Twl stated: "Airborne resonance energy(in the form of the music you are playing) enters the equipment, racks, or whatever, and can influence the sound of the music reproduction. We wish to minimize the effects of this by causing the resonant energy to be tranferred to the ground via our products(which are designed to rapidly transfer this energy). Floorborne resonance energy(caused by energy entering the floor from the music being played) is causing the floor to move as the resonant energy moves through the floor toward the ground state. Note that in both cases, we maintain that the energy is moving toward ground.
The reason that the energy will move toward ground is the law of thermodynamics which states that energy will seek the ground state via the path of least resistance. This is not something we made up."
Sean: I won't argue this point. The only thing that i will say is that the approach taken does NOT take into account that ANYTHING that comes into contact with the "energy" will end up dissipating at least a portion of it. How much of it is dissipated will depend upon how lossy that pathway or device in that pathway is easily resonated. That is, energy may be seeking "ground", but some of it is absorbed as it makes its' way there. If such were not the case, we would be able to sustain perpetual motion. But, due to frictional and thermal losses i.e. energy "lost along the way", this is not possible at this point in time.
In this specific situation, the energy that is "lost along the way" in its' path to seek "ground" ends up being dissipated in the components themselves. This is because they are directly coupled to the energy conduit i.e. there is no damping to isolate or absorb the "residue" that is being dissipated along that pathway. Common logic would dictate that overlooking such simple facts and hoping for the best is a less than optimized and / or realistic approach. Then again, Sistrum is not alone in these thoughts and methods, as most other products on the market use this same or similar approach. That is, they put all their eggs in one approach and forget to take into account that any given approach by itself will have side effects and draw-backs of its' own. If it didn't, it would be "perfect".
Twl stated: "A major argument seems to have been made that because our Audiopoints have materials and geometry that is designed to cause this Resonant Energy Transfer to happen in the most efficient manner that we can do, that "physical science" maintains that using the Audiopoint in an upside-down configuration on a Sistrum Platform will result in a less-than-ideal result. This seems to be based on the empirical hypothesis that "because it is geometrically optimized in shape, that it can only work best in one direction". However, when we contend that when additional items are introduced(added) into the design(such as a Sistrum Platform), that this may make a difference in the OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF THE PACKAGE AS A WHOLE, opponents do not understand or do not accept this point."
Sean: If one optimizes power transfer / minimizes losses in one particular direction, common sense would dictate reduced efficiency / increased losses flowing in the opposite direction. If such were not the case, the device wouldn't be specialized or measurably more effective in the given situation that it was optimized for. Like i said before, you can't say that it conducts energy more efficiently using one type of installation and use it in the absolute opposite / reverse fashion and claim it works just as efficiently. This is true regardless of the support components involved as the device itself is being used as the active conduit for the energy being transferred.
If you doubt this, think of a cone as a funnel. Changing the directional characteristics of the funnel will have a far greater influence on how energy is transferred than if i were to change the type of device underneath the funnel capturing the energy. While this is obviously not a perfect analogy, it is one that anyone with common sense can follow along with. There is no need for snake oil of any type when rational thinking is involved. Sean
>
The reason that the energy will move toward ground is the law of thermodynamics which states that energy will seek the ground state via the path of least resistance. This is not something we made up."
Sean: I won't argue this point. The only thing that i will say is that the approach taken does NOT take into account that ANYTHING that comes into contact with the "energy" will end up dissipating at least a portion of it. How much of it is dissipated will depend upon how lossy that pathway or device in that pathway is easily resonated. That is, energy may be seeking "ground", but some of it is absorbed as it makes its' way there. If such were not the case, we would be able to sustain perpetual motion. But, due to frictional and thermal losses i.e. energy "lost along the way", this is not possible at this point in time.
In this specific situation, the energy that is "lost along the way" in its' path to seek "ground" ends up being dissipated in the components themselves. This is because they are directly coupled to the energy conduit i.e. there is no damping to isolate or absorb the "residue" that is being dissipated along that pathway. Common logic would dictate that overlooking such simple facts and hoping for the best is a less than optimized and / or realistic approach. Then again, Sistrum is not alone in these thoughts and methods, as most other products on the market use this same or similar approach. That is, they put all their eggs in one approach and forget to take into account that any given approach by itself will have side effects and draw-backs of its' own. If it didn't, it would be "perfect".
Twl stated: "A major argument seems to have been made that because our Audiopoints have materials and geometry that is designed to cause this Resonant Energy Transfer to happen in the most efficient manner that we can do, that "physical science" maintains that using the Audiopoint in an upside-down configuration on a Sistrum Platform will result in a less-than-ideal result. This seems to be based on the empirical hypothesis that "because it is geometrically optimized in shape, that it can only work best in one direction". However, when we contend that when additional items are introduced(added) into the design(such as a Sistrum Platform), that this may make a difference in the OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF THE PACKAGE AS A WHOLE, opponents do not understand or do not accept this point."
Sean: If one optimizes power transfer / minimizes losses in one particular direction, common sense would dictate reduced efficiency / increased losses flowing in the opposite direction. If such were not the case, the device wouldn't be specialized or measurably more effective in the given situation that it was optimized for. Like i said before, you can't say that it conducts energy more efficiently using one type of installation and use it in the absolute opposite / reverse fashion and claim it works just as efficiently. This is true regardless of the support components involved as the device itself is being used as the active conduit for the energy being transferred.
If you doubt this, think of a cone as a funnel. Changing the directional characteristics of the funnel will have a far greater influence on how energy is transferred than if i were to change the type of device underneath the funnel capturing the energy. While this is obviously not a perfect analogy, it is one that anyone with common sense can follow along with. There is no need for snake oil of any type when rational thinking is involved. Sean
>
