Georgie, one assumes you got your education from the back of a matchbook cover. You know, just based on the stupid things you say. It's sometimes better to remain silent and be thought dumb than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Directionality of wire
I am a fan of Chris Sommovigo's Black Cat and Airwave interconnects. I hope he does not mind me quoting him or naming him on this subject, but Chris does not mark directionality of his IC's. I recently wrote him on the subject and he responded that absent shunting off to ground/dialectric designs, the idea of wire directionality is a complete myth. Same with resistors and fuses. My hunch is that 95% of IC "manufacturers", particularly the one man operations of under $500 IC's mark directionality because they think it lends the appearance of technical sophistication and legitimacy. But even among the "big boys", the myth gets thrown around like so much accepted common knowledge. Thoughts? Someone care to educate me on how a simple IC or PC or speaker cable or fuse without a special shunting scheme can possibly have directionality? It was this comment by Stephen Mejias (then of Audioquest and in the context of Herb Reichert's review of the AQ Niagra 1000) that prompts my question;
Thank you for the excellent question. AudioQuest provided an NRG-10 AC cable for the evaluation. Like all AudioQuest cables, our AC cables use solid conductors that are carefully controlled for low-noise directionality. We see this as a benefit for all applications -- one that becomes especially important when discussing our Niagara units. Because our AC cables use conductors that have been properly controlled for low-noise directionality, they complement the Niagara System’s patented Ground-Noise Dissipation Technology. Other AC cables would work, but may or may not allow the Niagara to reach its full potential. If you'd like more information on our use of directionality to minimize the harmful effects of high-frequency noise, please visit http://www.audioquest.com/directionality-its-all-about-noise/ or the Niagara 1000's owner's manual (available on our website).
Thanks again.
Stephen Mejias
AudioQuest
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/gramophone-dreams-15-audioquest-niagara-1000-hifiman-he1000-v2-p...
Showing 50 responses by geoffkait
georgehifi "Show me the measurements. Real simple." He can’t, as he has no sens of the electronic laws that all audio gear is designed and built on. All he has is his book from deepest the Africa, and that "avatar" doll of his that looks like one should stick pins into. >>>>>>Real good, Georgie boy, that was almost a complete sentence. You know, you can still go back and finish high school. Do they have high schools down under. Who knows? My guess is no. |
kosst_amojan @geoffkait Show me the measurements. Real simple. At some point you can exaggerate the problem enough to make an observable measurement, so where is it? You’re explanations don’t even make sense if they’re true. If directionality is a good thing, why don’t amp designers put diode networks in their signal path? Probably because they tried their best to make the outputs behave as unidirectionally as possible. But now somebody wants to put directional wires on it here. Sounds nuts to me. At the very least it sounds like a recipe for distortion. It is, essentially, what you get with a push-pull output stage running a high offset. >>>>>>You are still characterizing directionality incorrectly. It might be a good idea if you went back to the beginning of this now mature thread and read what was said, about what directionality is, how it was measured, what to do about it, etc. I am pretty sure you’ll find your concerns have already been answered or at least discussed/debated. You can measure directionality yourself, just measure *resistance* of any wire one way then reverse it and measure it again. Let us know what you find. Please keep in mind high end cable manufacturers, and high end fuse makers, at least the smart ones, have been aware of wire directionality for what, 25 years? You’re not (rpt not) the first guy to come waltzing along into one of these threads and exclaim, "what in the wide world of sports is going on here?" Keep in mind, as I already said, I’m NOT (rpt not) saying directionality is a good thing. It’s a bad thing if it is dismissed or overlooked, at least for audiophiles. It’s something cable and fuse manufacturers and everyone should be aware of if for no other reason than to obtain max sound quality. As I’ve said before, this whole issue of wire directionality opens up a great big can of worms: IF all wire is directional what about the wire in transformers, wire in capacitors/resistors, internal wiring in electronics and speakers and even house wiring? Obviously sound, perhaps very good sound, is coming out of speakers even when wire directionality is not (rpt not) addressed. But wouldn’t better sound be uh, better? |
almarg And as I’ve said in various threads here, in the absence of any sort of quantitative perspective on a claimed explanation, whether or not it has a reasonable possibility of being great enough in degree to be audibly significant is unlikely to be either provable or disprovable with any conclusiveness. Oh, brother! Here we go again with the legalese snow job. ☃ Gee whiz, could you possibly be any more condescending? |
Actually that whole premise is not true. I am an Engineer, aerospace type, Univ. of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va, but my curriculum was almost all theoretical propulsion and theoretical fluid dynamics. Statistical Thermodynmics and Indeterminate Structures are also very theoretical as were many other courses. So, it’s not really true, at least in my case and obviously many other cases, that engineers are not trained in theory. |
jea48, that’s fascinating, all that stuff on break-in you just posted, but what does that have to do with the price of spinach? Well, OK, maybe there is one thing. You say Audioquest has built a large and successful high end cable company by making cables symmetrical. Yet, gentle readers, we know from this very thread Audioquest is one of the biggest proponents of wire and cable directionality based - according to them - on the physical asymmetry of the wire. Which is why Audioquest has been marking their cables including - and more to the point! - their SPEAKER CABLES for direction since like forever. Therein lies a great big old contradiction. Raise your hand if you need help. Talk among yourselves. Smoke if ya got em. |
kosst_amojan @geoffkait Yeah, you basically did say they can behave like diodes. That’s the entire Crux of your argument. A cable embodies 3 passive characteristics; capacitance, inductance, and impedance. Those properties remain consistent regardless of the direction of energy flow. So saying a length of wire can magically become directional is the exact same thing as saying it behaves in some way like a diode. The formulas that describe the behavior of a diode are how you’d have to describe a directional wire. But since those properties have never been actually demonstrated through any measurement, we can rightly conclude that a length of wire transmitting audio bandwidth AC is not directional in the slightest. The same goes for fuses. >>>>>>I never said wires or cables act like diodes. Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re the only one saying that. Unfortunately for your argument, resistance of wires and cables measure differently depending on direction. Which is one way to determine proper direction. Another way is to listen. If you had done your homework prior to getting involved here you would have known that. God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. |
jea48, let me help you out by summarizing the last couple weeks: I explain very patiently why AC electricity cannot explain away wire directionality while everyone else either doesn’t understand plain English or cannot follow simple logic or puts words in my mouth I didn't say. Remind me to repost the bit on pathological skepticism again sometime. By the way, no matter what format one uses for posting someone will always complain, sure as shootin’. Don’t follow leaders, watch the parking meters. 🐑 🐑 🐑 🚶 |
kosst_amojan @geoffkait Brucenewengland is totally calling you out and I’m not sure how the flaw in your thinking isn’t totally obvious. For energy to push a diaphragm forward or draw it back the energy through the conductors must flow equally well in both directions for both conductors. If one suddenly behaves in an aberrant way due to the reversal of energy, that aberration will will impinge the performance of the whole system. The suggestion that a cable can behave like a diode and that it be a good thing is ludicrous on it’s face. >>>>> "If one (conductor) behaves in an aberrant way...the aberration will impinge (on) the performance of the whole system." I couldn’t have said it better myself. Exactly! "The suggestion that a cable can behave like a diode and that it (can) be a good thing is ludicrous on the face of it." >>>>I never suggested the cable can act like a diode OR that it’s a good thing. Nice Strawman argument! Better luck next time. |
brucenewengland geoffkait: "Even if one wishes to refer to current as the "signal," since current is alternating we only need to worry about the current (signal) when it’s traveling toward the component or, in the case of speaker cables, when the current is traveling toward the speakers. The other half of the time, when the current is traveling in the opposite direction, we can ignore the "signal" since its effects are inaudible." Respectfully, no. Would you argue that the speaker diaphragm moving is only audible in one direction? >>>>>>You would like the backwards motion of the speaker diaphragm to be as efficient as the forward motion, no? The most efficient forward AND backward motion for the speaker diaphragm is achieved when both wires in the speaker cable are put in the correct direction, I.e., with the lowest voltage drop direction toward the speaker. Voltage is alternating just like the current. |
almarg Geoffkait 8-13-2017 "Even if one wishes to refer to current as the "signal," since current is alternating we only need to worry about the current (signal) when it’s traveling toward the component or, in the case of speaker cables, when the current is traveling toward the speakers. The other half of the time, when the current is traveling in the opposite direction, we can ignore the "signal" since its effects are inaudible." When "the current" is traveling away from the component in one of the two conductors it is traveling toward the component in the other of the two conductors. And it is **always** traveling through the input circuit of the component in one direction or the other, aside from the brief instant during each cycle at which the applied voltage crosses zero, and the direction changes. >>>>That’s precisely my point! That’s why - if wire is directional per se - the cable manufacturer must control the process to ensure that both wires are placed in the cable correctly. You know, since BOTH wires will exhibit directionality. Assuming directionality is real. Which is in fact what manufacturers do, control the process. Hel-loo! Fortunately once you have a process in place the rest is easy. For a fuse it’s even simpler to explain (one can only hope) since there’s only one wire. Thus, you cannot use the example of AC circuits per se to disprove wire or fuse directionality. Please note: I never said this explanation proved or supported wire directionality. What I’m saying is simple but quite different - you cannot use the tired old AC circuits argument to DISPROVE wire directionality. Capish? |
Even if one wishes to refer to current as the "signal," since current is alternating we only need to worry about the current (signal) when it’s traveling toward the component or, in the case of speaker cables, when the current is traveling toward the speakers. The other half of the time, when the current is traveling in the opposite direction, we can ignore the "signal" since its effects are inaudible. So, obviously fuses located where AC enters the component and where AC enters the speakers, could be directional. As could the cables. If directionality is real. To summarize, the argument that directionality can’t exist in an AC circuit is pure fabrication, a ploy, a nothing burger. 🍔 |
Of course it was Marconi who had the first long distance radio transmission after much ado. In fact, it wasn’t until many years after he first embarked on his long range radio transmission mission that he realized he and just about everyone else had radio signals figured out all wrong. He was building taller and taller structures and pumping more and more power into the transmitters trying to achieve more and more distance, but misfiring and producing a few castastrophies along the way. Much to his chagrin, Marconi miscalculated that the wavelenths for long distance transmission had to be very long, whereas it turned out they had to be very short. So it wasn’t high power, long waves that was needed, but low power, short waves. Shazam! |
muzzleblast 2 posts LOL, yes... I've been a lurker for a while... but usually stay busy enough, I don't have much time for forums. It's like watching Trump and Kim Jong Un sparring... I'm an engineer by profession... work in defense industry... while lots of instances where this matters, it isn't in consumer electronics between audio sources. >>>>>Whoa, hey, small world. I prefer tube over ss, but some ss products sound quite good. I like glow of tubes, but also how easy tube equipment is to mod and upgrade. >>>>>Again, small world. I make my own signal ic cables, and build my own speaker cables. >>>>>Well, in that regard I might be ahead of you. I don't use IC cables, speaker cables. Or power cords, for that matter. Welcome aboard, sailor! |
hifiman, I’m getting a bad feeling that maybe he’s pulling our leg. You know, what with the looking for arrows inside the component and trade secrets, making phone calls, driving out the free oxygen from the copper, things of that nature. Perhaps he just has a very refined sense of irony and sarcasm. 😛 My guess we just witnessed a drive by shooting. Muzzleblast. Get it? 😳 |
There are so many things wrong with the last post I hardly know where to begin. I will say almost everything in the post involves the typical, tried-and-true non-believer arguments, what we commonly refer to as false arguments, all of which have been addressed on this thread already and shown to be false idols of the overly skeptical. I realize it’s the OPs first post. Better luck next time. Great name, though. Muzzleblast. Seems appropriate somehow. |
twoch i always keep everything running one direction then if i change that wire move it someplace else I keep same direction. On reinstalling it. But i don’t hear any differences. I just keep flow always 1way >>>>>What does that mean, "everything running in one direction?" And when you say you don’t hear any differences what are you referring to? Did you reverse the cable when you reinstalled it? And, you say you keep the flow one way, but how do you know which way a cable goes to keep the flow in the right direction? I have the black fuse. Im not even thinking about reversing 4 >>>>Let me get this straight. You bought $500 worth of fuses and you didn't put them in the right direction? If you happen to change your mind remember to try them one at a time. |
Analogoober That’s funny! The master of gobbledygook himself Geoff, accusing the educated voice of reason, Almarg of spreading nonsense. Just to re-iterate for the newbies, treat anything Geoff says as entertainment and anything Al says as gospel. Every organ grinder has a monkey. - old audiophile expression 🙈 Remember, I said it would be fun. I didn’t say for who. 😀 |
almarg While I would certainly agree with George that this thread is not lacking in the substance to which his last post refers, one way in which the thread can provide at least a modicum of value is that it may help those reading it to better calibrate (i.e., to assess) the responses its various participants may provide in other threads, on other subjects. When seeking information on the Internet, in trying to distinguish between the wheat and the abundant chaff it is inevitably surrounded with it can often be useful to have some perspective on the author of what is being read. Regards, -- Al Whoa! What?! The Naysayers are restless tonight. More legalize gobbledygook from the man with the golden Barco Lounger. |
stfoth Geoff--I think you are misapplying the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy, here. However, you seem correct on at least the appearance of the backfire effect, on both "sides." sfroth, how can the Backfire Effect apply to anyone except the naysayers? You know, since fuse directionality is real. The naysayers just won't take no for an answer, that's all. Live and let die, I say. |
The strange case of the self-fulfilling prophecy The self-fulfilling prophecy in this case being that fuse directionality and wire directionality are not real, that they're FALSE. In this case the self-fulfilling prophecy is being perpetrated by the, uh, Three Amigos. So what is a self-fulfilling prophecy? A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior. In the case of fuse directionality the self-fulfilling prophecy takes the form of, "fuse directionality disobeys the laws of science and electricity so must be patently FALSE." And it can be "proved" scientifically and mathematically that fuse directionality is FALSE, a myth. The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a FALSE definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning. In other words, a positive or negative prophecy, strongly held belief, or delusion—declared as truth when it is actually false—may sufficiently influence people so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy. See also Backfire Effect, which is very similar to Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. This thread also provides abundant examples of the Backfire Effect, embracing false beliefs even more strongly when confronted with contradictory views or evidence. cheerios |
See if you can spot the logical fallacy, false argument, on this thread. AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT: Also, "personal attack," "poisoning the well." The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He’s so evil that you can’t believe anything he says." See also "Guilt by Association." Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about. ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE: The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to positively prove their theory that humans evolved from other creatures, because we weren’t there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is literally true as written!” This fallacy includes Attacking the Evidence, e.g. "Your evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I’m right!" This usually includes “Either-Or Reasoning:” E.g., “The vet can’t find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos. A fallacy commonly found in American political, judicial and forensic reasoning. ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.[1] In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:[3] A is an authority on a particular topic A says something about that topic A is probably correct Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[4][5][6][7] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[8] Forms General The argument from authority can take several forms. As a syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:[5][9] A says P about subject matter S. A should be trusted about subject matter S. Therefore, P is correct. The second premise is not accepted as valid, as it amounts to an unfounded assertion that leads to circular reasoning able to define person or group A into inerrancy on any subject matter.[5][10] DISMISSAL OF EVIDENCE The equally fallacious counter-argument from authority takes the form:[14] B has provided evidence for position T. A says position T is incorrect. Therefore, B's evidence is false. This form is fallacious as it does not actually refute the evidence given by B, merely notes that there is disagreement with it.[14] This form is especially unsound when there is no indication that A is aware of the evidence given by B.[15] |
God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. I’ve said at least twice that the energy is inside and outside the cable, even according to the technical and mathematical paper for the physics journal that was posted on this thread a couple days ago. Furthermore, the asymmetry in the copper wire is actually mostly in the outside surface of the wire. Follow? I admit I learn as I go, unlike some people. I never claimed to know everything. When you say you’re leaving again is that supposed to be promise or a threat? Finally radio communications bears so little resemblance to wire communications that it’s two separate worlds. I give you B+ on your personal attacks, C- on your physics. |
How convenient for you to cherry pick what I wrote. I wrote recently, as I just got through saying, that obviously some components of the "energy" are outside the cable. What don’t you understand by that statement? If you had read the technical paper from the physics journal as I did you would have seen that some energy is inside the cable and some energy is outside. Which makes more sense. Besides, you seem to be supporting the naysayers in this argument. Who knows why? You said yourself that "if you hear directionality it must be real." So, if you’re so smart how about sharing with us why you think directionality is real? I’m talking of course about wire per se, not shielded wire or single ended cables, whatever? Or, as I suspect, you just want to be on the side that eventually wins, so you’re leaving yourself some wiggle room, which is that same tactic Al uses, very wisely. And your argument that radios (which are obviously wireless) prove that energy travels outside wire is ridiculous. |
herman So the whole idea of "energy" traveling outside the wire is pretty preposterous. If that was true then the means we have for determining whether or not a wire is hot by placing a device near them would not work, like those little gizmos that you put near an AC line that beep when the line is hot. If all energy was contained inside the wire then transformers would not work. Radios would not exist. etcetera I never said all the "energy" was traveling inside the wire. I posting earlier that components of the electromagnetic wave - such as the induced magnetic field B - are obviously outside the wire. Even the mathematical paper someone linked on this thread (in a failed attempt to prove the energy traveled outside the wire) described "energy" inside the wire. Please read what I say more carefully so as not to put words in my mouth. Obviously radio transmission is an entirely different subject. Like radio communications via satellite, which I also recently decribed. I.e., photons. You know, EIRP. have a nice day |
stfroth, as always a good rant, and an entertaining one. When you imply, well you actually say, some folks hear directionality, I don’t think you fully appreciate how long this debate has been going on or just how many people have invested in aftermarket fuses since they first came out, was it Isoclean and HiFi Tuning? And they were followed by a host of others. I reckon there must be thousands of satisfied aftermarket fuse customers with probably, I’m guessing here, many hundreds of positive reports on various audio forums as well as on manufacturer websites over the years. The other point worth making is that if you think naysayers and skeptics react vehemently to fuses and wire directionality just wait’ll ya get a load of when something really controversial and preposterous comes along. Then you'll see the fur fly. What kind of things, you ask? You know, things like tiny little holographic foils for CDs, battery powered clocks that improve the sound when placed in the room, cream electret, tiny little bowl resonantors, things of that nature. |
Herman stated recently regarding wire directionality, "if you can hear it it’s real." I hate to be the one to point this out but that’s unfortunately not really the right answer, at for the purposes of this thread, since the naysayers or skeptics whatever never try listening for directionality - or if they do they can’t hear it. So they say. That why they’ve taken the tack of using mathematical and physics explanations to debunk the whole idea. In fact these attempts to debunk wire directionality are very reminiscent of theological arguments. Even of medieval witch hunts or whatever. Not that I’m trying to bring up theological arguments here or any such thing. But it is curious that these things are very difficult to prove or even to provide evidence other than personal testimony. Which I actually find rather convincing given the sheer number of such reports. It’s like UFO sightings, report and videos; eventually you start to say, gee, maybe there’s something to that. Regardless of the fact that US Air Force Operation Blue Book, which was right down the street from my first job in a pink building with no windows at Wright Patterson AFB, closed its doors in 1968 or thereabouts due to lack of evidence and or lack of funds. So they said. |
jea48, I confess all those quotes you posted from Ralph Morrison do not actually prove anything. Saying that Maxwell’s equations prove he’s (Ralph) right is nothing more than a cheap Appeal to Authority. Many folks use that logical fallacy, e.g., "the answer is in Maxwell’s equations." Those paragraphs you cited are statements but not evidence or proof of anything. They sound OK, though. Wouldn't it be nice if there was an electronics textbook or a technical paper in some scientific journal that came right out and demonstrated how wire can or cannot be directional? But then all this discourse would stop. Nobody wants that, do they? 😀 |
It is illogical to say that "electricity" or current or voltage is an electromagnetic wave AND that audio signal must travel outside the copper conductor. And here's why. The only thing that travels at lightspeed is photons. And all photons travel at lightspeed. You know, 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum and less in a different medium such as air. And even less in denser mediums. The reason why the audio signal travels at say, 70% the speed of light in a copper conductor is because the audio signal is traveling through copper. It’s not because it’s traveling through air. If it was traveling through air the velocity of the audio signal would be just slightly lower than its velocity through a vacuum. If you measure the time it takes a radio signal to go from a transmitter on Earth to a satellite in synchronous orbit and back, you know, at 24k miles high orbit you will find that the elapsed time up and down is approximately the same time as if there were no air, no atmosphere. That’s because electromagnetic waves are barely slowed at all when they travel through air, which has an Index of Refraction of 1.0003. This all means the audio signal electromagnetic waves must be traveling through the copper, not outside the copper, just like voltage and current. Photons with higher energy than light can obviously travel through solid objects, like say, X-rays and gamma rays. They are all comprised of photons. The entire electromagnetic spectrum is composed of photons. Radio waves, X rays, light rays of various colors, they’re all photons. |
herman Earlier someone gave a flawed analogy about measurements. Stating that since capacitors of the same value and precision sounded different there must be more to this than just measurements. The flaw in that argument is that caps have more parameters than just value and precision. Leakage current, effective series resistance, some amount of inductance causing them to be resonant at some frequency, temperature coefficient, type of dielectric, etc. I propose that if all parameters were exactly the same then they would sound the same which makes the original supposition invalid. Huh? What I stated is still true. The caps that have the same capacitance and the same precision sound different. Who cares any other characteristics? So you think if they were different colors they would sound different? Feel free to propose anything you want. That does not mean your proposals are true, they might be true. They might not be. herman So can wires be directional? If they are not symmetrical it is easy to see why they would be. Ralph gave the example of asymmetry in a cable where the ground is connected on one end only. Cables with termination networks like MIT would surely be directional. If the way the wire is drawn results in an asymmetrical crystal structure I suppose there could be an effect. Now if a cable is perfectly symmetrical it is hard to see how it could be but since the energy always flows from source to load maybe this somehow conditions the wire so maybe, would explain the burn in effect that many adhere to. At the end of the day I am in the camp of just try it. If you hear it then it is real. Just in case you’re a little late to the game, all wires per se are inherently asymmetrical - physically - when drawn through the final die. This physical asymmetry is the basis for why Audioquest, Anti Cables and others mark their cables with directional arrows. We are talking here, at least I am, about unshielded and otherwise symmetrical cables. Obviously shielding has its own issue regarding direction. So, to be thorough, a manufacturer should have a *process* for controlling and aligning both the shielding directionality with the wire directionality. So the two issues aren’t at odds with each other. Audioquest obviously does have a process in place, probably others as well. Make sense? The same goes for fuses, which appear to be physically symmetrical (aside from lettering or symbols), but contain a wire that is actually physically asymmetrical. |
Furthermore, take the case of the humble fuse in the amp where the power cord enters the amp. The fuse wire is designed to melt at a given temperature based on excessive current. That melting is produced by thermal energy of the current, no? The current must be traveling inside the wire per se, if the current energy were traveling outside the wire it would be dissipated into the surrounding air and structure of the fuse and beyond. So the whole idea of "energy" traveling outside the wire is pretty preposterous. Obviously there can be some components such as induced magnetic field outside the wire per se. Everybody knows that. |
If somebody is interested in the math of electrical energy flow in cables, this is a good article in Am. J. Phys. (it’s possible to read the paper without following all the math): http://depa.fquim.unam.mx/amyd/archivero/El_flujo_de_energia_de_una_bateria_a_otros_elementos_de_un_.... That paper does not show that the electromagnetic field of the AUDIO SIGNAL travels outside the wire nor does it show that current travels outside the wire. What it shows is that *components* of the electromagnetic field can travel on the surface of the wire. We already know that a magnetic field induced by current traveling through wire and extends beyond the wire according to the right hand rule. (This is why it’s important to address the large magnetic fields produced by large transformers in audio systems with low frequency high permeability alloy.) The paper involves a battery connected to a wire so I’m not sure this paper even applies to an audio system. The paper also states there is energy INSIDE the wire and describes the mathematics of the electric field and magnetic field INSIDE the wire. See top of page 1. |