opinion or an accepted theory to explain it. neither proof of effect nor cause.

all you have is RA and his loyal wife..


i on the other hand, don't look at the specs when i choose cables, other than dielectric value for the sheath, because i'm unable to compute the outcome from the spec. it's not magic, there are just too many variables, it's just plain old too complicated for my feeble mind to calculate, so i don't bother i trust my ears.

exactly the same ears that tell me directionality is none discernable.

so if you are happy to accept that currently, directionality isn't worth worrying about, based on the consensus that we can't hear it,then i'm prepared to accept that the potential effect that doesn't matter does indeed exist.


let's take a straw poll,maybe we can all hear it, except me.

hands up anyone who has experience of hearing a difference by turning around a symetrical cable in their hifi.

 

I am currently trying to contact Kimber Cable by email, there is a server problem. They say on their website that they measure directionality and label their cables for this. I shall ask them if they will let us know what they measure and how they determine directionality. If I can get in touch, I shall refer to this forum and post.

 

i await to be 'owned'...

 

Clear proof of clairvoyance there then.

Explain how varying the 'dielectric constant' of cable insulation affects the sound.

I don't believe it. I'm pointing out your inconsistency.

OTOH I can come up with better physical bullshit in support of it than most snake oil merchants manage.

Paul

 

Firstly, CAN WE NOT DISCUSS THE POSSABILITY OF CABLES BEING DIRECTIONAL WITHOUT SWEARING, and secondly we are all (I hope) trying to find the same thing out, THE TRUTH.

 

Paul

You CANT compare directionality in non-directional cables, and the colour of a cables casing affecting sound to Snake Oil.

It's unreasonable.

Snake's DO in fact contain a certain amount of fatty deposits and oil.