advertisement


Directional cables. Explain??

kabayiri said:
The thing is, I do believe some people have greater resolving capability than others. They may detect things which most of us do not.

I remember a guy years ago who told me that he could not wear quartz watches (lcd). They would stop working when he wore them, but not always straight away.

Of course, I wanted to test this and lost a perfectly functioning watch in the process!

Tellingly though, he could tell when the quartz watch was working and not working, without looking at it.

I still don't understand how, to this day....
Click to expand...
My son kills watches too. And as for hearing differences, mine measures differently from my wife's. I have posted the audiograms several times, but no-one has come back with theirs to compare.
And about "golden ears", or whatever, this is a fascinating read, from someone who knows what he is talking about. http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=39071
 
stevec67 said:
This comment from JV sounds unlikely to be the case. Copper anneals at between 370 and 650 C and needs quenching in water from these temps to achieve an annealed state. PVC melts between 160 and 212 C depending on formulation and the degree of moltenness required. It therefore seems unlikely that you would get any significant changes in copper's crystal structure at temps as low as 200 degC because you still have at least 170 degrees to go before you are into annealing temps. It looks to me like conjecture, it's a reasonable enough hypothesis but one that is untested.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree. I would suspect it's some electromagnetic interaction with the insulation itself, but as Julian said nobody knows. (Or to be more precise, and given that the comments date from some time ago, we are not aware of anyone who knows the mechanism involved).

Regards,

Willy.
 
kabayiri said:
Signals carried along conductors are most certainly directional.

You can see this in 4 or 6 port microwave couplers. The original research projects for these involved not much more than etched PCB tracks with coupling connectors.
Click to expand...
But directional couplers are still reversible. They are basically phase cancellation devices, so that power applied to one port does not come out of another. Electrons are NOT being forced to go only one way
 
davidsrsb said:
But directional couplers are still reversible. They are basically phase cancellation devices, so that power applied to one port does not come out of another. Electrons are NOT being forced to go only one way
Click to expand...

I think the "reversible" aspect is a bit of marketing spiel, trying to encapsulate perhaps complex effects into something simple which people can buy into.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveguide_%28electromagnetism%29

Waveguide theory may offer some more concrete discussion points, as in the link above. The type of tubes and conductors in the article are completely different of course.

I think the behaviour of electrons is more complex than how it gets explained. I have been helping my daughter on her chemistry/physics exam prep. The idea of electrons organised into neat rings around a nucleus is nice, but it isn't accurate. They exist in excitation states.

I definitely hear difference between 2 interconnects I have. One is a Russ Andrews cable funnily enough, but it's basically kimber cable with minimal shielding. The other is more shielded and heavier.

I wonder if it is phase velocity which is being affected?

It would be possible to conduct experiments which are much more structured, even if they do rely on the human ear; but are people that bothered?
 
kabayiri said:
I definitely hear difference between 2 interconnects I have.
Click to expand...
I remain bemused by those who say they can't! I make most, but not all, of my ICs, and the differences are quite clear. Not just to me, either. I have no particular attachment to any particular type of construction, and cost of ownership doesn't create expectation bias, or fierce defense of my purchase. I will re-use the wire and plugs in different configurations, lend them out to get opinions, etc. Findings are usually consistent.
 
kabayiri said:
I think the behaviour of electrons is more complex than how it gets explained...The idea of electrons organised into neat rings around a nucleus is nice, but it isn't accurate.
Click to expand...
Yes of course. It's just a conceptual model. In the real world there is a cloud of electrons and where they are at any given instant is a matter of probability. The probability does reflect the shells model in behaviour if not in physical layout.

Current flow in a wire is going to be like water flow in a river. Not all the water is going the same way at any given instant. This doesn't matter, the net flow is what counts.

They exist in excitation states.
Click to expand...
Yes, but this again is just a conceptual model based on probability. Chemistry is full of this. There's a model that explains why 2 photons, not 1, are required to trigger any single photosynthetic reaction. I studied it at great length. Whether I fully understood it is moot, but I could draw the schematic at one time. It involves a big Z showing 2 excitation levels. Is it really like that? Hmmm, not as such. But it's a way of displaying what's going on in a way that's consistent with the measured observations.

but are people that bothered?
Click to expand...
They would be if they thought that people could consistently hear a difference that couldn't be explained by changes to LCR and other known phenomena. The thing that we all overlook is how bloody unreliable our senses are, the golden-eared amongst us seem to think that they are equipped with a cross between an oscilloscope and the Hubble telescope on each side of their skull. They aren't, none of us are.
 
stevec67 said:
The thing that we all overlook is how bloody unreliable our senses are, the golden-eared amongst us seem to think that they are equipped with a cross between an oscilloscope and the Hubble telescope on each side of their skull. They aren't, none of us are.
Click to expand...

Please don't assume to speak for other peoples senses, the only perceptions which you can judge are yours and yours alone. What's the probability that someone has hearing that good ? 7,000,000,000 to 1 ? The accepted human hearing range is only based upon an average of what 10,000 people? 1,000,000 ? Normal only exists on paper.
 
I'm not speaking for other people's senses, I am commenting on the results of scientific studies into the senses and perception.

Normal isn't something on paper, it's a function of a population distribution. FWIW it's generally defined as anything within 2 SD of the mean, which is typically about 95% of any population. These kind of calculations are used to design things like hearing protection, amongst other things. Scientists don't just make this stuff up out of nowhere you know.
 
stevec67 said:
They would be if they thought that people could consistently hear a difference that couldn't be explained by changes to LCR and other known phenomena. The thing that we all overlook is how bloody unreliable our senses are, the golden-eared amongst us seem to think that they are equipped with a cross between an oscilloscope and the Hubble telescope on each side of their skull. They aren't, none of us are.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is the entire picture, by any means. How many reports by 'unreliable' witnesses does it take before there is a body of anecdotal evidence which a reasonable scientist would think worthy of further investigation?
 
stevec67 said:
I'm not speaking for other people's senses, I am commenting on the results of scientific studies into the senses and perception.

Normal isn't something on paper, it's a function of a population distribution. FWIW it's generally defined as anything within 2 SD of the mean, which is typically about 95% of any population. These kind of calculations are used to design things like hearing protection, amongst other things. Scientists don't just make this stuff up out of nowhere you know.
Click to expand...

Typical science, just ignores what it can't answer, what about the other 5% of the population ? that's well over 350 million people in global terms.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I don't think this is the entire picture, by any means. How many reports by 'unreliable' witnesses does it take before there is a body of anecdotal evidence which a reasonable scientist would think worthy of further investigation?
Click to expand...
Far more than a tiny percentage of a tiny group of hobbyists are likely to produce during any given timeframe. Besides, there's no money in it. Do you seriously think cable marketers and manufacturers want to put money into research whose findings have a 50% chance of putting them out of business?
 
That's a good question, even if it is a "how long is a piece of string?" question. Similarly obscure questions involving effectiveness of wrinkle creams, slimming pills and so on have been addressed. The engineering departments of corporations like Sony and Phillips have the means after all. If they came up with some coherent research they could clean up, because it's a totally novel phenomenon.
 
Hempknight said:
Typical science, just ignores what it can't answer, what about the other 5% of the population ? that's well over 350 million people in global terms.
Click to expand...
Typical non-scientist, just ignores what he can't immediately understand.;)
The other 5% are the tails of the curve. They aren't ignored. You could argue that in terms of sporting performance footballers and other athletes are the 5%. Do they get ignored? Not the last time I saw some football.
 
stevec67 said:
Typical non-scientist, just ignores what he can't immediately understand.;)
The other 5% are the tails of the curve. They aren't ignored. You could argue that in terms of sporting performance footballers and other athletes are the 5%. Do they get ignored? Not the last time I saw some football.
Click to expand...

Interesting that your willing to accept a footballer to have above average performance, but not someone else's hearing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top