directional cables?

Herman,

"Most with any experience in the matter agree that it depends on the design of the cable and how the manufacturer decide to label his cables."

And I guess you would consider yourself one of the most with experience or one with the most experience, which is it?

I actually, during the course of this thread, took the time to call a number of cable manufacturers and presented the question regarding arrows and direction. All agreed it would pretty much be considered an industry standard that the arrow markings on cables point in the direction of the signal flow.

For non directional cables it has been recommended by manufacturers for many years and a rule of thumb among audiophiles that the writing on the cable jacket follows the signal flow for the purpose of orienting cables in the same direction as they were broken-in when cables are disconnected from the system.

Herman

I get it now, you have redefined the word flow to suit your purpose.

I've done no such thing.

Everybody else in the world defines it as something that is moving forward, progressing.

No, they don't.

I would say that energy flowed in an AC circuit but the electrons vibrate about a fixed point never making any progress so they are not flowing.

To even move about a fixed point is to progress as that is precisely what they're being directed to do under AC conditions. They would never make any progress only if they didn't do as directed.

You define it at as any movement so electrons that aren't moving away from a central point but merely vibrate back and forth around that point are "flowing."

No, I don't define it as ANY movement. I define it as DIRECTED movement, as is the case with electric current.

I apologize for not picking up on that but you must forgive me for not knowing you had a different dictionary than the rest of us.

The dictionary I have in front of me right now is Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Among its definitions of "flow" is:

"to move with a continual change of place among the constituent particles"

This well describes the electrons in this case, which is why we often refer to it as electric "current."

And under "current" we find:

"a FLOW of electric charge"

You may find further reference to "flow" at Wikipedia under "electric current":

"Electric current means, depending on the context, a FLOW of electric charge..."

And under "alternating current":

"In alternating current (AC, also ac) the movement (or FLOW) of electric charge periodically reverses direction."

It would have helped the discussion if you had told us early on that you you had your own definition for words that differs from everyone else.

I'm afraid you're the one who's out of step with common usage of the word "flow" as it relates to electric current.

Mr. Blues, you lost me on that one.

Mr rog, I believe we have come to an agreement. I agree that " it would pretty much be considered an industry standard that the arrow markings on cables point in the direction of the signal flow." However, that does not mean that all cables do it that way. It is pretty much an industry standard that RCA plugs are used on single ended equipment, but not all manufacturers do it that way. It is pretty much an industry standard that when you touch the positive end of a battery to the red terminal and the negative to the black that the cone moves out, but not all manufacturers do it that way. It is pretty much an industry standard that line level output is about 2Vrms at 0dB, but not all manufacturers do it that way. It is pretty much an industry standard that power amplifiers are voltage amplifiers with a low output impedance, but some are transconductance amplifiers. It is pretty much an industry standard that a 300B tube has a 5V filament, but somebody makes one with a 2.5V filament. It is pretty much an industry standard to state speaker output with an input of 1W, but some use a voltage that produces a different power. Need I go on?

Q, you have now gotten to the point of being ridiculous with your twisting of the terms to avoid saying you are wrong. I believe we agree that the electrons in an AC circuit make no net progress but merely vibrate about a fixed point. To take that motion and label it as flow is, as I just stated, ridiculous. Ask as many people as you like to use flow in a sentence and it will involve moving forward in some manner. Water flows in a stream, Cars flow along the road. Sap flows from the tree. Wine flows from the bottle. Blood flows from the wound. Oral diarrhea flows from my mouth.

To describe a back and forth motion as flow is just plain wrong. Use flow in a sentence that describes a back and forth motion. You can't do it. If the motion is back and forth you have to use ebb and flow, not just flow. Do these make sense?

The pendulum on that clock is flowing.
Grandma is flowing in her rocking chair.

I don't expect you or Rog, or Garch to ever admit you made a mistake. That's fine. I've spent enough time proving my point. On to bigger and better things. Take care.

.

Oh, Oh, OH.........

Mr simply Q,,,, a thousand apologies. A light bulb just went off in my head. I sincerely and completely apologize for lumping you in with others who clearly are defending their position just to be contrary. I see now that you truly believe what you are posting. I will be back later to explain but since I can't edit my last post I wanted you to see this before you became angry with me.

Herman

To describe a back and forth motion as flow is just plain wrong. Use flow in a sentence that describes a back and forth motion. You can't do it.

Sure I can.

"Under AC conditions, electric current flows alternately in one direction and then the other."

If that makes no sense, then there are countless physics and electronics texts which make no sense as "flow" is commonly used to describe electric current, both DC and AC and has been for over a century.

That you're not aware of this leads me to suspect that either you've never studied physics and/or electronics to any degree and are arguing from ignorance, or you're disingenuously playing word games. However I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume the former.

But if you want to continue arguing against such well-established precedent, go ahead and knock yourself out.