Will there be any 'Arrow' mark in a Fuse holder?

Tbg

Simply_q, it is irrational to refuse scientific observation...

Scientific observation? Exactly what scientific observation is that?

You are right that it really is absolute polarity, but many call it phase.

Then they should call it what it really is.

Try a little education(though I doubt you're interested), and read the fourth section of this article(relating to harmonics): (http://www.arbiter.com/files/product-attachments/absolute_phase.pdf) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_phase) (http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/absolutephase.html) (http://www.sweetwater.com/expert-center/glossary/t--AbsolutePhase) OH, THAT'S RIGHT: None of those people know what they're talking about(ROTF/LMAO). Actually, I was quoting Ivor Tiefenbrun(founder of Linn Products Ltd), whose view of those that make statements concerning things they haven't heard, or tried, many respect and agree with.

Tbg

Simply_q, simply put, you don't know what you are talking about.

Then instead of saying "you don't know what you're talking about" set me straight. Offer up something to expand one's knowledge on the underlying phenomenon.

You say, "there is actually something physical behind it." This is just nonsense. How would you know there is nothing "physical" behind it?

Why don't you quote the entirety of what I said? Which was:

"When someone makes claims with the implication that there is actually something physical behind it, I don't need to have "heard it" or "tried it" to have a valid opinion on the matter..."

The only opinion I expressed on the matter was that for one to accept prima facie that fuses are directional is to have one's mind so open as to allow their brains to slosh out on the floor.

I feel that's a quite sound and rational opinion.

How would you know there is nothing "physical" behind it?

That's not what I said.

Essentially what I said was that there's no obvious reason for that to be the case and so far no one has offered up even a plausible theory for it to be the case and to believe that it is the case is to go beyond being open-minded.

Simply, let me see what does observation mean? Watching, listening, measuring, ie. using ones senses. What does scientific mean? Being as objective, seeking scientifically transmissible data, measuring with valid instrumentation, ie. being as open to what one is focusing on as possible.

Johnsen coined the word. I can see where it is more valid than phase that is most commonly used by those interested in acoustics. Clark has been in my room and he is a madman about this.

I repeat my earlier statement. You are close-minded and apparently fearful that you will hear something, although the nocebo complex, hearing nothing because you believe you won't may affect you.

Rodman99999

Try a little education(though I doubt you're interested), and read the fourth section of this article(relating to harmonics): (www.arbiter) (en.wikipedia) (www.gcaudio) (www.sweetwater) OH, THAT'S RIGHT: None of those people know what they're talking about(ROTF/LMAO).

The first article is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with absolute polarity in the context being discussed here, i.e. acoustic polarity. The part on harmonics is just as irrelevant.

The Wikipedia article isn't referring to absolute polarity, nor is the Sweetwater article.

Absolute polarity refers to the acoustic polarity of the acoustic waves produced at the original acoustical event. There is no "phase" to this. It is compression vs. rarefaction. Which is polarity, not phase. Again, phase is relative. There's nothing relative about the original acoustical event. It is the reference itself.