Quick power cord question:

"Holy hanna... Brighter? You better hope not, that is a sign of bad not good...REALLY it is...

ALL, EVERY BIT of the kidding aside, brighter is NOT GOOD!!"

As (oldhvymec) said, brighter is not better.

That's not what he said. Goodness, the lengths some will go to.

?????????????????

"... that can be another way of saying that it's making it (the dielectric) resistant to RFI without the need to spell it out, rendering the patent moot so others can't copy it."

Wouldn't that make patent more, rather than less, vulnerable to copying without protection?

There was at least one patent lawyer on Audiogon. If she/he is around, maybe clarification would help.

That " invention" of the patent linked to earlier has to do with polarization of dielectrics. It is based on the assumption that the dielectric of cables burn in and every time no current is running through the cable it reverts to its pre burn in state. We're  talking about the positive and negative of the molecules in the insulation all lining up in a pretty row. So to avoid this catastrophe a constant electrical charge is applied to the dielectric which isn’t in the signal (can’t do that Monster Cable patented that brilliant idea). Of course even if this constant burn in state of dielectrics matters from a supply of current perspective there’s no evidence any of this would be audible to humans or porpoises.

@ OZZY= More ’’power’’ then the wall socket and the wall wiring can deliver? No. The power draw of all appliances is by its design. Not by the power cord. As (oldhvymec) said, brighter is not better.

That's not what he said. Goodness, the lengths some will go to.

I hope that the completeness makes it clear.

Wouldn't that make patent more, rather than less, vulnerable to copying without protection?

That was speculation on my part, not being well versed in such matters. The one you allude to would be Almarg, who is/was a patent attorney.

All the best,
Nonoise