There is no mention of where Mr. (not Dr.) Tsang took graduate school physics or any peer reviewed journal papers he at least co-authored to learn the specific quantum mechanics claimed to have been brought to bear in the design of his fuses. Why should we believe him after the unseasonable claim a fuse could make a difference anyone could hear in a double blind listening test. How far can overprice component makers go before we have to dismiss it as marketers who define success as getting the maximum price for the minimum cost?
There is so much junk science that can't be called out in this industry and it hurts business because it alienates outsiders who recognize legal-because-free-enterprise-makes-it-fair-game fraud. Look at loudspeaker cable manufacturers who warn us about skin effect requiring special cables costing over $25,000 a pair. At 20 kHz the skin effect reduces the effective cross area of a 12 gauge cable by less than 3% which in series with a 4 Ohm speaker load not to mention amplifier output impedance is a minuscule fraction of total circuit resistance at DC which translates to a few thousandths of a db. This can be calculated. It proves a manufacturer who sells you the need to spend thousands to correct for skin effect is dishonest and should, along with everyone of its kind, never enjoy credibility again. There is an "audiophile" power cord costing $20,000. Not only should claims it makes your sound system sound better be dismissed, but those who claim to hear a difference are either experiencing placebo effect and/or they lying about as many details such as things that would make a double blind listening test valid or trying to defend their belief they were not fooled when they spent over $100,000 to put these power cords on all their components.How far can non-scientists go claiming quantum mechanical breakthroughs without knowing anything about Schrodinger's differential equations and wave functions and how high can their prices go before people realize it is fraud.But more important, how much unearned wealth can they suck out of the economy through scams before their theft becomes as morally offensive as a merchant short changing a blind person handing her $1 bills in change in place of $100 bills which are correct?
