Studies On Residential Power Line Noise - Part 8: Audio Grade Fuses For Home Theater

DarqueKnight

unc2701 wrote: »

Can I make a request? DK- With no music or any other outside noise, stand between your coffee table and the couch and clap your hands, once, as hard as you can. Describe in detail- the same kind of detail that you use for the other posts.

Next repeat this while standing directly in front of each speaker. Also, if you don't mind, post a pic of the wall to the left as you're facing the TV.

Thanks!

unc2701 wrote: »

A buddy of mine has a surprisingly similar room- it's always hard to put into words what you hear in a room, but I think that'd help me know exactly what you're describing in your posts. You've got a ton of detail... so the experiment might help me understand what you're saying.

When I clap my hands standing between the table and couch, I hear a slight echo a fraction of a second after the hand clap.

When I clap my hands standing in front of each speaker, the echo is a little bit longer and louder.

Standing between the couch and table, I have a thick wool area rug under me, large leather furniture to the left and behind me and thick Roman shades behind me. When I am standing in front of or sitting on the sofa, the ceiling height is 10 feet. The celing height in the center of the room is 12 feet. The ceiling height over the speakers is 10 feet.

The entire space has a volume of 5532 cu. ft. and a surface area of 1930 sq. ft. You have to subtract from that four open archways: a 3.75' wide x 8.5' archway, and three 3.3' wide x 8.5' tall archways. The media room opens into the kitchen and breakfast room, and the breakfast room bumps off of the kitchen.

The raw reverb time of the space is volume/area, without any furniture and without accounting for the absorption coefficients of the various materials in the space, is 2.87 seconds. When absorption coefficients are considered, the reverb time 0.11 second (based on calculations alone, rather than measurements).

I'm still not clear how any of this helps you understand anything I've written. What exactly are you having trouble understanding?

heiney9

I see the usual's are back giving lip service. Bikezappa, you keep mentioning that you have proven DK's observance is load of bull, but I have yet to see anything but your sparse and very brief hyperbole which seems to be YOUR opinion. Didn't see any facts and the fact you admit to not hearing differences would exclude you from this study since it's based on observing (using ones ears) differences.

Just because you say it's a bunch of bull doesn't even come close to convincing me.

H9

DarqueKnight

C'mon H9,

You know personal attacks, repetitive lip service, hysterics, assuming your limited experience applies to everyone else and "spicing up" your discourse with profanities are way more fun than supporting your position with actual facts.;)

F1nut

more f1nut bulling

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

And the beatings will continue until moral improves!

Face

Keiko wrote: »

I'm really happy that William and bikezappa found each other.

Gold!

F1nut

Keiko wrote: »

Beating on the whinos.

You are far too kind, sir.

megasat16

Well, I just have to laugh at those tags. What the hell! You taggers out there, come out from the woman's panties and be a man. May be not a man...My bad!

reeltrouble1

lordy lordy......

well I recently read this in a mag:

Any scientist worth his salt knows to stay the hell out of the way of a person enjoying their hobby.

Raife's Music Rig is something I would love to hear. The only suggestion I might have for him is to dump the Roman shades, maybe something tropical.

RT1--Tubes Rule--Cables Matter--Fuses are the Bomb.

bikezappa

DarqueKnight wrote: »

C'mon H9,

You know personal attacks, repetitive lip service, hysterics, assuming your limited experience applies to everyone else and "spicing up" your discourse with profanities are way more fun than supporting your position with actual facts.;)

My simple question for DK or anyone else: How can a resistive network, fuses or line cords, reduce noise in the electric power to your equipment?

No hysterics. no profanities just some explaination.

I have asked this many times but never get an answer.

bikezappa

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

lordy lordy......
Any scientist worth his salt knows to stay the hell out of the way of a person enjoying their hobby.
.

Lordy I agree. But when a PHD tries to use science to explain his modifications, fuses and line cords, to his hobby other scientists should be able to comment and discuss his science.

heiney9

bikezappa wrote: »

My simple question for DK or anyone else: How can a resistive network, fuses or line cords, reduce noise in the electric power to your equipment?

No hysterics. no profanities just some explaination.

I have asked this many times but never get an answer.

bikezappa wrote: »

Lordy I agree. But when a PHD tries to use science to explain his modifications, fuses and line cords, to his hobby other scientists should be able to comment and discuss his science.

Hmmmmmmm......since you portray yourself as a fellow scientist; please show us "laymen" how you came about your conclusion. I mean "show" me, not lip service. A full analysis with supporting links to "actual" scientific methodology as to why this is not possible.

You're the one who is so emphatically stating this is NOT possible based on the general laws of electricity and physics, etc, etc.

H9

bikezappa

heiney9 wrote: »

I see the usual's are back giving lip service. Bikezappa, you keep mentioning that you have proven DK's observance is load of bull, but I have yet to see anything but your sparse and very brief hyperbole which seems to be YOUR opinion. Didn't see any facts and the fact you admit to not hearing differences would exclude you from this study since it's based on observing (using ones ears) differences.

Just because you say it's a bunch of bull doesn't even come close to convincing me.

H9

I stated that fuses and line cords are resistive networks and based my EE circuit theory can not act as a filter of noise. To say a resister can filter noise is crap. based on EE laws. No one has explained to me how a resister can filter anything. Can you?

You require facts. Then go take a few courses in EE.

If I say rocks can float in air would you believe me? I think DK statements that fuses filter noise is as valid as floating rocks.

unc2701

DarqueKnight wrote: »

When I clap my hands standing between the table and couch, I hear a slight echo a fraction of a second after the hand clap.

When I clap my hands standing in front of each speaker, the echo is a little bit longer and louder.

Standing between the couch and table, I have a thick wool area rug under me, large leather furniture to the left and behind me and thick Roman shades behind me. When I am standing in front of or sitting on the sofa, the ceiling height is 10 feet. The celing height in the center of the room is 12 feet. The ceiling height over the speakers is 10 feet.

The entire space has a volume of 5532 cu. ft. and a surface area of 1930 sq. ft. You have to subtract from that four open archways: a 3.75' wide x 8.5' archway, and three 3.3' wide x 8.5' tall archways. The media room opens into the kitchen and breakfast room, and the breakfast room bumps off of the kitchen.

The raw reverb time of the space is volume/area, without any furniture and without accounting for the absorption coefficients of the various materials in the space, is 2.87 seconds. When absorption coefficients are considered, the reverb time 0.11 second (based on calculations alone, rather than measurements).

I'm still not clear how any of this helps you understand anything I've written. What exactly are you having trouble understanding?

Thanks! That actually helps out a lot.

bikezappa

heiney9 wrote: »

Hmmmmmmm......since you portray yourself as a fellow scientist; please show us "laymen" how you came about your conclusion. I mean "show" me, not lip service. A full analysis with supporting links to "actual" scientific methodology as to why this is not possible.

You're the one who is so emphatically stating this is NOT possible based on the general laws of electricity and physics, etc, etc.

H9

I have a degree in physics and have worked in the ceramic composite field fabricating componets for R&D and commericial applications for 40 years. I have published over 10 papers in scientific journals.

I'm not going to explain to you on this post basic EE circuit theory, sorry. I would suggest that you look up the term resonance which is required componet for any filter. Resonace requires capacitance and inductance. Line cords and fuse have no capacitance or inductance therefore have no resonate frequecy and are not capable of filtering.

The language of EE in math. This format doesn't work for expalining ohms law or how to determine impedance of a circuit.

The beauty of EE is how every thing can be reduced to a combination of R, resistance, C, capacitance and L, Inductance. ALL circuits are a combination of these three units and there are mathamatical laws that show how R,L,C work together PREDICT how your lights, tuner, amplifiers work.

When people and scientists ignore these laws on the forum I write a rant and get called names.

Erik Tracy

bikezappa wrote: »

I stated that fuses and line cords are resistive networks and based my EE circuit theory can not act as a filter of noise. To say a resister can filter noise is crap. based on EE laws. No one has explained to me how a resister can filter anything. Can you?

You require facts. Then go take a few courses in EE.

If I say rocks can float in air would you believe me? I think DK statements that fuses filter noise is as valid as floating rocks.

Where are your links?

No science links, just the counter whining for someone else to post science links?

Well??

concealer404

bikezappa wrote: »

I stated that fuses and line cords are resistive networks and based my EE circuit theory can not act as a filter of noise. To say a resister can filter noise is crap. based on EE laws. No one has explained to me how a resister can filter anything. Can you?

You require facts. Then go take a few courses in EE.

If I say rocks can float in air would you believe me? I think DK statements that fuses filter noise is as valid as floating rocks.

Let's see some backup to that statement. Maybe some measurements that you can bring up? Links to results of this very study? Perhaps you yourself have dabbled in it. Let's see your studies.

WilliamM2

Erik Tracy wrote: »

Where are your links?

No science links, just the counter whining for someone else to post science links?

Well??

concealer404 wrote: »

Let's see some backup to that statement. Maybe some measurements that you can bring up? Links to results of this very study? Perhaps you yourself have dabbled in it. Let's see your studies.

I can't believe you don't understand something as simple as a fuse. Maybe that's why you are so gullible. Well here you go:

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_12/4.html

Check out some of the other chapters on the site, maybe you can actually learn something, and stop falling for all the snake oil out there. But I doubt it.

bikezappa

Erik Tracy wrote: »

Where are your links?

No science links, just the counter whining for someone else to post science links?

Well??

As I stated I can't explain EE circuit theory on this forum. What is your back ground? This is why there are colleges. Look up a resonant circuit. Do you people need to be spoon feed?

Erik Tracy

Basic sound science is 'observational' - go read up on any of basic science and you will see that.

This is exactly what is being reported here.

There was no predetermination as to whether fuses make a sonic difference - it asked a basic question and then the article DK provided then described the 'observational experiment' to see if there was. The methodology was described, the configuration was described, and the observational results were provided.

Then, the so called objectivists, jumped in and shouted poo-poo, no way, bs, snake oil, blah blah blah..

Ummm...that is bad science. This position has already presupposed a conclusion and with hand waiving dismissed the results of this observational experiment.

Good science now mandates that the results be considered, then thought space devoted to show that either the results can be confirmed or not.

If the nay sayers wish to continue a discussion in the name of 'science' - then SHOW the "science" that proves the contrary.....

Erik Tracy

bikezappa wrote: »

As I stated I can't explain EE circuit theory on this forum. What is your back ground? This is why there are colleges. Look up a resonant circuit. Do you people need to be spoon feed?

EE, 25 years...and willing to keep my mind and ears open.

heiney9

Bike, must be nice to work in a field that is so cut and dried. Just plunk everything related into the formula's of OHM's Law and viola, you have a black and white answer. Wish the world really worked that way. :rolleyes:

I'm familiar with Ohms Law and how it relates to audio, but there are variables within audio reproduction that can't be predicted strictly by using the formula's within Ohms Law to measure an outcome.

Ohms Law is very much like Economic models; you plug in the variables but everything else related must remain constant in order to realize the function the end equation predicts. That doesn;t happen in Economics as you can't keep all other variables constant. Reproducing an audio signal has many variables as well from input to output that Ohm's Law doesn;t take into account by simply knowing I, R, or V.

Don;t get me wrong I am in no way challenging the validity of Ohm's Law. It simply doesn;t account for other variables in audio reproduction. For example, Ohms law doesn't measure or predict whether the signal has 2nd or 3rd order harmonics. It's agreed that an audio signal has a different characteristic depending on the type of harmonics reproduced in the signal. Ohm's Law won't predict that........and that's something we can hear as being different.

H9

ViperZ

bikezappa wrote: »

As I stated I can't explain EE circuit theory on this forum. What is your back ground? This is why there are colleges. Look up a resonant circuit. Do you people need to be spoon feed?

Bikezappa, I am not going to argue with you or anybody here. In fact, I do not believe any of the stuff written here anyway, but your statement that resistors cannot act as filters needs some explanation.
Look at the resistor not as a filter (it cannot be a noise filter, unless it's really a part of the LRC filter), but as a source of noise. Depending on the construction of the component (i.e. resistors can be metal film, carbon film, wirewound, etc.), resistor might introduce "imperfections" to the signal.
Whether you or anybody else can hear this "noise" and how it propagates through the circuit remains to be proven. That's why I am not going to argue with these guys who have "golden" ears.

DarqueKnight

Erik Tracy wrote: »

Where are your links?

No science links, just the counter whining for someone else to post science links?

Well??

concealer404 wrote: »

Let's see some backup to that statement. Maybe some measurements that you can bring up? Links to results of this very study? Perhaps you yourself have dabbled in it. Let's see your studies.

I doubt if he would be able to understand them. The antagonist often questions the qualifications and knowledge of others. He always wants someone to "explain" things to him. Why would any hotshot physicist make it his calling in life to ridicule and question the leisure time activities of others?

I challenge the antagonist to provide links to some of his published, peer-reviewed scientific articles. Anyone can claim to have this or that degree or to have published however many journal papers. Where did his physics degree come from? He certainly is displaying a disturbing lack of basic physics knowledge with his constant begging for people to explain basic physical theory to him. For example:

Any competent physicist knows the following:

1. An electric current flowing through a conductor generates an electric field around the conductor.

2. If two energized conductors are placed close enough together, their electric fields will interact and generate some disruption (noise) in the electric currents in the conductors.

3. Twisting the wires together (twisted pair) in such a way that the electric fields of the wires cancel out or is greatly reduced thereby reduces the noise.

Telecommunications companies and cable companies (both inside and outside the audio industry) spend considerable amounts of time and money researching cable geometries (twist patterns) that result in optimum noise cancellation.

Therefore, someone purporting to be educated in the physical sciences and asking how a "mere" cable can filter noise looks ignorant and ridiculous.

Any competent physicist knows the following:

1. The cladding (jacket, insulation, etc.) of an electric conductor has capacitance and can store some of the energy in a conductor's electric field.

2. The stored energy in the cladding has to be released at some time and will introduce noise into the signal flowing in the conductor.

Telecommunications companies and cable companies (both inside and outside the audio industry) spend considerable amounts of time and money researching cable cladding materials that result in optimum absorption and dispersion so as to have the least detrimental effect on the signal.

Again, someone purporting to be educated in the physical sciences and asking how a cable can filter noise looks ignorant and ridiculous.

Any competent physicist knows the following:

1. The purity of a conductor has an effect on the noise content of the signal flowing through it. As electrons collide with non-conductive impurities in a cable, noise is generated.

2. Reducing the impurities in a conductor reduces the noise content in the signal.

Telecommunications companies and cable companies (both inside and outside the audio industry) spend considerable amounts of time and money researching cable conductor materials that result in optimum signal transfer with as low amount of noise as is practical for a specific application.

Again, someone purporting to be educated in the physical sciences and asking how a cable can filter noise looks ignorant and ridiculous.

Cable conductor geometry, conductor cladding and conductor material all have an effect on the noise content of the signal, whether it is a power or an audio signal. I learned this in physics 101.

In noise study 7, I provided a link to the website of a distinguished physicist, Jack Bybee, who has been doing widely respected work in materials based noise reduction at the quantum level. This technology was first used by the US Navy in reducing noise in SONAR arrays. Since then, quantum filter technology has been used in many other applications, such as power line cords, FUSES, loudspeaker drivers and interconnect cables. My Teres Audio turntable motor uses Bybee filters in its power line to reduce line noise.

It is not clear to me why the antagonist keeps begging for someone to explain how a fuse can filter noise. All he has to do is go and read some of Bybee's papers or the papers of any other scientist who had done research on quantum noise filters. I suspect that the papers would be beyond his scope of understanding. Hence, his continued begging for members of an AUDIO FORUM to explain things to him.

Pitiful.

Here's a great opportunity for the great enlightened physicist to establish some technical credibility: If the antagonist will read Jack Bybee's technical explanations and then come back to us and explain, with mathematical justification, WHY quantum noise filters CANNOT be applied to line cords and FUSES to reduce power line noise, then I will submit a public retraction of my noise study articles regarding power line fuses here on the forum and I will also submit a retraction to Affordable Audio magazine, where the fuse noise study was also published.

If the antagonist can mathematically or experimentally prove that line cord conductor geometry, cladding and conductor material have no effect whatsoever on the noise reduction capability of a power cable, then I will retract my noise studies published here and elsewhere.

Moreover, upon being proven wrong, I will profusely and publicly APOLOGIZE to the antagonist, remove him from "ignored" status and thank him for his teachings.

I trust this will resolve the controversy. I look forward to enlightenment. I have no problem whatsoever admitting error when I am PROVEN wrong.:)

Although I no longer converse with the antagonist on this forum, I do look forward to reading some of his publications. I am curious to see if they display a higher level of logic, technical comprehension and grammar and spelling than what has been demonstrated on this forum. I also look forward to learning what journals or conferences has accepted his publications.

---

Man, you really threw down the gauntlet. But you know you have a 500% better chance of negotiating peace in the Middle East than actually reading a real technical paper by this guy or getting any kind of technical analysis from him. His kind is only able to offer argument and criticism rather than reasoned rebuttal.

Well, I just thought that he might want to establish HIS credentials since he spends so much time begging for others to show theirs. We'll see.~DK

No, you won't.

reeltrouble1

bike,

I am not sure you really meant to type a line cord cannot have a certain capacitance, albiet stray, for those who are new, any two conducters placed adjacent to each other will develop capacitance, the amount although usually small being dependent upon proximity and length. The dielectric insulator used also figures into the relationship as its molecules exert themselves along the conducter.

No matter though, any device placed into the system either causes the rig to sound better or sound worse. Or as Chuck (madmax) says--everything matters.


RT1

DarqueKnight

Ted,

Yes he did mean to say that. He continually questions things that he has demonstrated that he has no basic understanding of.

Until he proves otherwise, I must just assume that he is not really a physicist, he just plays one on the Internet. Real physicists don't support their positions with personal attacks and questioning the credentials of others who disagree with them. They support their positions with mathematical and physical analysis, logic and reason.

I have asked the antagonist for an analytical rebuttal of my findings. This should be well within the capability of any competent physicist.

dkg999

It's only music folks. I admire DK for his passion and willingness to experiment, and I for one have learned a great deal from his posts and experiments. Maybe some of what his detractors post should be thought, and not written.

DK Rules .......... RT1 Rules ............ Tubes Rule ............ Fuses Rock ............ F1 is on the job keeping CP safe for humanity!

Flash21

bikezappa wrote: »

Are you an engineer? If not, just ask any EE about the crap DK is posting about his fuse post and they will tell it contradicts the basic laws of electricity.

Good thing Einstein didn't believe there was no way to "contradict the basic laws" of gravity as understood at the time...sometimes the "basic laws" are just an incomplete understanding of reality.

Face

Wait, we don't already know everything there is to know?

bikezappa

heiney9 wrote: »

I'm familiar with Ohms Law and how it relates to audio, but there are variables within audio reproduction that can't be predicted strictly by using the formula's within Ohms Law to measure an outcome.

H9

WRONG

And ohms law has no relation to economics.

concealer404

bikezappa wrote: »

WRONG

And ohms law has no relation to economics.

Proof/links/studies/research?