How Electricity Actually Works

The electrons have to fight their way along the wrong direction, and have an easy path going the right way.

?? What the crap? Maybe that's why electrons only drift about .02 micrometers in AC they're always confused as to the right direction.

 

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.

@jea48 Thanks 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. 

@oldrooney

I received your PM. Agon blocks Web Links in a PM... Below are some posts from the Late rcrump, ( Bob Crump) that may help.

Here is one post of rcrump’s from the thread.

https://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=cables&n=12372&highlight=rcrump+wire+direction

 

Here is the entire thread.

https://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=cables&n=12332&highlight=rcrump+wire+direction

Here is another thread where rcrump talks about about wire directionality.

Main thread.

https://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=cables&n=12417&highlight=solid+core+wire+is+directional&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fforum%3Dset%26searchtext%3Daudio%2Bmirror

rcrump’s post.

https://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=cables&n=12428&highlight=solid+core+wire+is+directional&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fforum%3Dset%26searchtext%3Daudio%2Bmirror

Jim

 

I would like to say a hearty thanks to all who participated.  Pretty neat that it did not devolve into...well you know.

Regards,

barts

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.

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 .

 

 

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...

     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'm OK with that!  

    

 

 

Then there's hope,  since they way cables in audio works is self evident to most people.

"All truth passes through three stages.

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed.

Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer
German Philosopher 1788-1860

Regards,

barts

     "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)

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.

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"!

A very detailed and interesting lecture. Much different than the theory taught in 1978.

@rodman99999 ,

No, I think you completely missed the point.

May I suggest a bell curve when grading the responses here?  🤡

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.

 

To carlsbad

581 posts

05-01-2022 at 01:01pm 

@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

@deludedaudiophile -

     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". "

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.

                                                                    n.w.o.r.:

     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.

 

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.

 

@deludedaudiophile-

     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.

 

      

 

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.   

@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.

 

 

    You mentioned not knowing a tenth of a percent.

     The percentage of what we know about our universe, is recognized by Scientists/Physicists as 4-5%.

In order to put a percentage on what we don't know, you would have to know accurately what there is to know which is impossible if you only know 1/10% of 4-5%.  I am always amazed by just how much we collectively do know.

There are some interesting and amusing arguments regarding E and B fields and their uses in this thread. Some of what I read here makes me seriously wonder about our education system.

 

That is a bit of a drive-by @audio-union. Can you comment on what specific items are at issue and if they have been suitably addressed?

@deludedaudiophile

 

The wind does not spin the propeller, it moves the car whose wheels are connected to the propeller causing it to spin.

I think that’s the key concept that allows the effect to happen. It still remains difficult for me to fully visualize. It's like a very good magic trick. It won’t work if you aren’t connected to the ground. Too bad, because then airplanes with no power plant could just magically make headway into the wind!

@deludedaudiophile

 

 

 -

Thanks for injecting some sanity into this thread.

I think and i guess i hope that we are heading back to DC current.  Solar panels and Wind Power generate DC, Batteries store in DC, LED run on DC, really efficient motors use inverters to produce clean 3 phase A/C, but could skip the loss of the inverter and run on local 3 Phase DC.  There are limitations and problems and maybe safety concerns.  It would add huge efficiency if we could skip all the inverters, skip the inefficient grid and power plant.  some day.   

Lucky for those in this hobby we've managed to blindly stumble upon enough to record and reproduce that recording to an amazing accuracy. Good thing it didn't require us to dissect the Universe. 

We know enough just to get by.

@djones51 -

     According to you: "This thread is a discussion about the weirdness or non intuitivness of electricity not the audibility of fuses and wires in sound systems."

                                  According to the OP's initial post:

This does have implications for our audio cabling...

Regards,

barts

 

@barts -

                          You mentioned not knowing a tenth of a percent.

     The percentage of what we know about our universe, is recognized by Scientists/Physicists as 4-5%.

     Multiple Billions have been/are being spent, in an effort to find out what exactly comprises the other 96%, of the matter and energy, Physicists know surrounds us.

     Einstein recognized there was a whole lot of stuff missing, when he came up with his Math on gravity and considered it his greatest blunder (having to add Lambda/the Cosmological Constant) 

                          Too bad he didn't live to see that proven!

        There are some interesting theories, as to what's going on around us:

 https://science.time.com/2013/02/20/telescope-to-hunt-for-missing-96-of-the-universe/

 

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

 

https://www.livescience.com/multiverse

 

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8847863/holographic-principle-universe-theory-physics

 

http://httpblogsscientificamericancomdegrees-of-freedom20110725what-do-you-mean-the-universe-is-flat-part-i/#

 

https://www.livescience.com/strange-theories-about-the-universe.html

I am just an engineer. I worked chemical, electrical, and mechanical engineering. Part of my career I designed Mobile Electric Power equipment, I designed generators. Not just any generator, but one that was hard to detect. The technology is referred to as Low Observable. There are some interesting and amusing arguments regarding E and B fields and their uses in this thread. Some of what I read here makes me seriously wonder about our education system.

We as a species don't know a tenth of a percent about anything? Pretty pessimistic view of Homosapiens.

@deludedaudiophile , thank you

@jw944ts ,

How does the insulation and multistrand design of most of our cables enter into this discussion? 

 

How? Well if I am trying to sell cables that realistically don't sound any different from anyone else, but I want to make it seem like maybe, perhaps it does, then I will bring up insulation, and all kinds of other things that technically have a measurable impact on the wires, but for the purposes of analog audio are completely meaningless so that I can appear differentiated.

 

multistrand design

Flexibility and does improve skin effect but I expect skin effect is not an issue unless you are running a single solid core 18awg, which I don't think anyone is are they?  That was a quick back of envelope estimate for where it may be an issue.

 

Secondly, in light of the role of the fields around the wires, does the separation of the two wires ultimately have an effect?

 

Yes it increases inductance. In any normal construction this is likely to have no audible impact. A poor cable and electrostatic speakers from my limited research may have an issue. I did a quick review of a bunch of speakers impedance plots after my discovery about the high Fidelium resistance.

 

I will raise the issue that for all the marketing claims of cables, the only specifications I could find where inductance, resistance and capacitance. One or two alluded to skin effect, but nothing concrete. No other parameters were provided.

 

 

@rodman99999 

Thank you for posting the links.  

I have only one theory and that is:  As a species we simply don't know a tenth of a percent about anything.

We may know what works and what doesn't but that's about where it ends.  I'm not attempting to be cute or controversial...call it a belief system if you like.

I'm happy that this posting didn't go off the rails like the last one and enjoy reading this thread.

Regards,

barts  

after following this academic debate, and how/if it matters for audio signal transmission, I am left with some questions.  How does the insulation and multistrand design of most of our cables enter into this discussion?  Secondly, in light of the role of the fields around the wires, does the separation of the two wires ultimately have an effect?  AND FINALLY, though this all may matter for those that design  cables, to the end user, isnt the sound all that matters?

@jea48,

 

Since the energy is present and it is not in the conductors it must be in the space between the conductors. This is true for sine waves or square waves at all frequencies including dc. This one idea is not often discussed in circuit theory. This one idea solves most interference problems. This one idea is at the heart of a good circuit board layout. If the energy that represents information is carried in spaces it makes sense that we must keep these spaces free from interfering fields.

I don’t really like this statement for a few reasons:

• The electrical field is predominantly between the two conductors. Not exclusively but predominantly,
• While true at DC, this creates a false impression of what will/is happening. If you have two stationary potentials, you can have an e-field, but there is no induced current and hence no magnetic field and hence no Poynting vector, no energy transfer. At least one of those wires must varying in potential which will cause a varying electrical field which will cause the electrons in the other wire to move, inducing a magnetic field, hence energy transfer. You may recognize this by a different name. Capacitor! Hence why in the real world, when people are working on PCBs, they use parasitics extraction software to model the unintentional capacitors and inductors. That is done at the chip level too.
• Just keeping the "spaces" between two conductors involved in the transfer of a signal, where most of the field is, "clear" of fields is only 1/2 the problem. The issue is other non-static fields between either wire and other things. There is both the issue of electrical fields and magnetic fields for interference of course and I don’t think this description does a good job of magnetic interference.

 

Can we say as a matter of fact the signal does not travel in the conductor but rather outside the conductor in the space between the conductors?

We can say that energy is transferred in the space outside the conductor predominantly. I personally don’t like to use the word signal, as the "signal" at least in an analog form is impacted by the nature of the conductor and if the conductor alters the signal, then you cannot negate that it is involved in information transfer, even if they energy is outside the conductor. I say that as a personal viewpoint. Others may take a less nuanced or alternate view.

Would you agree the signal voltage creates the EM wave? If not how would define, explain, it.

The signal voltage moves the electrons which creates the magnetic field which together are an EM field. However, a magnetic field can move electrons and moving electrons (charges) in a magnetic field induces an electrical field so ... chicken and egg.

 

Is the Law of Physics considered theory? If yes then why not Ohms Law considered theory? I don’t think the Late Ralph Morrison considered it theory.

Ohm’s law is neither a law nor theory in the traditional sense. It is a best an empirical law, and at worse an inaccurate definition, the original definition being that other conditions keep constant, the current in a conductor will be proportional to the applied voltage. Somewhere along the line it became I = V/R, which with a theoretical perfect R is true, but this is really a definition, not a law. This is much different from say laws of thermodynamics which are universal in their application and appear inviolable, but even that is up for debate.

 

Also am I wrong in saying there are multitudes of varying signal EM waves in a typical analog recording? Vocal(s), musical instruments.. I would say it is quite complex to say the least. Am I wrong?

 

I almost don’t want to answer this. Conceptually this is different from say photons (light) singular with specific wavelengths and energy potential. If you look at the electrical field, technically every single pair of excess charges creates a field, so there is not a multitude, there is a near infinite number, and every accelerating electron also has associated a magnetic field that other electrons interact with as well. So there is at once a near infinite number of fields, and one overall field.

You will note I said fields, and not waves? That was intentional. Electromagnetic waves are self propagating electric and magnetic fields travelling in free space. That is not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with propagating and varying electromagnetic fields. --- Anything beyond this gets too complicated and we get into propagating and non propagating solutions to Maxwell’s equations, wave functions, etc. By generally accepted definitions, what occurs in conductors is not EM waves, but propagating time variant EM fields. A key differentiation is EM waves are self oscillating, but the fields in our circuits are not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@deludedaudiophile

Thanks for the response.

Your comments are on par with things I have read since 2010 on the subject matter.

I read nothing in your post that differed from what the Late Ralph Morrison, Herman (agon member), the Late almarg (agon member), William J Beaty ( Misconceptions Spread By K-6 Textbooks: "Electricity"), Ian M. Sefton (School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Australia), and countless others I consider authorities on the subject matter.

 

I knew better when I said the load consumes energy. It really doesn’t. Energy is not consumed... I like your term the energy is transferred.

 

Question:

Is the Law of Physics considered theory? If yes then why not Ohms Law considered theory? I don’t think the Late Ralph Morrison considered it theory.

His words:

Storing or moving energy.

There is a common misconception that signals are carried in conductors. Somehow this association crosses over to the idea that conductors carry both signals and energy. A few simple calculations can show that this is a false idea. Consider a 50-ohm transmission line carrying a 5-volt logic signal. The initial current at switch closure is 500 mA. A typical trace is a a gram-mole of copper that has 6 x 10²³ copper atoms (Avogadro’s number). Each atom can contribute one electron to current flow. Knowing the charge on an electron makes it easy to show that the average electron velocity for 500 mA is a few centimeters per second. What is even more interesting is that only a trillion electrons are involved in this current flow. This means that only one electron in a trillion carries the current. This also says that the magnetic field that moves energy is not located in the conductors. The only explanation that makes sense is that energy in the magnetic field must be located in the space between two conductors.Conductors end up directing energy flow - not carrying the energy.

The electric field in the conductor that causes current flow presents a similar picture. For a transmission line trace 5 mils above a ground plane, the electric field strength in the space under the trace is about 49,000 V/m. The electric field inside the conductor might be 0.1 V per meter. Energy in an electric field is proportional to field strength squared. The ratio of the square of field strengths in and near a conductor is about 2.4 x 10¹¹. It is safe to say that there is very little electric or magnetic field energy in a trace or conducting plane. Since the energy is present and it is not in the conductors it must be in the space between the conductors. This is true for sine waves or square waves at all frequencies including dc. This one idea is not often discussed in circuit theory. This one idea solves most interference problems. This one idea is at the heart of a good circuit board layout. If the energy that represents information is carried in spaces it makes sense that we must keep these spaces free from interfering fields. The path should also control the characteristic impedance so there are controlled reflections. What we really need to do is supply a smooth path for logic energy flow.

The math part is over my head... Do you disagree with what Morrison said? Where would you differ?

 

Can we say as a matter of fact the signal does not travel in the conductor but rather outside the conductor in the space between the conductors?

Would you agree the signal voltage creates the EM wave? If not how would define, explain, it.

Also am I wrong in saying there are multitudes of varying signal EM waves in a typical analog recording? Vocal(s), musical instruments.. I would say it is quite complex to say the least. Am I wrong?

Best regards,

Jim

the likes of czarivey, djones51, etal-

Electrons flow?

I never said electrons flow, though they do drift. This thread is a discussion about the weirdness or non intuitivness of electricity not the audibility of fuses and wires in sound systems. You like Feynman, here you go.

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html

 

While you're at it you might want to brush up on what a scientific Theory is, it's not Billy Bob Bodine guessing why beer has bubbles.

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.

The number of Wiki-Scientists on these pages, attempting to win the IG-Nobel Prize in Pseudo-Physics, is always amusing.

I believe the Wiki-Scientist award goes to those who post the most links and use the fewest of their own words.

I will say one thing though. Within a framework of audio, 99.99% if not 100% of this discussion is meaningless since 100+ year old physical models are far more than sufficient to describe anything happening unless you are the guy working on the semiconductor processes and device physics underpinning the chips and discrete semiconductor components no matter what you may read on a forum or in marketing literature which makes all of this an academic discussion in a non-academic forum.