Power Cords Snake Oil ??

Hi Eldartford and Hw61:

Ya 61, their unit is almost as big as mine but mine is bigger!

However, it's not so much the choice of Bell wire or zipcord. It's the proprietary treatment of the wire that counts. My zip- cord is CryoThermionically treated. This process is based on extensive studies on the signal when we are more than 1,000,000,000db down on the main signal! We could never get there without the signal accelerator. At this fundamental level the signal is not broken down into anthing that resembles tiny strings so much but rather tiny vibrating jock-straps! Some people will scoff at this I am sure, but who cares what the bone-headed, number-crunching crowd thinks! As I see there are many non-believers in this thread I think it incombent upon myself to establish my credentials with regard to such research and I invite Corona to do the same.

Clueless
Curriculum Vitae

-Kicked out of High School Physics for naming R&B Band “Fourier Transform.”

-Kicked out of band for naming it “Fourier Transform.”

-Depressed and desolate, begin lifetime obsession of collecting and sorting discarded lamp cord in basement.

-Graduated: with High Honors: Omar’s_ OnlineElectronics Degrees.com

-Published: “101 Audio Uses for Lamp Cord”, Lamp Cord Review Journal, Vol. XXVII, NO.34, pg. 217.

-Elected: “Fellow” to the prestigious “A.O.K.” (Association of Online Know-it-alls)

-Patent Pending: No. 1,005,560, “CryoThermionic Rectifier”(CTR Tech.Inc.). Simultaneously chills, burns and rectifies lamp cord into really righteous cable.

-Show Stopper: CryoThermionically treated lamp cord voted “Best of Show” in any class at GES 2002 (Gullible Electronics Show).

-Elected: Perpetual President of the prestigious “A.O.K.” (Association of Online Know-it-alls)

-Founder and CPA (Chief Pretentious Audiophile): of “Really Righteou$ Cable$, Inc.” Our Motto: “From the Looks of You -You Can’t Afford It”

-Bought out by Harmon Holdings, Inc.

-Retired. Writing sex book w/ Mark Levinson’s X. I’m writing the chapter on impedance matching. Nothing takes the thrill out like an impedance mismatch.

Sincerely
I remain,

Eldartford, I don't think science is anywhere near as mature as you and others might suggest. We understand the basics of many things but the details of very few.

I have studied college physics and mathematics, and for the most part been successful at it. This 'little bit' of knowledge (along with being a dangerous thing) has piqued my curiosity to continue the study on my own, not by experimenting, but by reading and studying.

I find it amusing that the cutting edge scientists in most fields are far less dogmatic than their followers. There are far fewer hard fast laws among the elite than among audiophiles, and high school teacher. Many admit that much of what is taught as fact is theory, at best.

Teachers were far more convinced of the origin of the world, and man before 'Information Theory' was developed calling into question many of their assertations. These questions do nothing to change the minds of those who do not participate in the study though. I merely use this as an example. I have no desire to enter into a futile debate over the merits of origin, or Information Theory.

I do not own equipment which measures poorly, but sounds great. I guess the reference here is to SETs. I have never heard them, for that matter. But if they sound as good as their proponants say, does that mean something is wrong with SETs, or the tools used to measure. The opinion is that we don't understand what we are trying to measure for the most part, so we don't have the tools to accomplish our desires.

Again I return to the analogy of Dwarves on the Shoulders of Giants. Those who came before went as far as their technology would allow. Now 'modern science' has to build on their foundation, and continue the work rather than sitting back and saying the work is finished. Our technology has developed over the years and we should be able to go much farther than our scientific forefathers. In many areas science is continuing to develop, it just takes a while for theory to affect practical application. Does anyone really think that the stereo systems of today are the best there will ever be? Of course not! That's because science is going to continue to grow and allow for the next great wave of improvements. Those improvements will be in areas which are not properly understood today. Hopefully someone will understand another area of measurement in what is existing now that will allow for the explanation of something not yet understood, and all of us will ride the coat tails of this new breakthrough to experience even better systems and I'm afraid to suggest, even PCs!!!

There is much about ourselves and our own world that we do not understand. To suggest otherwise is simply foolish. There is much for science to learn. Science is the first to admit this. Consider that science has often been wrong in the past, and has admitted as much once proven to be fact. This is a step toward maturity!!!

I wish those who speak out in the name of science would follow the example of the ones with more understanding.

The older I get the more I'm conviced that the person who has the answer did not understand the question. That's only a little bit of a joke!

Nrchy...Because cosmology and quantum physics are not fully understood this does not mean that we don't know how audio amplifiers work. You need to keep your skepticism within reasonable bounds.

There is a book which I enjoyed reading, and I think you would too. "The Big Bang never happened". Get it from your library.

Clueless: I bow down before your boffo-ness, and will henceforth only connect my soup cans with CryoThermionically-treated tiny jock straps. :-)

Nrchy: This is a minor, tangential point, but I have a compulsion to chasten any time I hear someone setting 'fact' and 'theory' in opposition to each other ("...much of what is taught as fact is theory, at best"). (A classic instance of this confusion concerns the biologically foundational theory of evolution.) A 'theory' is best understood as a model for reality, meaning that any useful theory will not be contradicted by the facts as they are known - even if that theory is itself not directly testable - and that the theory can explain (or can be modified to explain) the observable facts. To call an idea about how the universe works a theory is in no way to denigrate its validity, provided it is supported by all the available evidence. Indeed, some of the most predictive science is theory-based - maybe, someday, String Theory included.

Zaikesman...I think that the way it goes is that, first, someone comes up with a "Hypothesis". At this point it is pure conjecture. Then, the Hypothesis is tested by examination of data from tests that ought to be affected by the Hypothesis. If most of the data corresponds with what would be predicted by the Hypothesis, it becomes a "Theory". Not all theories are equally well supported by data. However, when there is a great deal of good supporting data, the theory is called a "Fact". Few people would argue that the theory that the earth is round is not a fact.

I consider power cord effects to be a hypothesis.