Rower,
You said:
You seem to be a little too easy to get upset about some things so it's going to be hard to please you. I'll do my best.
My response:
Nothing could be further from the truth. Your statement is a diversionary tactic being used in an attempt to push blame on others rather than admit to your own arrogance. It is a common enough tactic, many people use it.
You said:
Zero capacitance? Sure, my perfect conductor example was just that.
My response:
NO, you stated that when the insulation is a vacuum, there is no capacitance.
Here, I'll refresh your memory...you said this exact thing on 3/15/2013:
4.0 The dielectric would be a vacuum so we have ZERO capacitance and velocity would be 100%.
My response to that was No, a vacuum dielectric does not have zero capacitance.
In addition, I provided the free space permittivity number, 8.854 times 10 to the MINUS 12 farads/meter.
You then stated :
That number is much higher than I would have expected, too.
My response...
Your kidding, right? I provide a physical constant, free space permittivity, and you say it's higher than you expected??? This physical constant is taught to ALL physicists and engineers, as well as in every AP physics course in high school I've become familiar with. It is needed to calculate capacitance. You've never seen it before, have you.
It is also "odd" that someone would thing that the number .000000000008854 is "larger than expected"..
This statement of yours is a very clear indication:
3.0 Carries energy in BOTH directions at the exact same time. Umm...this is a short circuit in reality.
My response:
WHAT???? A SHORT CIRCUIT????
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS WHEN IT COMES TO TRANSMISSION LINE THEORY, FREE SPACE WAVE PROPAGATION, AND EVEN SIGNALS TRAVELLING THROUGH INDIVIDUAL CONDUCTORS.
Pay attention.
There are many websites out there which explain transmission lines and signal propagation. Find them and learn from them.
You stated:
I can't say I grasp speaker cable impedance at such low frequencies as they "rise" as the frequency drops, making consistent low impedances at audio seem implausible, at least to my way of thinking about the measurements. My guess is if you look at the cable like a T-line, the impedance is the same at any cable length. Of course, the low pass nature of the cable changes too.
My response:
I CAN say I grasp cable impedance. I can say I understand real skin effect. I can say I understand transmission line theory. The reason:
I am an EE. I do this for a living. I've done so for 35 years now. And I do it at a level which unfortunately, makes my resume incomprehensible to almost all EE's at the ScB level, most at the masters.
I am more than happy to share my understandings on the web so that others may learn.
I am not so happy when wannabe "engineers" attempt to use arrogance, belittlement, hobbyist website content, and rambling incoherent prose disguised as "technical speak" to badger others. Your type of "engineering" is one of the primary reasons cables and cable discussions are stuck in a quagmire.
I have provided valid reasons why cables can sound different, speakers, IC's, as well as power cords. Not that they all do, but rather, the physics processes which do impact the electrical function at some level.
That stated, if you wish to discuss actual technical things and how they can alter sound, fine. I've no problem with that. But you have to drop the shtick, it's old, it's worn, and you can't support the technical arguments.
jn
You said:
You seem to be a little too easy to get upset about some things so it's going to be hard to please you. I'll do my best.
My response:
Nothing could be further from the truth. Your statement is a diversionary tactic being used in an attempt to push blame on others rather than admit to your own arrogance. It is a common enough tactic, many people use it.
You said:
Zero capacitance? Sure, my perfect conductor example was just that.
My response:
NO, you stated that when the insulation is a vacuum, there is no capacitance.
Here, I'll refresh your memory...you said this exact thing on 3/15/2013:
4.0 The dielectric would be a vacuum so we have ZERO capacitance and velocity would be 100%.
My response to that was No, a vacuum dielectric does not have zero capacitance.
In addition, I provided the free space permittivity number, 8.854 times 10 to the MINUS 12 farads/meter.
You then stated :
That number is much higher than I would have expected, too.
My response...
Your kidding, right? I provide a physical constant, free space permittivity, and you say it's higher than you expected??? This physical constant is taught to ALL physicists and engineers, as well as in every AP physics course in high school I've become familiar with. It is needed to calculate capacitance. You've never seen it before, have you.
It is also "odd" that someone would thing that the number .000000000008854 is "larger than expected"..
This statement of yours is a very clear indication:
3.0 Carries energy in BOTH directions at the exact same time. Umm...this is a short circuit in reality.
My response:
WHAT???? A SHORT CIRCUIT????
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS WHEN IT COMES TO TRANSMISSION LINE THEORY, FREE SPACE WAVE PROPAGATION, AND EVEN SIGNALS TRAVELLING THROUGH INDIVIDUAL CONDUCTORS.
Pay attention.
There are many websites out there which explain transmission lines and signal propagation. Find them and learn from them.
You stated:
I can't say I grasp speaker cable impedance at such low frequencies as they "rise" as the frequency drops, making consistent low impedances at audio seem implausible, at least to my way of thinking about the measurements. My guess is if you look at the cable like a T-line, the impedance is the same at any cable length. Of course, the low pass nature of the cable changes too.
My response:
I CAN say I grasp cable impedance. I can say I understand real skin effect. I can say I understand transmission line theory. The reason:
I am an EE. I do this for a living. I've done so for 35 years now. And I do it at a level which unfortunately, makes my resume incomprehensible to almost all EE's at the ScB level, most at the masters.
I am more than happy to share my understandings on the web so that others may learn.
I am not so happy when wannabe "engineers" attempt to use arrogance, belittlement, hobbyist website content, and rambling incoherent prose disguised as "technical speak" to badger others. Your type of "engineering" is one of the primary reasons cables and cable discussions are stuck in a quagmire.
I have provided valid reasons why cables can sound different, speakers, IC's, as well as power cords. Not that they all do, but rather, the physics processes which do impact the electrical function at some level.
That stated, if you wish to discuss actual technical things and how they can alter sound, fine. I've no problem with that. But you have to drop the shtick, it's old, it's worn, and you can't support the technical arguments.
jn