About amp "immediacy"

[Mike Sulzer]

Ohm's law applies only crudely to the conduction inside a vacuum tube.

...

It's also why things as outrageous as quantum physics can stand - the little we do understand about quantum physics DOES reduce to classical, so we don't have to throw out all of physics from zero to deal with the new knowledge.

Exactly! Well said!

Also, consequences of QM as it applies to the very small are with us at the intermediate scale that we exist in. Without QM there is no physics to understand how any stable atom could exist: the electrons radiate away their energy and crash into the nucleus. So we use classical physics for many marvelous things, but if we want to understand matter in our universe we need QM. So it is no surprise that we need it to understand electrons vs holes! (but not to make that easy to understand; that problem is not solved.)

[yldouright]

This is exactly the kind of irrelevant statement that conspiracy theorists, etc., make. So why claim that you do not like to be called one, and then show that you are?

What exactly was conspiratorial or even controversial in his post?!?

Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one that almost everyone else accepts.

This is the manufactured default of the authority position that has no other purpose than to keep those in power entrenched in their cushy situations. It’s sold on the premise of keeping order but it’s really a method of competitive obstruction. The case of Einstein is an interesting one. Too few people know how closely his work was to being discredited forever. If his opposition didn’t die off before he did, they probably would have succeeded in sending his contributions to oblivion like they did the Tesla work and the Gault Thorium reactors. I respect the rigor of your education but please recognize that much of what you deem classicaly established science requires the same kind of faith in the underlying premises that are required in what you and others malign here as pseudoscience.

For a two-terminal vacuum tube, a diode, the math involved in attracting electrons from the cathode to a remote plate gives a 3/2 power ratio of current to applied voltage if I remember correctly. I can go look it up if need be. Inserting a negative-voltage grid between the cathode and plate gives a triode. Decades ago, I had to derive the field intensity around wires in a grid in a vacuum tube. It hurt.

Yes, I would imagine it hurt the same way it would trying to fit a square idea into a round hole.

[Mark Hammer]

I am incredibly late to this party, but I will take a desperate stab at it, taking into consideration that, as a nonstandardized colloquial term, "immediacy" may be a thing, but be a variety of things to a variety of people, with the physical measureables likely being easier to peg down than the psychological ones. I.E., a lot of different conceptions.

What I will say, however, is that speakers vary widely in how they accelerate and come up to cruising speed. But much like the acceleration of a car, responsiveness (a key ingredient in what I think some people mean by immediacy) is a function of not only the mass of the item to be set in motion, but the engine driving it. So, a hot 6-cyl won't do much to pop wheelies on a semi-truck, but the right sort of 6-cyl on a light Honda Civic body can be a speedy machine., and the acceleration achievable may make it feel VERY responsive.

The ability to make the cone accelerate quickly will certainly affect the audible transients and pick attack, but the cone and engine/amplifier also has to have the bandwidth, since I suspect what some folks label immediacy likely involves the extent to which the harmonic content is included in the pick attack.

Slew rate is probably a red herring, the same way "knee" is a bit of a red herring when it comes to diodes and distortion boxes. Amps can differ substantially in slew rate, just as diodes can vary in their knee, but those differences tend to impact on only stuff which is beyond our hearing range, or at least the frequency range of most guitar speakers. So I would put slew rate in the stack, but at the back of it, for explaining "immediacy".

At the front of the lineup I would put speaker efficiency and frequency range/bandwidth, and power match of speaker to amp. If said amp is competent at handling transient impulses and the speaker responsive to them, my guess is that many, though not all, end-users would rate the combination about a 4 out of 5 on "immediacy".

[Mike Sulzer]

What exactly was conspiratorial or even controversial in his post?!?

What is under discussion is a metal in which the vast number of free electrons exists naturally.


from "his post": "There is far too much deference and far too many observed phenomena that are unsatisfactorily explained. Depending on the resonant field the atoms are in or the voltage potential/environment they are exposed to, all or none of the electrons can be freed from any atom."

How does the fact that you can remove electrons from an atom by applying an external field have anything to do with the question of conduction in a metal? Well, it has nothing to do with it. It is just the sort of irrelevant statement that people can read, and nod, and say "why, yes!" without understanding anything about the issue. That is the nature of pseudo science on the one hand and conspiracy theories on the other. Remember all the supposed architects and engineers who had an organization dedicated to "proving" that the WTC towers were blown up with explosives? It did not take much to be an architect or engineer, did it? And their publications were mostly statements that kind.

"This is the manufactured default of the authority position that has no other purpose than to keep those in power entrenched in their cushy situations."

Nonsense. Physics is a set of a relatively few ideas which produce many results that are thus tightly logically interlocked. When you discuss Einstein, you are talking about new ideas that extend physics. The stuff you bring up is just contrary interpretations to already established physics, and so you have to undo a whole lot of physics for your ideas to be anything but completely wrong.

[nosaj]

In other words you cant prove anything.prove your message then you might have people listen. Conjecture and ridiculing people appears to be your only m.o.
If you could get rid of ridiculing people you wouldn't have so many against you.
nosaj

[Dave H]

This is the manufactured default of the authority position that has no other purpose than to keep those in power entrenched in their cushy situations.

And on and on it goes, yet more conspiracy BS. It will never end (which is the whole point of course) unless we stop replying.

What was it that R.G. used to say about never wrestling with a pig?

[Chuck H]

The stuff you bring up is just contrary interpretations to already established physics, and so you have to undo a whole lot of physics for your ideas to be anything but completely wrong.

I just wanted to see this posted a second time.

[R.G.]

This is the manufactured default of the authority position that has no other purpose than to keep those in power entrenched in their cushy situations. It’s sold on the premise of keeping order but it’s really a method of competitive obstruction. The case of Einstein is an interesting one. Too few people know how closely his work was to being discredited forever. If his opposition didn’t die off before he did, they probably would have succeeded in sending his contributions to oblivion like they did the Tesla work and the Gault Thorium reactors. I respect the rigor of your education but please recognize that much of what you deem classicaly established science requires the same kind of faith in the underlying premises that are required in what you and others malign here as pseudoscience.

And this is the language and tone of pseudoscience. I left off a few excerpts in the comments about logical problems in thinking:

Emotive Words and False Analogies
Emotive words are used to provoke emotion and sometimes to obscure rationality.

Ad Ignorantium
an appeal to ignorance or lack of knowledge [...] related to burden of proof and unexplained is not inexplicable
[...] argues that if you cannot disprove a claim, then it must be true

Ad Hominem
[...] redirect the focus from thinking about the idea to thinking about the person holding the idea

The bane of all pseudoscience is the two words "prove it" - with facts, not attack-speak.

Let's see: "manufactured default of the authority position that has no other purpose than to keep those in power entrenched in their cushy situations. It's sold on the premise of keeping order but it's really a method of competitive obstruction."

Wow. All I can say to this notable example of counterculture anti-authority speech is the nemesis of pseudoscience: prove it. Show external, non-emotive, factual bases for what you said:
1. "Manufactured"; the implication being that it's false and had to be made up, not really existing.
2. "Default"; the implication being that there was no actual thought, only a rote recital.
3. "Authority"; the implication being that there is a thought authority that censors statements on actual factual physics.
4. "Position"; the implication being that it's just a statement of position, not upheld with any real facts.
5. "No other purpose"; the implication being nonexistence or non support with facts
6. "Those in power"; the classical us-the-real-people versus those-evil-bad-guys-running-over-us polarization in attempt to paint yourself as downtrodden
7. "Entrenched in their cushy positions"; the implication being that whomever the unproven power elite that the "those in power" refers to are illegitimate and coddled.
8. "[...]keeping order but it's really a method of competitive obstruction"; that one really spins up a batch of counterculture, doesn't it? Let's just cut to the chase: prove, with facts, the allegation that any of this is intended to "keep order" or any sort of "competitive obstruction".

The thing about the real world is, it doesn't care what is deemed politically correct. If you pick up a heavy brick and hold it over your foot, then let go and dare the law of gravity to start something, no matter how you tell gravity that it's just a lackey of the oppressive physics establishment, you're going to have a sore foot. Facts - about the physical sciences, anyway - are non-political.

And the case about Einstein is interesting, as well as not extensively known. His work was by and large ignored - until 1919 when measurements started proving him right. But here's something to think about. Let's say Einstein was discredited. What he discovered about the way the universe works happens to be part of the underlying reality, that's been proven in many ways out to many, many decimal places. If he was forgotten, someone else would have found out the same things, eventually. It was a huge leap for Einstein to discover what he found - but the real facts lay there waiting for someone to find them. They would have come up eventually in any case. Reality is like that. We had a saying back when I was designing electronics and the organization-climbing guys in the company kept coming up with fancier stories to tell the vice presidents. It said, simply "You can't bullshit electrons."

Schopenhauer is often quoted by the pseudoscience margins:"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident." That seems to be a rallying cry for people whose ideas are ridiculed or violently opposed. However, just because one's ideas are ridiculed or opposed does not necessarily make them right. If they are truly valid, hard core reality facts, no amount of ridicule or violent opposition will make them go away. If they are truly valid, hard core reality, they cannot go away. They simply are. Remember the analogy of running ideas into a brick wall and seeing what shatters, the idea or the wall?

Yes, I would imagine it hurt the same way it would trying to fit a square idea into a round hole.

Actually it hurt like a twenty mile run uphill. But equally so, it felt good to know that I could do it.

After I caught my breath.

[R.G.]

And on and on it goes, yet more conspiracy BS. It will never end (which is the whole point of course) unless we stop replying.

What was it that R.G. used to say about never wrestling with a pig?

I ... did... say that didn't I.

I should take my own advice.

[yldouright]

When you discuss Einstein, you are talking about new ideas that extend physics. The stuff you bring up is just contrary interpretations to already established physics, and so you have to undo a whole lot of physics for your ideas to be anything but completely wrong.

There goes that arrogance I talked about again. I believe the conversation was focused on the idea of free electrons and what makes them free. As is the case with any disruptive submission, the proof is so obvious and mundane that it's dismissed/overlooked. Who hasn't seen lightning travel through the air? Who never experienced static shock? Aren't these examples of freed electrons? Metals don't have free electrons the same way other atoms don't. Some materials have less resistance to releasing them in specific environments but that doesn't make them free. The underlying premise of free electrons in metal is just one of the many false premises we build our truths on. Does it still work out with numbers? Yes, the same way a building can still stand on a faulty foundation. For the state of our understanding it suits us and we work with it the same way we do with a faulty tool. We won't know how much better off we would be unless we're willing to try something different. Eisntein's theories were grudgingly kludged to extend established physics so as not to upset the apple cart too badly. It took Niels Bohr to force a peek at what could be built on what Einstein put forward and we're still trying to hash those concepts out to this day. Sometimes, all you need is different way to view things to discover something new about them and isn't that really what makes life worth living? How can you be so sure the concepts I presented about voltage and current are not true and if they are, don't you think it would effect how we design circuits? Same story for what @netfences says about feedback. You need to examine how much of what you base your knowledge on is based on faith

[Mike Sulzer]

Metals don't have free electrons the same way other atoms don't. Some materials have less resistance to releasing them in specific environments but that doesn't make them free.

If metals do not have free electrons naturally, then it must take some applied field to free them. But if I take a thin long piece of wire (so it has significance resistance) and connect it to a sensitive low noise amplifier, I can measure noise from the wire. The only known explanation for this noise involves free electrons, and there is no applied potential to free them. Thus, they are already free.

[rjb]

Absolute proof. I found it on the internet.

[R.G.]

How can you be so sure the concepts I presented about voltage and current are not true

I suspect it's because he already has a good working set of concepts that produce predictions that are then borne out in real experiments. That is - the current set of ideas and concepts work. They produce real, testable results. That doesn't mean that there is not some more subtle, hidden elaboration that exists under more extreme conditions, but it does mean that the new concepts have to produce the same results under the conditions we test in today.

Newton's Laws of Motion are wrong. They are still taught because they work. They turn in answers that can be seen to be correct by careful experimentation in the real world. They have been shown to be what the real laws of motion taking into account high masses and high speeds reduce to in low-speed, low-mass, non-relativistic conditions.

So I suspect that all of us with long experience in making a living by calculating how some bit of electronics will act in a given condition would happily accept your ... um, extensions ... to existing electronic theory if you could produce something more solid than telling us we're wrong. I'm perfectly willing to accept that I don't know the full story. But I have a lot of experience with making predictions based on whatever limited theory I have, and then examining that prediction to see if Mother Nature lets my ideas come true. So educate me: how do your ideas change how to design circuits? Show me how to include the new reality extensions to existing theory so I get the same old - reliable - predictions for normal circumstances, the new, dramatically enhanced predictions in the situations where they apply, and what the special conditions are where the new theory applies.

So put up the facts. If the idea is sound, banging it into a brick wall at high speed will break the brick wall, not the idea.

Let's recap:

1. Burden of proof: the burden of proof for the originator of a radical new idea is on the originator, not the rest of the world. If the new idea is in fact real, it will stand on its own, and won't need cries of "you have to prove my new idea wrong".

2. Ad Ignorantium
If there is a large body of established experiment that says that the set of theories that exist today are valid, then telling someone that your newly-minted idea that runs counter to the existing body of knowledge is true if they cannot prove it's false is going to be a hard sell.

3. Ad Hominem
Denigrating someone who asks you to provide facts showing that your new counter-established-theory idea is true in lieu of providing independently testable facts is just a way to divert the discussion.

There will be dramatic new insights into the sciences in the future. But the real ones will produce testable predictions.

[R.G.]

There goes that arrogance I talked about again.

Ad Hominem
Denigrating someone who asks you to provide facts showing that your new counter-established-theory idea is true in lieu of providing independently testable facts is just a way to divert the discussion.

[Malcolm Irving]

Successful new ideas in science have always come from people that understood the existing science extremely well. They have never come out of left field from people who don't understand the existing stuff.