Twl -
"I think it far more likely that these same people lack the necessary technical understanding to grasp the obvious explanations that have been put forth several times on this thread already."
Your statement is that your rack's design rests on a theory of unidirectional energy flow based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is nothing obvious about this 'technical explanation' except that it is a simplistic and inadequate analysis of the transfers of energy involved. The second law of thermodynamics says that energy flows from a source to a sink, that it takes work to force it to flow in the opposite direction, and, (in the fine print) that this flow often becomes irreversible because of the difficulty of reassembling the dispersed energy.
Let's neglect for a moment the building structure sitting between your rack and the earth. Earth's crust has its own vibrational frequency sensitivity - it does not propagate higher frequencies well but readily propagates low frequencies (trucks, earthquakes, low & constant seismic activity). The directions and distance of propagation vary with crust structure and force magnitudes.
The meaning of this from a rack's point of view is that earth can be a sink at some frequencies and a source at others.
As to your statement about anything sitting on the floor/ground moving along with the floor/ground : you're missing the point. The force/energy analysis of a rack sitting on a vertically vibrating floor is not different than that of a component on a shelf experiencing airborne vibration - but is more complicated. It now includes gravity as well as higher magnitude translational forces.
The reason for the lack of response to your statements is that anyone trained in physics or engineering knows that adequate analysis of these energy transfers is a complicated process of theory and measurement. I don't happen to think that Audiogon is the right place for such a discussion, and I agree that the thread should be allowed to die.
"I think it far more likely that these same people lack the necessary technical understanding to grasp the obvious explanations that have been put forth several times on this thread already."
Your statement is that your rack's design rests on a theory of unidirectional energy flow based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is nothing obvious about this 'technical explanation' except that it is a simplistic and inadequate analysis of the transfers of energy involved. The second law of thermodynamics says that energy flows from a source to a sink, that it takes work to force it to flow in the opposite direction, and, (in the fine print) that this flow often becomes irreversible because of the difficulty of reassembling the dispersed energy.
Let's neglect for a moment the building structure sitting between your rack and the earth. Earth's crust has its own vibrational frequency sensitivity - it does not propagate higher frequencies well but readily propagates low frequencies (trucks, earthquakes, low & constant seismic activity). The directions and distance of propagation vary with crust structure and force magnitudes.
The meaning of this from a rack's point of view is that earth can be a sink at some frequencies and a source at others.
As to your statement about anything sitting on the floor/ground moving along with the floor/ground : you're missing the point. The force/energy analysis of a rack sitting on a vertically vibrating floor is not different than that of a component on a shelf experiencing airborne vibration - but is more complicated. It now includes gravity as well as higher magnitude translational forces.
The reason for the lack of response to your statements is that anyone trained in physics or engineering knows that adequate analysis of these energy transfers is a complicated process of theory and measurement. I don't happen to think that Audiogon is the right place for such a discussion, and I agree that the thread should be allowed to die.