In November of last year I posted a Vertasium YT vid titled "The Big Misconception About Electricity". Well it caused quite a stir and like an arachnid had many legs many of which attempted to draw A'gonrs into the poison fangs!
Well, here is the follow-up to that original vid which caused quite a stir in the "intellectual" community as well.
Vertasium "How Electricity Actually Works".
This does have implications for our audio cabling...
@jimrobie however, a DC distribution system would be quite complicated and would replace very simple devices (transformers) with very complicated devices for transforming DC voltages. DC arcing is must nastier than AC too. Even getting a high voltage DC shock is more dangerous. In our audio equipment, we would still need to convert from a high voltage to a low voltage. There is potential for power savings of course.
local 3 Phase DC
That would be AC at that point. You need changing fields to make the motor work. You could remove the AC to DC part, but would still need the DC to AC part.
Yes about all of the above. i was referring, in the future, not needing anything but a local household distribution system - Solar and adequate battery storage and skip the inverter. No high amperage electric resistance appliances in the house. Conduction stove, gas or heat pump for heating, hot water, dryer, I wasn't proposing DC on the grid. yes that's why i mentioned safety issues. Yes DC kind of grabs on and won't let go. LOL. I wasn't speaking technically about 3 phase DC. Controller using PWM simulates alternating current three phase using DC. Change the HZ changes the speed and maintains good torque curve. Very Efficient - especially if you can skip the first step and don't need the inverter.
Thank you for establishing the point I made, in my first post to this thread.
ie: Physicists have been debating how electromagnetism (one of the four known forces), atomic structure/electrons, Particle/Wave Theory, etc, work for numerous decades (ie: most notably, since 1927 Solvay).
Particularly interesting was the constant arguing, between Bohr and Einstein* at that conference. *(Who actually were and always remained friends/mutual admirers)
Since then: many of the theories Bohr (et al) put forth, contrary to Einstein's criticisms, have been proven correct, regarding Quantum Mechanics/atomic structure, Quantum Entanglement, photons, etc. Thankfully, a multitude of SS electronic devices have resulted, from the furtherance of those studies.
It's those studies, and the truths/measurements gleaned, on which I base my opinions/hypotheses, far as the differences many of us hear in our systems, when making various changes/upgrades/tweaks.
Much of Einstein's (Special & General) Relativity has also been proven correct, on the macro scale. Probably: more to come as our abilities to observe and measure evolve.
Einstein spend the better part of his latter years, in an effort to reconcile Quantum mechanics and Relativity, (a Grand Unification Theory) to no avail.
An interesting side note: Einstein scoffed at the possibility of Black Holes, though it was his own theory on gravity, that led to their prediction. Even the Great One, himself, wasn't immune to the tendency.
Telsa, as mentioned: I regard as an innovator and regardless of his views on Einstein's theories, he gave the planet a plethora of inventions, that that made the every-day much easier. A number, for which others were given the credit.
Too bad he didn't have better business acumen.
Tesla said the following on the theory of relativity in a 1935 New York Times interview: "The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors.
Someone got the last laugh, and it was not Tesla. Einstein was both confident and humble. Tesla not so much.
It’s those studies, and the truths/measurements gleaned, on which I base my opinions/hypotheses, far as the differences many of us hear in our systems, when making various changes/upgrades/tweaks.
Any measurements or truths would clearly indicate that your opinions and hypothesis have no foundational basis and are just that, opinions and hypothesis with no theoretical or experimental validity. It is laudable that you are reading material and seeking out information that perhaps is outside the comfort zone of previous experience, however, from my view, you are not doing this to gain overall knowledge, but in the hopes of finding tidbits that support your preconceived ideas as opposed to understanding the totality of what you are reading and then seeking out further knowledge that will help you understand better what you are reading.
Einstein, like all big brains was confident perhaps to the point of arrogance (at times). However, he was also humble enough to admit he was wrong and did that when he was proven wrong.
When Einstein submitted a paper arguing that gravitational waves don't exist to Physical Review, the journal’s editor sent it back to for revisions. Outraged, Einstein withdrew it. By the time he submitted it to another journal, he had corrected his mistake. The revised paper argued that gravitational waves do, in fact, exist.
Almost every "great" physicist and engineer I have worked with will argue to the death that they are right. When you are in their field, they are not humble. However, what separates them from the not great ones is while they are arguing to the death, there is a little voice in their head going "maybe I am wrong". Arguing to the death is part of their process, even if unconsciously, for testing and refining their ideas. The not great ones don't have that voice. Their arguments become emotional, perhaps personal, and they won't go back and look for errors and test their hypothesis, but will look for reasons they are right. Even when it becomes obvious, even to them, that they are wrong, they look for ways to make it seem like something extraneous was responsible for their failing.
Thank you for establishing the point I made, in an earlier post, regarding not always believing oneself to be THE POPE!
As I posted::
Feynman was and will remain, my favorite lecturer (yeah: I’m that old).
He mentioned often (and: I took to heart) his favorite Rule of Life: "Never stop learning!"
For all his genius, he never grew overly confident in his beliefs. The perfect obverse to the Dunning-Kruger sufferer.
ie: “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.”
and: “I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.”
Tesla is probably my favorite innovator, who (despite the incessant, projectile vomit, from his day’s naysayers), took the World, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century, with his inventions.
"However, what separates them from the not great ones is while they are arguing to the death, there is a little voice in their head going "maybe I am wrong". "
@builder3 I'd say that there are a lot of affluent people here...seems there is a low positive correlation between detailed technical knowledge and fiscal success.
------
Just as there's an obvious and direct correlation between how impressed you are with yourself and how much of a complete jack**s you are
When I don't understand something and my head starts spinning I just remind myself the earth is the center of the universe and not to wander over the edge.
Some day we will understand electricity, but today is not that day.
Would it be possible for the primaries here, in what I find to be a "very interesting" debate! To attempt a simple step or two back to take a breath, reset and recompose??
I am sure you both realize the typically futile "rabbit hole" that some would inexplicably begin to journey "down" at this point. And I for one would really hope that it's digression into a purely |tit for tat|, type. Replete with name calling, all while "each is dreaming of", furiously yet efficiently, pulling tufts of the others hair out, thus ending this discussion with a "God-Mode Deletion", by the ('A 'Gon-Lords on high), would be very sad indeed.
"Whew"
And maybe someone has even noticed just how far "Theory" as some would so simply name it. Has come "Since 1978"!
I think the simple answer to "Does this have implications for audio cabling" is no. I didn't see anything in the presentation that would make a whit of difference anymore than it would to television, refrigeration, lighting, power recliners, coffee machines or any other electric devices in your house. I can't understand why some watch these videos and then go off into the twilight zone of cables. The Therory presented here hasn't changed since 1978 the only thing that's changed is we have the internet and the ability to explain these phenomena outside academia has improved.
"Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." (Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse , 1872)
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," (Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873)
"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." (Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University)
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible!" (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895)
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." (Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923)
"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." (Dr. Lee DeForest, Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television)
"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." (Admiral William Leahy, re: US Atomic Bomb Project)
Apparently: THAT cables in audio work, is evident to quite a number of people.
Numerous cable companies have been in operation for decades and doing quite well on the premise, including Used Cable/The Cable Company.
Some bank on the hope, to the degree: they offer your $$ back, if you disagree.
That’s not a new thing, either. ie: On page 310, of the April 1993 Stereophile, Synergistic Research offered to send four different interconnect and two different speaker cable designs (their entire line, at the time*), to audition in the home, for 15 days, risk-free.
*Ted obviously understands: everything doesn’t always work with everything else.
What some call, "variables".
There was even an 800 number(free is good)!
Of course: the term, "works" is totally subjective and what works for me, won't necessarily work for you.
I think the simple answer to "Does this have implications for audio cabling" is no. I didn’t see anything in the presentation that would make a whit of difference anymore than it would to television, refrigeration, lighting, power recliners, coffee machines or any other electric devices in your house.
For those that continue to believe electrons, electric charge, carry the energy from the power plant to our homes would be living in the dark if true.... The energy generated at the power plant would never leave the plant. It is impossible for electrons/electric charge to jump across the the gap from the primary winding to the secondary winding of the step up transformers at the power plant. But yet the electrical energy that is generated at the power plant is the same electrical energy that enters our homes. The electric charge never gets past the primary winding of the step up transformers at the plant. The electric charge pretty much just vibrates in place and moves as slow as cold maple syrup in the closed circuit loop.
It is impossible for those stunk in the belief that an audio signal flows back and forth in a conductor from a source to an amplifier or to a speaker to understand how an interconnect or speaker cable could possibly sound different from one another. But yet for many of us they do...
Would it be possible for the primaries here, in what I find to be a "very interesting" debate! To attempt a simple step or two back to take a breath, reset and recompose??
When half the primaries substitute wishful thinking for reality and make calls to magic based on ignoring 100+ years in the development of our knowledge, then the answer to your question would be no.
Some here need to accept that their knowledge in this area is akin to a car mechanic offering to do heart surgery. Posting links of things you barely grasp does not change that. Don't feel bad, many cable vendors appear to have even less knowledge. The models we have are exceptionally precise to very small scales and very high (and low frequencies). Learning new things does not negate present models no more than relativity negated Newton's laws for the vast majority of the human experience to exceptional precision .
It is impossible for those stunk in the belief that an audio signal flows back and forth in a conductor from a source to an amplifier or to a speaker to understand how an interconnect or speaker cable could possibly sound different from one another. But yet for many of us they do...
My knowledge is well beyond this, but that still leaves absolutely nothing put forth by cable vendors or any here, beyond the most basic of parameters, that there is any mechanism that is relevant.
@jea48Thanks for the links, Jim. Upon review, rcrumps concern and method was to make certain that each hot wire and each return wire was oriented in the opposite direction so as to maximize the current-carrying advantages of the wire’s direction. He recommended listening to the cable before deciding which way to install it, and then, supposedly, marking the finished cable’s optimum directionality. And, further the discussion applied only to solid core conductors. And they were building interconnects. I’m sure that a cable’s directionality is related to the topic of this thread, How Electricity Works, I just not sure how. The concept of wire being directional was new to me, and I was curious, thanks again for helping me out.
Come on guys, I read some of that Crump stuff. The best word I can come up with is lunacy. If you are experiencing:
"Interconnects or speaker wires that have pianos wandering all over the stage normally have their signal and return going in the same direction"
It is time to put down the wacky tobaccy or whatever else you are on, or throw out the record or pick a different recording. This sounds like someone who has convinced themselves of something, and now hears it all the time. I don’t think that is wire direction, I think that is paranoia. If there is any validity to this audiophile tale, I expect it comes down to cleaning contacts and eventually getting it right, but it could have gone either way, literally.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
