Directional wires/cables

@jea48 Honestly, one of the best and easiest-to-follow physics-level (rather than engineering-level) explanation of how an electric signal travels through a cable is the one by Veritasium that I linked above. Here it is again.

Derek discusses the case of a very simple circuit (a battery, a switch and a ’load’ which could be a lightbulb), but it’s easy to see how the exact same physical mechanisms are acting on a complex, variable signal (’music’), and why lumped element models are used to simplify the representation... to the point where they can over-simplify it!

To keep things more or less on topic (directionality of cables), to my mind this also shows why - in the absence of asymmetries in cable construction - the argument for cable directionality with quasi-periodic, alternating signals is a very hard one to support scientifically.

@thecarpathian Thanks for the info. I'm glad to know I'm not the only victim of random ramblings. 😉

Best wishes! 

@thecarpathian -

             Got a problem with Physics, History and facts, do we?

Derek discusses the case of a very simple circuit (a battery, a switch and a 'load' which could be a lightbulb), but it's easy to see how the exact same physical mechanisms are acting on a complex, variable signal ('music'), and why lumped element models are used to simplify the representation... to the point where they can over-simplify it!

         Derek discusses DC, while our conversation hinges around AC*, whether in our power cables, or- signal wires, which carry waveforms (either 50/60Hz or musical), the propagation speed(s) of which, depends on factors like frequency(s) and dielectric absorption of the dielectric involved.

                       *Mentioned before my first link, in my first post.

Do you even understand what response to impulse is, or how this is relevant to any and all signals? Very clearly not. Kindly stop posting things that do not have any connection to physics, history or reality, but only to your totally incorrect understanding of them.

 The story you keep telling yourself that ’nobody understands electricity’ is completely false - and funnily enough, it was Feynman that with QED (Nobel in 1965) added the last pieces to the puzzle. You quote, but you don’t read or understand.

       To anyone ACTUALLY INTERESTED in expanding their understanding of this idea/theory, as regards electricity/electromagnetism, I repost:

https://bigthink.com/hard-science/an-updated-feynman-experiment-could-heal-the-rift-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity/

      There are simply too many variables and unknowns (95-96%) in our universe, that disallow the categorical propositions, presented by the ignorant/uneducated.

dlevi67

... Kindly stop posting things that do not have any connection to physics, history or reality, but only to your totally incorrect understanding of them ...

Sorry, but this forum is open to all, even to those like you who claim to be a "victim" of the conversation here.

I'm glad to know I'm not the only victim

If you have a complaint about a user here, take it to the moderators. You can use the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of every page.

Do you even understand what response to impulse is, or how this is relevant to any and all signals? Very clearly not. Kindly stop posting things that do not have any connection to physics, history or reality, but only to your totally incorrect understanding of them.

                                                As I mentioned:

https://resources.system-analysis.cadence.com/blog/msa2021-transmission-line-propagation-delay-characteristic-impedance-and-dielectric-material

                                                         and:

https://wiki.shielddigitaldesign.com/High_Speed_Design_Wiki/Signal_Integrity/Transmission_Lines/Wavelength,_Physical_Length_and_Relative_Permittivity.html

        Once again: my posts are meant for those with a sincere desire to actually expand their understanding of our universe, to the available degree.

                             The obtuse/willfully ignorant, need not apply.

                                                 Happy listening!

It seems that unfortunately the forum is also open to people that post outright incorrect or irrelevant things. That's a shame.

       ie: The ldea that there are actually pictures of that electron cloud, that you mentioned (LOL)?

@dlevi67 said:

@jea48 Honestly, one of the best and easiest-to-follow physics-level (rather than engineering-level) explanation of how an electric signal travels through a cable is the one by Veritasium that I linked above. Here it is again.

Thank you...

I will have to watch the Video again a couple times. I watched his first video. I didn’t see this one before.

I first learned how electricity works here on Agon in 2010. Oddly the thread was titled "directional cables?".

A member started posting about how an electrical signal actually travels down a wire. I thought what Planet is this guy from?...

I would appreciate your thoughts on this white paper from the Late Ralph Morrison.

Storing or moving energy.

There is a common misconception that signals are carried in conductors. Somehow this association crosses over to the idea that conductors carry both signals and energy. A few simple calculations can show that this is a false idea. Consider a 50-ohm transmission line carrying a 5-volt logic signal. The initial current at switch closure is 500 mA. A typical trace is a a gram-mole of copper that has 6 x 10²³ copper atoms (Avogadro’s number). Each atom can contribute one electron to current flow. Knowing the charge on an electron makes it easy to show that the average electron velocity for 500 mA is a few centimeters per second. What is even more interesting is that only a trillion electrons are involved in this current flow. This means that only one electron in a trillion carries the current. This also says that the magnetic field that moves energy is not located in the conductors. The only explanation that makes sense is that energy in the magnetic field must be located in the space between two conductors.Conductors end up directing energy flow - not carrying the energy.

The electric field in the conductor that causes current flow presents a similar picture. For a transmission line trace 5 mils above a ground plane, the electric field strength in the space under the trace is about 49,000 V/m. The electric field inside the conductor might be 0.1 V per meter. Energy in an electric field is proportional to field strength squared. The ratio of the square of field strengths in and near a conductor is about 2.4 x 10¹¹. It is safe to say that there is very little electric or magnetic field energy in a trace or conducting plane. Since the energy is present and it is not in the conductors it must be in the space between the conductors. This is true for sine waves or square waves at all frequencies including dc. This one idea is not often discussed in circuit theory. This one idea solves most interference problems. This one idea is at the heart of a good circuit board layout. If the energy that represents information is carried in spaces it makes sense that we must keep these spaces free from interfering fields. The path should also control the characteristic impedance so there are controlled reflections. What we really need to do is supply a smooth path for logic energy flow.

Ralph Morrison What is Electronics

I admit the math is over my head...

.

I like this statement of Morrison’s.

If we accept the idea that fields carry energy in space, it must be true at all frequencies. That is the law. If it is true for light, it must also be true for 60Hz power and at DC. For utility power, the energy travels in the space between conductors, not in the conductors. This is not the picture presented by circuit diagrams, where energy seems to be carried by conductors. In digital circuits, the signals and energy travel in the spaces between traces or between traces and conducting surfaces.

Buildings have halls and walls. People move in the halls, not the walls. Circuits have traces and spaces. Signals and energy move in the spaces, not in the traces.

.

So the signal travels in the space, dielectric, insulating material, between the current carrying conductors in one direction from the source >>> to the load at near the speed of light in a vacuum. Correct? If not please reword how it should be stated.

If Teflon is used for the insulation covering the conductors and the signal travels through the Teflon insulation it makes it easier to understand, imo, why the type of dielectric material used matters and can have an impact on signal, and how it affects the sound we hear from the speakers.

Also it would explain burn-in, break-in, settle-in, what ever you want to call it of, say, interconnects, and speaker cables. After the break-in process doesn’t the cable become directional? If reversed wouldn’t the process have to start all over?

I believe in directionality of all solid core wire. Especially solid silver core wire. Just asking is the type dielectric insulating material used at play in directionality?

Thanks again for responding to my earlier post. And hopefully this post as well, in advance.

Well, this has been interesting, if a bit cranky at times. Discussions on these and other forums always seem to come down to "my Phd is bigger than your Phd" or something similar. Interesting, nonetheless. 

Many of the explanations are well above my understanding. I'm still struggling with how and why the current has to travel backwards as much as forward in my circuitry and how it must get to where it's going in the first place. I'm just glad that it does. My understanding of electricity and it's properties are pretty basic. It has a pretty good bite to it when it escapes and I'm able to turn it on and off with a switch. I enjoy many of it's wonderful properties without understanding it like an EE does. I'm good with that. 

As to my original question about non-directional interconnects and whether they can develop a memory, I'm still a bit puzzled because there is so much disagreement on the subject. Ultimately, I will let my ears decide and see which camp I land in or if I will just keep scratching my head. I do appreciate any and all who spoke up. Thanks guys. 

Bill

@roadcykler

"As soon as electrons become sentient and can discern differences in metal, then directional cables may be a thing. Until then, even a basic understanding of electricity would tell you it’s 100% marketing and makes 0% difference in the sound you hear."

This is 21st century science in a nutshell. "My basic understanding of science is more than enough to start making claims".

Well, this has been interesting, if a bit cranky at times. Discussions on these and other forums always seem to come down to "my Phd is bigger than your Phd" or something similar. Interesting, nonetheless. 

       And then: there are those* with no PhD (or anything close), which are worthy of nothing but disregard/disdain.

         *ie: Dunning-Kruger exemplars, Denyin'tologists and Naysayer Church adherents, that ignore the science and experiments that have given us the many modern conveniences, medical devices and SS equipment they so love. 

                                          Happy listening!

1) Your first statement above is completely incorrect. A fuse (to take your example) does not carry a voltage (whatever that means, since it is a meaningless statement in the first place). The idea of ’source’ and ’load’ are irrelevant in electrical theory; you can represent any part of a (linear-ized) circuit as a ’source’ with an ’impedance’ that is connected to the rest of the circuit ("load"). The fact that we as humans interested in hearing sound being reproduced interpret one component as a source and another as a load has nothing to do with the way in which electrical circuits behave.

                                           @jea48 -   +1

         I didn't bother responding to the total nonsense above, knowing that the uneducated poster/poser would completely miss the implications/ramifications, were I to mention/post anything, as regards Poynting Vectors*.

                 *ie:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector

                                     I'm certain: you do!

                                       Happy listening!

I’d like to say another thing. For the last 1,000 years, science has always been about challenging ideas, old and new. Science can give you some answers but rarely its entirety, There are 2 more questions for every answers that’s been made.

That is Science. If you think what you know is absolute, you are betraying Science on a fundamental level.

See, I couldn't even spell PhD correctly. I do not have the higher education of many in and around these forums. I do have big ears though. :) Thanks for all guys, it is appreciated. Sorry if people get angry over it. I for one, do not.

I am not 100% sure if cables can be directional or not, but if the manufacturer suggested a direction to install it in, I'd go with that.