Someone just mentioned Franck Tchang’s Acoustic Resonators. I mentioned them the other day while discussing mapping the 3D space of the room for sound pressure levels in connection with a number of room acoustics solutions. Since we are discussing pressure zones, sound pressure and air it might be worthwhile to take a gander at what the Stereo Times article says about the Acoustic Resonators. I am posting excerpts from the Stereo Times article below. The entire article can be found at, http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/francktchang/resonators.htmlFranck Tchang Acoustic Resonators (review at Stereo Times), excerpts “The resonators also become focal points for intense overtone radiation. That is denser at their points of origin than in the surrounding air. As directional organs, our ears key into these radiation sources and our acoustic perception of the space we’re in is altered. Again, no music needs to be played to sense this spatial overlay. Speech will do, or the sound of our own foot fall. Being completely passive, the resonators can only be activated by received energy. As HF modulators, a full-range input obviously isn’t needed. Franck Tchang has used a spectrum analyzer to corroborate this action up to 3GHz. By affecting the ordinary acoustic damping through adding parallel values from the resonators, original HF content reappears. It becomes audible again and rebalanced against the LF energies. Treble decays improve and the subjective impression of audible space deepens. The resonators equalize air pressure differentials and can be installed in a fridge, mailbox or outside a room. Distance will not affect their efficaciousness. That’s quite a fatal blow to common sense but there it is according to the maestro. Franck has treated recording studios, performance venues, bars, living spaces and entire buildings. His demand as an expert tuning maestro is growing. That brings to mind Combak Corp.’s Kiuchi-San who enjoys a similar reputation in Japan. The moment you think air exchange where an entire building is submerged in, permeated and surrounded by air (except under the foundation of course), the picture begins to focus. That’s how these resonators defy distance. They’re equalizing the ocean of air that surround us, rechanneling certain turbulences, sync’ing up patterns. If you’ve got a massive geometry-induced pressure zone outside your house for example -- an area where gusty winds get trapped to apply structural pressure -- relieving this pressure must have an audible effect inside. It’s all connected. The mind cracker is simply the clash of scale. Big pressure, tiny devices. LF issues, HF solution. That’s where the mind hangs up. We’ve become conditioned to equate acoustic treatments with <300Hz attacks. That means bass traps. It means huge Helmholz resonators as notch filters. It means giant absorbers and diffusors. Time and again we’ve been told that low frequencies require large devices to counteract. That’s why Rives developed an elaborate in-ceiling address. The ceiling tends to be the biggest blank surface in a room. If high enough, you can hang in a faux ceiling and hide your monster traps in-between. Think about it. If you sound proof a room by sealing it shut, you increase its internal air pressures the moment music starts. You’re effectively making the room smaller than it was before. That compounds the issue. It’s out of phase with Franck’s views. His isn’t a brute force approach. It isn’t about dominating and straight-jacketing nature. It’s about helping acoustical energies flow again. It’s about dissipating clusters so that like water which always finds its own level, air pressures level out and equalize. This is a franck response: "I view my room as a bass guitar body, the resonators like strings and the air movement as the player’s hand." According to him and how far I can follow thus far, excess LF energy gets converted to HF radiation by making his resonators work. Work means getting them to oscillate. These devices are passive. They’re not perpetuum mobiles. To keep ringing, the resonators must continue to consume acoustical energy in their environment. However, they’re not drains. Energy isn’t killed by absorption or damping (actually, heat conversion to be technically correct). Acoustic System simply upsamples energy from lower to higher octaves. Bass energy enters the resonators. They oscillate. The resonator in turn puts out harmonics. LF goes in, HF comes out. That seems terribly oversimplified of course. Doubters will point at the fixed resonant frequency of the tiny oscillator and wonder how things add up.“ |
costco-emoji wrote,
“And just like good ole’ Roger, it looks like Mike is loosing his cool under scrutiny and resorting to sophomoric insults and attacks. It’s rather pathetic.”
>>>Whoa! Hey, didn’t he get the memo? I was under the distinct impression you are supposed to be the only one who’s permitted to resort to sophomoric insults and attacks. What’s up with that?
|
Speaking of vibrating capacitors and chassis covers, allow me to point out one of the dumbest things ever in all of audio is the bad habit all amplifier designers and manufacturers have of bolting down the large transformers to the amplifier chassis. I mean, come on people! Yes I realize transformers must be bolted down for shipping purposes. But the vibrating transformers should be decoupled from the chassis rather than strongly coupled to it. The best results will be achieved by isolating the entire amplifier from the transformer, even removing the transformer. The transformer can be decoupled using rubber grommets and loosening up the boots or removing them entirely. The transformer can be placed on viscoelastic squares of even placed on springs. But keeping them bolted down is like shooting yourself in the foot. Capacitors vibrate in operation so they should all be isolated from the printed circuit boards, etc. as well, or damped. It’s not really rocket science. 🚀
|
I’ve always suspected high end amplifier manufacturers were just about the farthest behind the audiophile power curve of any of the major food groups. They always seem to be the last to get the memo for just about every major audiophile development from fuses to wire directionality to power cords to transformer isolation or the myriad other tweaks and concepts audiophiles hold dear, from tiny little bowls to Rainbow Foil to Graphene to Mpingo discs, HEA designers are the last to find out, assuming they ever find out. Help me out, I can’t figure out, are they mildly retarded or are they just very conservative? 😀
|
Pop Quiz. That’s right, boys and girls, it’s time for another pop quiz! Yeah!
Pop Quiz (3 parts)
part 1
The Stereo Times article on the tiny little bowl acoustic resonators I linked to earlier this morning mentioned that the operation of the aforementioned tiny bowls was measured to extend as high as 3 GHz. How can these tiny little bowls that are about 7/8” diameter operate at frequencies up to 3 GHz? Hel-loo!
part 2
One of the more incredible and puzzling aspects of the tiny little bowl resonators is how much they affect very low frequencies. How can three or four of these little guys do that?
part 3
Another bizzare aspect of the tiny little bowls is they affect the sound even when they not located in the room. How can that be?
|
glupson
geoffkait “Help me out, I can’t figure out, are they mildly retarded or are they just very conservative?”
It would be hard for anyone to help you out on this one as you omitted at least one more very possible answer. Maybe they thought of it, applied some theory, did some testing, and decided it was not good enough, or not good at all. In short, maybe they thought and realized something someone else did not.
>>>>>Oh, didn’t I mention, I am an audio insider? I know many top notch high end amp designers. It was strickty a rhetorical question. It’s what I call hyper circuit focused. It’s like having blinders on a racehorse. They never got the memos and if they did they threw them in the curcular file. Even judging by those amp designers who post on this forum, and those who DIY amps they either never heard of the tweaks, don’t care if they did by chance hear of them or are afraid of bringing down the heat if anyone found out they were using controversial audiophile tweaks in their amps. There are a precious few like Mietner who employs cryo, but he’s in the minority. If I’m missing someone who’s been paying attention please let me know. Then there’s the argument, “why should be use tweaks? Our amps are already perfect.” 🙄
gluoson
geoffkait: "...or the myriad other tweaks and concepts audiophiles hold dear."
Just following this thread you can see that tweaks and concepts audiophiles hold dear are not that universally held dear. Some of the manufacturers that are embracing what you hold dear may be considered "snake oil salesmen" to others who would rather that manufacturers that they prefer stay away from that kind of approach. That is why there are so many manufacturers and products on the market. Pick and choose what you like.
>>>>Maybe you haven’t been paying very close attention. The ones who don’t hold audiophile tweaks and concepts dear are by and large the ones who never try them, who are just having a hoot going after audiophiles who do hold them dear. You, know, audio forum whack a mole. As I said, lots of folks are a little uh, sensitive about being linked to the dark arts. ☠️ As far as any manufacturers embracing these audiophile products there aren’t any. If I’m wrong, please, no angry emails.😁
glupson
I cannot find it now to quote it, but someone in the previous few threads mentioned something to the effect of "or flow does not move at all". If it is not moving, would you still call it a flow? "Flow with velocity of zero?"
>>>>I am pretty sure I already answered that question a number of different ways since last night. I have been known to sing like a canary under water boarding, perhaps if you ask enough times I’ll change my tune. 😬
|
Hey, listen, people sometimes explain things the best they can. Not everything is Albert Einstein or Charlie Rose. You don’t like the explanation? Tough toenails. You don’t see any explanation? Too bad. You don’t see something that fits nicely into your little playbook? Personally, these days I advise anyone in the business of tweaks not to offer ANY explanations, even ones they’re pretty sure of. There’s no real payoff. You wind up having to deal with a whole lotta nonsense. Of course, drama does have its advantages. A little drama never hurt anyone. 😬 Everybody’s a genius. It’s pretty obvious this thread has become a magnet for all the die hard pseudo skeptics and pretend engineers on the forum. Are they importing them from Hydrogen Audio? From Randi’s Education Foundation? Is prof a ringer from Skeptics Society? Well, whaddya expect? “Build it and they will come.” All you get is the, “Well what about this? What about that?” routine, repeated ad nauseum. Shut the cave door and back to Pygmy Country!
|
We want Tuning that tastes good, not Tuning with good taste.
|
I’m undecided about you, Costco. I can’t decide whether you’re mildly retarded or uneducated or just having a series of DMT flashbacks. 😀
|
The metal chassis is just a holdover from the 70s when all the amp manufacturers believed it would prevent RF from entering their precious circuits. Monkey see, monkey do. 🐒 Not...too ...swift. Of course, you can’t tell them anything.
|
audionuttoo
I’m not posting as a response to anyone, just adding my own 2 cents. First of all, remember that we have all been born with the world’s best and most sensitive listening devices ever conceived - our own ears! Trust them - they are the one truth in music! I have experienced the tunable room in person, at Bill333’s place, and know that it works. I was left alone with the tuning wrench and allowed to experiment and make adjustments to my liking. It became obvious very quickly that the adjustments were very intuitive and easy to learn. I was able to turn a small and constricted sound stage into a large open and expansive one that extended in all directions around me! Then I was able to bring it back to points in between and eventually back to where I started simply by adjusting the tension on the panels. Less tension allowed the panels to vibrate more, extending the sound stage. More tension = less vibration = smaller sound stage. Pretty intuitive right? How do I know this works? My ears told me so! Tuning works my droogies! And while not all tuning is as intuitive as this, the idea of loosening things to allow them to vibrate more and increase the size of the sound stage always does work! How do I know this? My ears tell me so! Those who have not heard it have no basis to criticize it. Those who have not should try it. Those who have will know it works if they listen to the music with their own sensitive listening devices - their ears!
>>>>>>Not sure I go along with your detective work. The conclusion that “vibration is good” might very well be incorrect and lead to “over generalizations” that are false. The loosely of screws may actually be explained by reducing the physical stress produced when the screws are tight. The same idea applies to transformers that are generally bolted down tightly and capacitors that are constrained with tight cable ties. Reducing stress improves the sound. Voila! But the general conclusion that vibration is good is probably overreaching. One over generalization that is false is vibration is good. And that leads to another over generalization that is also false - isolation is bad. 😬
|
Typical retarded amp maker comment. |
What it all boils down to in the final analysis is whether or not Tuning causes cancer. Agreed? By the way, I can’t help noticing there doesn't seem to be very much interest in my latest pop quizzaroo. You know, the one about the acoustic resonators. Or any of them, frankly. What’s up with that? I thought we had some brainy people here. Come on, what’s the matter? Not challenging enough? Too mundane? Too stupid? Not interested at All? Hey, there’s a multiple choice pop quiz right there! I personally suspect the self-anointed Uber skeptics are just posing as engineers, intellectuals or whatever. OK let’s see those pose downs, fellas. Work it, baby!
|
|
Oh, geez, uberwaltz wants to play hardball. Look out! Uberwaltz go on warpath.
|
glupson wrote,
“Where you may not be doing too well in all of this is putting too many emotions into something eventually completely unimportant. Some guy somewhere claiming things you see as bogus and selling it to other people who also have nothing better to do than to pay to play with bricks (wooden, or whatever) and that irritates you. So what? Let them play with their toys in whatever way they want, but do not pay with your new duodenal ulcer. It is not worth the trouble and you simply cannot win.”
>>>>Whoa! Hey, I did not see that coming! Those comments are very typical of professional naysayers and pseudo skeptics, a perfect example really of someone who presents himself as an intellectually honest, curious skeptic, innocently seeking answers to “real questions” when in fact he’s aiming to attack the other side as uncooperative and misinformed, even stupid, without even getting to the bottom of what it’s all about. Just wait for the name calling. It’s so obvious. A self fulfilling prophecy. It’s not a debate, it’s a foregone conclusion. A page straight out of Zen and the Art of Debunkery. Let the Inquisition continue! Like prof, glupson is one of these pseudo skeptics who keeps insisting, “they’re the ones calling names, not me, I’m just an innocent seeker of truth, seeking out hoaxes and frauds wherever I find them.” Give us a break, glupson.
Zen and the Art of Debunkery
“As the millennium turns, science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.
• Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air certifying that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Adopting a disdainful, upper-class manner is optional but highly recommended.
• Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous," "trivial," "crackpot," or "bunk," in a manner that purports to carry the full force of scientific authority.
• Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will send the message that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it -- and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.”
- your friend and humble scribe
|
kosst_amojan
I've used gear covers on and off. It's made no difference at all except for my F5. I'm running 1.42 amp of bias on 32 volt rails. Putting the lid on it puts another 5C+ into the heatsinks and 10C into the JFETs. That changes the sound. So in the interest of keeping things cool, I go cover off.
Bingo!
|
cd318
There should be no good reason to remove an amplifier case cover. The cover protects you from a possibly fatal shock and the components from possibly fatal damage (and dust).
>>>>If removing the metal cover off disturbs you a wood board or plexiglass cover will suffice. You can even remove the wood or plexiglass cover for critical listening. 😀 obviously taking the cover off is not suggested for those with small pets. If you have a dust problem in the room can I suggest an air purifier?
cd318
Case resonance issues in amplifier design are best left to the designers, but if you are concerned you can always experiment with means of physical isolation via platforms, air bladders, etc
>>>>As I’ve pointed out many things like power cords, fuses, transformers bolted to the chassis, are most likely not best left to the designers. Besides everyone knows dedicated audiophiles don’t follow rules.
cd318
Some manufacturers such as Naim Audio have been physically isolating/decoupling their circuit boards for decades.
>>>>>Now that is a great idea! I’ve been advocating the same thing for years. Anyone can do it. It’s not rocket science. 🚀
|
glupson, you’ve convinced me that you don’t get it. Something’s wrong somewhere. Glupson, I’m afraid this conversation can serve no purpose anymore.
|
freediver
Somewhere in the archives of my history here at A’gon I said basically the reason there is ZERO scientific testing regarding audio reproduction products is a conspiracy between HEA manufacturers & the established media to perpetuate the myth of performance = $$$!
That is why empirical testing of audio products in the mainstream died with Julian Hirsch...
>>>>Two things. If there’s a conspiracy how come John Atkinson routinely measures the performance of audio products on Stereophile? Even Stereo Times, as I just got through saying, measured the performance of the Franck Tchang tiny little bowls. Didn’t you see the Pop Quiz? And, as we’ve been discussing, the word empirical includes measurements AND subjective listening evaluations, the latter being the ubiquitous empirical method employed by reviewers and forum members. If the hobby was photography wouldn’t empirical evidence include how the photograph looks?
|
Oh, brother! Just when you thought it couldn’t get any sillier.
Let me put it another way. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck...it’s a duck! 🦆
“Ask not for whom the troll bellows. He bellows for you.” - audiophile saying
“Idle hands are the Devil’s workshop.” - audiophile axiom
“Sound quality ultimately has very little to do with technical specifications.” - audiophile axiom
Gonna raise me an army, some tough sons of bitches
I’ll recruit my army from the orphanages
I been to St. Herman’s church, said my religious vows
I’ve sucked the milk out of a thousand cows
your friend and humble scribe,
geoff kait
machinations dramatica
|
Nothing sadder or funnier than a gaggle of self congratulatory pseudo skeptics lingering around patting each other on the hiney. What you you going to do now? No more whack a mole. Bring out the crying towels. There’s no joy in Mudville today. 😢 MG sure was right about fakes after all. 😀
|
cd318
Attention seeking, narcissistic, compulsive, repetitive, random, useless argumentative verbiage can admittedly be mildly entertaining on occasion.
Eventually though the lack of meaningful interaction or discourse just smacks of desperation and control freak issues. You get the feeling of enormous anger issues and barely concealed hostility behind an incoherent attempt to shine and dazzle.
Luckily we don’t know anyone like that here.
>>>>>Uh, I give up. Are you looking in the mirror?
Note to self - Apparently all I have to do is utter the magic words “English major” and one shows up. With a psychology minor.
|
prof
I’m absolutely shocked that Tuner bill333 would enthusiastically endorse
geoffkait s anti-science rant!
>>>>Obviously, it wasn’t anti-science. It was Anti what science has become in minds of pseudo skeptics. It has become pseudo science for pseudo skeptics and English majors. Pseu, pseu, pseudo! MG was correct about the fakes. Even their arguments are fake. You are right to avoid interacting with me as I see through you like you were made of glass.
“You can’t prove it!” - Juror #3 12 Angry Men
|
mapman
Yes, the 1960’s back in the glory days of tubes and vinyl, when hifi ruled. Nobody cares about any of that anymore.....
Hey wait!!!!!
>>>>Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. The Lone Ranger rides again. Or The Lone Moopman. "From out of the west with the speed of light and a hearty, ‘Hi-yo, Silver!'" ... The Lone Moopman rides again! The speed of light?! You are fast!
|
The only ones I’ve ever seen use the term High Fidelity since the 1960s are you and Radio Shack. No offense.
Relentlessly seek? Are you nuts?! There you go again, Mr. Fake, pretending to be some sort of cutting edge audiophile. 🤡 Cannot walk the walk, can’t even talk the talk.
|
uberwaltz, what’s got into you? You suddenly seem so, uh, empowered. Don’t scare the young uns. You go, girl! 💃
|
It appears some of the trolls have graduated to stalker. This is a fine how do you do. Ask not for whom the troll bellows.
|
If that doesn’t work try holding it between your knees. And squeeze. Hey! What? Another poem?
|
prof
Viva La Revolution geoff!
You go girl!
>>>>>Start the revolution without me.
How is work going on your new scientific paradigm?
>>>>I’m already at least two paradigms ahead of you so what’s the difference? A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from voodoo.
I’m rooting for you, but in the race to overthrow staid and dogmatic science, there are so many others bidding to tell us science is wrong for not validating their theories.
>>>>>I realize you haven’t been paying very close attention but I actually use real science to validate my theories. Can I help it if English majors shrug their shoulders? I am the King of Science and the King of Pseudo Science. The only real question is, why can’t there be more like me?
>>>>Looks like the Flat-Earthers are are getting their message out a lot more effectively, and they seem pretty good at making videos, so maybe time to up your game?
>>>>I don’t need no stinking videos. All the tired horses in the sun, how’m I gonna get any riding done? 🐎
|
uberwaltz
Of course we don’t know what we don’t know and we never know what we are missing until we hear it.
I do not think many here dispute the fact that room acoustics play a huge part in our journey.
I do know that a fair number are also in the situation where due to location of the music system that alterations to said room just is not going to happen unless they like sleeping outside afterwards!
>>>>>I feel it’s only fair to point out that Michael Green’s methodology of Tuning, and I say this after discussing it with him at some length, you know, like every day for two years, which might actually be some kind of record, involves more than room acoustics. Much more.
For example, some of his ideas I use myself, either by coincidence or because I thought it was a very good idea, include isolating the transformer from the chassis, MG goes so far as to remove the transformer and place it somewhere else, removing the cover of my former Oppo 103, suggested also by Ric Schultz of EVS, and using the low mass concept for the system. My particular system, not counting isolation stand that comes in at around 60 pounds, a hot rod Walkman CD Player, weighs all of 10 ounces, not counting headphones and cable that add another pound, mostly due to carbon fiber sleeves on headphone cable. In fact I don’t even address room acoustics, a big advantage of going to headphones. Plus There’s a huge sonic benefit to going off the grid as one might imagine.
Noah Cross to Gittes: “You may think you know what you’re dealing with, but, believe me, you don’t.”
Made the scene
day to day week to week
hour to hour
the river is deep and wide
break on through to the other side
break on through to the other side |
Oh, well, I guess the take away from all of this is you can’t please everybody. OK, what’s next? We got the Black Fuse, the Blue Fuse, the Graphene super conductor, and the Tuning. What’s next? Please don’t start a thread on some mysterious hum you can’t get rid of or what’s up with high prices for cables.
|
You especially can’t please the folks who don’t actually use tweaks and who don’t really care. 😀 You seem like someone who enjoys these wild goose chases. Why don’t you pick one? 🦆 🦆 🦆
|
Thanks Moops, always good to hear from the faker side. I know, I know, you really are an engineer. 🙄 Is it lunch break at Target? ⭕️
|
Hey, Moops, did you forget to take your smart pills again?
|
The Doors. Who I quoted this morning at 8:40 on this very thread. Coincidence? You decide. 😬 |
glupson
geoffkait,
You especially can’t please the folks who don’t actually use tweaks and who don’t really care.
It may be, at least partially, due to the fact that those who do not use tweaks and do not care are already content which translates into pleased. No need to try hard to please them, they are just fine.
I see. You mean like contented cows? 🐄 you must be here strictly for the abuse. 😬
|
glupson
mapman,
Walkman! Now you are really talking.
>>>>I not only talk the talk and walk the walk. I also walk the Walkman. Walkman is for those who walk the walk, not those who only talk the talk - actually not really talk so much, more like jibber jabber. 🤡
|
glupson
prof,
I may want to do a blind test for fun and to get more confidence in the result. But I may also not bother and think "Well, seems I heard enough difference, liked it, I’ll keep it in the system."
This is called level-headed mature approach. At least, I would like to think that it is as it is exactly the way I do things.
>>>>It goes without saying any dedicated pseudo skeptic should keep a Blind Test in his arsenal of tweakaphobic rhetoric. Nice move! And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if both of you actually did them. Lots of laughs! It’s always heart warming to see pseudo skeptics nurture each other. 👨❤️👨 |
prof wrote,
”But for anyone who thinks like this, if they are spending, or about to spend lots of time and money on a tweak, I’d expect they would actually want to know if that tweak actually alters the sound of the system, in reality. If someone really would rather not spend money on a false claim, then seeing the case for being skeptical can be quite enlightening or useful.
If you for instance take a look at the length many of the Michael Green "Tuners" go to, it’s really quite something to behold. Components taken apart, strewn between speakers, everything carefully arrange on special wood blocks etc. Now, If that’s what someone gets a kick out of doing...I would never want to say "don’t do it." Hey, everyone likes to have a hobby.
BUT...for anyone who really cares about not wasting their time and money on something that is only in their imagination - and I tend to doubt that many would choose to have the rather unsightly splaying of components and wires in their room if they didn’t think it was improving their sound - for those people seeing a skeptical case presented that they may be doing just that, can actually be beneficial.”
>>>Surely you must realize your latest volley of dismissive anti tweak jibber jabber has no relationship to honest debate or even supports your initial whinings that the claims of sound improvement are unprovable or deceptive or whatever. Now it appears you have chosen some sort of weird attack on the nature of Tuning, e. g., wasting their time, components taken apart, carefully arrange everything on special wooden blocks, unsightly splaying of components and wires, etc. I understand you don’t wish to walk the walk. You are obviously a rank beginner with a grudge. Could do do us a favor and refrain from trying to talk the talk? You never want to say “don’t do it?” Huh? Are you crazy. That’s exactly what you’re saying. Hel-loo! Fake! Fake! Fake!
|
Moops, I don’t need SR-80s where I’m going. I’m going back! Back to the Future! As the bumper sticker on the back of the extra wide load 18 wheeler going up the long mountain road said, I may be slow but I’m ahead of you. I reckon you’re at least two paradigm shifts behind the power curve. Fake! Fake! Fake!
|
What? Whoa! Spikes don’t work? Where did you ever hear that? Spikes might just be the most reliable of all the major food groups. The reason they don’t exacerbate vibrations is straightforward, too, so nobody will be offended or get their knickers in a bunch. There’s much less surface area at the tip of the spike for vibrations to go up, and the spike acts as a mechanical diode, allowing vibrations to escape downwards. Case solved. The only variables left to consider are geometry and material.
|
prof
geoff,
I suggest that you’ll have a much better chance to engage someone in actual dialogue if you sloooow down and read more carefully.
>>>>I’m a speed reader. I also have excellent comprehension.
If necessary, I suggest running your forefinger slowly beneath each line of text so that you don’t miss anything.
>>>>Oh, a wise guy!
When you understand someone’s point before replying, you are less likely to waste your and anyone else’s time creating the phalanxes of frothing strawmen that you rage against. And, who knows, we could maybe actually have a discussion!
>>>>>I acknowledge you’re the master of frothing Strawmen, professor. I thought we were having a discussion. What have we been having?
|
cd318
The entire history of tweaking has achieved nothing but lead all and sundry who followed down blind alleys where they were effectively blinded by pseudo science and often mugged of not inconsiderable amounts of money.
>>>Whoa! What! OMG! Sounds like someone’s system wasn’t resolving enough.
If people believed in too much instead of too little they would generally be much better off.
- PT Barnum
|
glupson
Does anyone know what "pseudo skeptic" means?
>>>>>Yes, someone does. 🙄
“Pseudo-skepticism (or pseudoscepticism) is a philosophical or scientific position which appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but which in reality fails to be so.
In 1987, Marcello Truzzi revived the term specifically for arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. He argued that scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses"—theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong—without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.[5][6][7][8]
In 1987, while working as a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar (which he founded):
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof...
Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them.
— Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5]”
- cheers, your humble scribe
|
prof
I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?
>>>>>>Engineering credentials? Whoa! Oh, no! It’s come down to the old I’ll show you mine if you show me yours argument. Another favorite pseudo skeptic ploy. That usually pops up when the combatant has completely run out of ammo. Attack the arguer not the argument. Smooth!
|
No, actually he doubted Michael’s engineering credentials, as if credentials mean something. Can’t you read? Here is the original post, try again. You’re the one twisting his comments to be something innocent. But the point is that credentials are irrelevant. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
prof
I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?
|
Imagine my embarrassment, I just looked down at my Grado headphones and what did I see? SR 80. Wow! No wonder they sound so good!
|
thecarpathian
@ geoff- Oh, I read it just fine. But, just in case you feel my reading comprehension isn’t up to snuff, be so kind as to direct me to where in the above post did the prof offer up his credentials if MG did the same. You must have read it in there, because that’s the entire premise of your response to it.
>>>>No, actually that wasn’t my premise. My presume was that credentials don’t matter. My comment I’ll show you mine if you show me yours was a joke. Obviously I already realize prof doesn’t have the (engineering) credentials he insuinuating Michael doesn’t have. Follow?
thecarpathian
But, then you explain that the point of your remark is that credentials are irrelevant. The ability and experience that make someone suitable for a particular job is irrelevant??! Wow. Care to explain, or mock, or insult, that one away?
>>>>>Credentials are irrelevant because someone with credentials doesn’t automatically win the argument. Also, someone with better credentials than someone else doesn’t automatically win the argument. Even a PhD in blah blah blah cannot claim he wins all the arguments even when the subject is his specialty, blah blah blah. Capish?
Experience does NOT equal credentials, at least how prof was using the term credentials. In terms of experience obviously Michael has a boatload. That’s why one often sees engineering job listings with the caveat, “x years of experience can be substituted for y degree” Experience -or the lack thereof - is kind of what actually what Michael was deriding when he used the word fake. Follow?
|
prof
So geoff’s hand was finally forced to show his"pseudo skeptic" card that he kept threatening me and others with - throwing around that label as if it suited, or showed any problem with, my arguments.
>>> What? Are you crazy? I wasn’t threatening anyone. I am adept at recognizing earnest and dedicated followers of pseudo skepticism. Call it radar. If you don’t like the label that’s what is known as tough gazongie. Of course pseudo skeptics don’t like being labeled. I’m just keeping the playing field level. Besides, this was the second time I posted the long winded definition of pseudo skeptic. Try to keep up with the discussion, guys. Let the Inquisition proceed! Off with their heads!
|
