![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.177.28.171
In Reply to: what exactly is peter belt selling? posted by jeromelang on April 12, 2007 at 22:53:04:
The rules of Audio Asylum for manufacturers is that we have right of reply but are not allowed to promote our products or services. So, my reply will have to be in a general form.
As my reply will also be quite a long one, I am splitting it with the first part here :-We have been in the audio industry for over 50 years. Until 10/15 years ago, all information and discussions on audio matters were only generally available through the medium of the traditional Hi Fi Magazines and at the whim of what the Editors wished to publish !! Then, 10-15 years ago, the Internet became readily available for most people to be able to exchange experiences and ideas. However, this means that the first 30 + years of Peter's 'history in audio' is not available via the Internet. The people who ARE interested are aware of most of it and many people who had access to the British Hi Fi Magazines during the late 1980s and early 1990s know quite a bit of the background behind Peter's discoveries !!
I can only suggest you read (accessed via our Home Page) the articles published by the various (Internet) journalists and some of the background articles I have included on our home page.
Also, a very long discussion I participated in on the Stereophile Chat Forum can be accessed via a link in an article by me (Myth, Mirth or Magic) published in the current Positive Feedback Online magazine. Quite a bit of our background information is within this 'Stereophile' discussion.
I fully acknowledge that our web page is not the most professional looking - that is why it is really quite hilarious when such as Jim Austin comments that 'our products and devices have been claimed to 'improve the sound' because of (amongst other things) "effective marketing".!!!
Because many people are hearing about Peter and his discoveries and techniques only recently, they are not aware of the background to those discoveries nor what experiments other people have (independently) carried out. So, many people are not aware of the events which prompted Peter to take such a different path in the area of 'achieving improvements to sound'.
In 1981, Peter began to investigate what some other people in audio had been reporting - that they could hear different cables and wires sound different !! I have copied below a paragraph from an article by Keith Howard in the Hi Fi News July 2001 issue which gives, briefly, the background (from a 1977 issue of Hi Fi News) when the whole 'cable controversy' started.
>>> " The following article has aroused considerable controversy among the editorial staff, eliciting such comments as 'balderdash' and 'sensational'...."
Thus began the understandably cautious editorial introduction to a feature article published in the August 1977 issue of Hi Fi News. It was entitled 'Can we hear connecting wires'? And for many of us it marked the beginning of a controversy that has continued unabated across the quarter century since:
I still recall the impact of that Jean Hiraga piece, translated from the French "La Nouvelle Revue du Son." If even connecting cables sounded different, I remember thinking, then nothing of the old view could be taken for granted any longer. Intellectually, the earth had moved." <<< Keith Howard.Peter listened to as many different bare metals (as a conductor) as possible and found, as others had done, that they all sounded different and also how some wires and cables could be 'directional'. After experimenting with also 'baking the different metals in the oven' (as reported by Martin Colloms in 1984 where Martin described Peter's work on cables) the sound of the metals improved somewhat but as soon as Peter put plastic insulation material anywhere near the bare metals, the sound deteriorated. He knew that he could not 'bake the plastic insulation material in the oven' so he tried doing the opposite - he put the plastic insulation material in our domestic deep freezer !!! This procedure improved the situation considerably so he tried this freezing technique also with the bare metals. Again an improvement in their sound !! The more things we put through this freezing/slow defrost procedure, the better the sound. So, the discovery that putting things through the freezing/slow defrost procedure and gaining improvements in the sound was made.
We knew nothing of Ed Meitner nor that someone else had been finding out that freezing gave improvements in the sound until we read Robert Harley's article in Stereophile in 1990. As soon as we read Harley's article, we realised that here was someone else (Ed Meitner) who had also discovered what Peter had discovered !!!To quote further from Keith Howard's article.
>>> " I tracked Ed down to his company EMM Labs in Galgary, Canada, and spoke to him on the telephone about his many experiments with DCT (cryogenic treatments) and why his pioneering work has slowly slipped from view. You can read what he told me in the accompanying panel. I must say, even after that conversation, I remain puzzled. Having heard for myself the astonishing effect of cryogenically treating the copper in speaker and interconnect cables, I can't imagine how this process and it's benefits could fade into obscurity. As Ed Meitner himself says, it can't be due to cost. Although Meitner still uses cryogenic treatment himself, for everyone else in the audio industry it appears to have been a case of NIH (not invented here) or maybe IDU (I don't understand)." <<< Keith Howard.I will take this opportunity to also quote a few sentences from Ed Meitner's interview.
>>> " There was never a failure. We treated tons of solid-state stuff, whole circuit boards, and the only bad thing that happened was that the electrolytic capacitors would lose their shrink-wrap. That was it. We even treated speaker voice coils.
What I've found over the last 15 years of being in high-end audio is that most of the minds are pretty closed. And this is strange: it's the opposite of what you would expect" <<< Ed MTo continue with further background information.
Peter also began to investigate reports (instigated by Ivor Tiefenbrum of Linn) that passive speakers, in the listening room, had an adverse effect on the sound. From those investigations Peter began to discover that magnets were also a problem and that batteries were also a problem. At this point he had no explanation why any of these things could 'change the sound'.
Months later something suddenly happened which changed our (audio) life !!!
This has been described in Greg Weaver's "Itty-Bitty UK Foil" Soundstage article and I have placed a copy of my full letter to Greg on our web page.
After this momentous event Peter went back and did all the previous experiments again and the results of those further investigations formulated his present concepts and techniques and, in time, our products.In answer to the people who want to mock and snigger, then I have included some quotes from and about serious scientists.
"A refusal to dismiss a surprising finding."
"Breakthroughs come when researchers DON'T take things for granted ! When they look at the results of their experiments and see mistakes not to be thrown away, but to be the clues to a hidden message."
"It was one of those unexpected and counter-intuitive findings that sometimes make research so interesting, yet so frustrating."
Follow Ups:
Hi.Let me repeat again, domestic freezing is NOT cryogenic (-180C). They don't tie together. My repeated experiences always proved it.
You quote on EMM Lab & whatever is moot.Only at low low subzero (min -180C) temps the dislocation of the material molecules' mico-structures can be permanently realigned in order, removing the uneven stresses therein. Thus improving the physical properties of a material, metal or non-metal alike. In audio, signal incidentally passes along metals, like a cable or inside a vacuum tube.
I can't imagine how come a kinda half fried dough or a half-bred animal like freezer chilling can claim the molecular improvement in the audio parts or components, let alone the sound.
Sorry, I have to dimiss such "surprising finding" in a freezer as smoke mirror with undisclosed agenda as you being a "M" since you so far can't come up with any convincing scientific reasoning on your claims, let alone any documententary measurements which are expected in PHP.
Given revealing equipment & analytical ears, anything added on or put under an audio parts or components MAY change the sonics. Blocks or papers alike. Better or worse is subjective. To claim by putting something under the component can improve instead of worsening it is debatable as sonic is subject.
Three blocks, wood or whatever, as equipment support is technically better than four blocks due to obvious mechanical reasons. No mysteries.
FYI, all my audio components, from DVD-audio, CD player, tape deck, phonostages, power amps, even speaker stands, are all seated on three-in-a-set identical tuned acoutical tiptoes or spikes of steel or alloys. These isolation devices do help sharpening the imaging & improving soundstaging for obvious technical reasons.
But isolation alone is not a sure cure. I add something more susbtantial to improve the sound better. Guess what???
By the same token, do I have to promote this sorta amazing 'I don't know why' discoveries to the world & hard sell such so claimed sound improving gadgets like you do here in PHP??
c-J
PS: Your hard selling by stealing some remoted similar established scientific concepts & practices, like cryogenics, can blind some but not me.
Cheap-Jack:"FYI, all my audio components, from DVD-audio, CD player, tape deck, phonostages, power amps, even speaker stands, are all seated on three-in-a-set identical tuned acoutical tiptoes or spikes of steel or alloys. These isolation devices do help sharpening the imaging & improving soundstaging for obvious technical reasons."
You mean coupling spikes... right?
3 spikes facilitate natural levelling. They also maximize the weight/unit area that the device applies to the stand. Thus, when soundwaves exert force on the panels of the device, it is less prone to vibration as it was when it sat on four much larger feet.
The spikes only work when the stand itself it coupled to the floor (via more spikes), and the floor is quite rigid.
True isolation devices include air-filled rubber tubes, magnetic "levitation" devices and other devices that ultimately dampen (or completely isolate) mechanical energy to prevent it from being transferred to the device that is being isolated.
Common misconception - that I once held myself.
I would suspect your spikes are working just fine - to provide coupling of your components to your stand, and stand to your floor.
Cheers,
Presto
Hi.Spikes or cone-shaped tip toes, being one end pin-pointed, can provide excellent decoupling or sorta "isolation" effect to external vibrations, considering the low cost, & simplicity to install.
Strictly speaking, only magnetic or air float is complete isolation.
Anything else, like rubber tubing, etc etc, still involves physical contacts. But the cost &/or the size of the floating equipment can make most home audios prohobitive, let alone the sonic implication if any.Lab equipment may need something more sophisticated, like active
servo-vibration controllers. This is, IMO, entirely outside of scope of average home audio.Concept can be lofty & ideal but can be impractical for everyday Joe Blow's audio at home. If compromise can work out close enough to kill vibrations AND improve sound, it is a valid solution, like decoupling spikes or cones.
As I said, decouplers alone are not enough, mass is needed to dissipate or counter-react to vibrations & to compliment the effectiveness of decoupling.
Guess what I use to provide the heavy mass to decoupled EACH equipment?
c-J
Continued :-
The 'free' techniques we give may seem weird to say the least but they were described so that people had a chance to be able to try to prove, for themselves, some of the things which Peter was describing.
For example. Placing a plain piece of paper under one of four feet of a piece of equipment. ANY one of four feet of anything !!
There is a peculiarity in Nature - what Peter and I refer to as an 'odd and even rule'. We do not know all the times when it happens nor why it happens but it is present a lot of the time.
Break the even pattern of the four feet by placing one piece of paper under one foot and you will have an improvement in the sound. Put TWO layers of paper under one foot or put one piece of paper under TWO of the four feet and you will experiences a deterioration in the sound.
Quite a number of years ago a TV programme featured Peter and his concepts. Peter was filmed at the TV presenter's home, showing Peter demonstrating the technique of placing a plain piece of paper under one of the four feet of a piece of audio equipment.
What the TV viewing public did not see was the cameraman and the sound recordist smiling and nodding at the improvement in the sound !!!In my discussions on the Stereophile Forum I noted the fact that John Atkinson used the Myrtle Wood Blocks under equipment and found that they improved his sound - but, as John admitted, he had no explanation as to why. I explained that the producers of the Myrtle Wood Blocks recommended that they be used in threes as the sound was best if used in threes, but I also described the following experiment. After listening to three of the wood blocks under a piece of equipment, place four of these wood blocks under a piece of equipment and the sound would be perceived as worse. To get the better sound back, then one would have to either add a fifth block or remove the fourth block. Again - the odd and even rule - nothing whatsoever to do with 'vibrations !!!!! 'Dealing with vibrations' would be the tentative explanation most people would put forward !!
Tie a Reef knot in a cable and you will gain an improvement in the sound but tie TWO reef knots in the SAME cable and you will experience a deterioration in the sound. To get the improved sound back you will either have to tie a third Reef knot in the cable or remove the second Reef knot !!!
The Reef knot experiment was also introduced to enable people to realise (without spending any money !!) that cables, ALL cables, whether on audio equipment or other electrical equipment (such as table lamps, electric clocks, vacuum cleaners etc) were a problem in the environment. As a Reef knot can be undone and tied as many times as you like, then you can do as many before, after and back to before experiments as you wish !!Human beings do not like right angles. So, we introduced the experiment of attaching small pieces of quarter round doweling to as many right angles as possible. To show people that if they 'heard' improvements in the sound, then the additional information they were hearing 'had been there, in the room, all the time' - they just had not been able to resolve it correctly !!
We had begun to realise (after we had discovered that magnets and batteries were a problem regarding sound) that we (human beings) are sensitive to polarised objects !!
All batteries, whatever their size or shape or whoever made them have a positive and a negative so they are always a polarised object.
Magnets, whatever their size or shape or whoever made them have a North and a South, so they will always be a polarised object.
When we went back and did all the earlier experiments again we found that - using our newly found knowledge - we could now 'treat' the batteries and 'treat' the magnets so that they could still be in the room but be less of a problem (for human beings) !!We found that we could use the 'treated' batteries as 'beneficial devices' around the room and gain improvements in the sound each time. So, what came next ?
Well, the remarkable story (22 years ago) of 'treating' hearing aid batteries !!!!
Jeromelang's sentence "i doubt anyone will publish this on-line (and risked being ridiculed)" could not be truer as our personal experience has shown !!
And Presto's "But if you got people preferring the 'freezered' thing 7/10 or more times - then heck we gotta figure out what's at work there."
Just what do you think Peter has been doing these past 25 years, Presto ? Surely that's EXACTLY what he has been doing ? Trying to figure out what's at work there. !!!!!!
Which, it appears from many of the 'postings' from certain people this past week, is a completely alien concept to some people - some people seem to want such 'cut and dried', 'already proven' evidence and seem not to want to do experiments of their own.
It is too easy to hide behind the truisms of "Science works by being checked by peer group review" "Science works by double blind trials" "Whoever has a concept must first prove it thoroughly before it can be considered by us (serious !!!) scientists"
All these things can happen - eventually - that is why they are 'truisms' and anyone would be a fool to argue against 'truisms' but the world of discoveries is NOT as SIMPLE as that !!!
Never has been and never will be. You have to 'tease out' what Nature does and how Nature does it.
Regards,
May Belt.
![]()
some cd players like the esoteric and cary are 3-legged. and my sony scd-1 is 5-legged. do we put the paper under 1 or 2 leg?
![]()
In those examples - none.
The 'even' problem has already been 'dealt with'.
Regards,
May Belt.
![]()
"Improvement" is in any case fairly meaningless, but I am curious to know the answer!I am guessing that over the years with all of your treatments there must have been dozens, probably hundreds of "improvements" noted by you and Peter.
Does this mean that the sound was totally horrible when you started (I am being facetious!)or that it is possible to have dozens of "improvements" in sound without finally exploding with extasy!
...but I like exploding with ecstasy.
Wellfed, you do a lot of tweaks and seem very happy with them.How many levels of "improvement" are you aware of?
...crazy as that may seem. I didn't think that way until relatively recently.
![]()
So your appreciation of the sound can go on improving for ever?
This is a very difficult concept as it would SEEM there is also an absolute involved. ;-)
f
![]()
We are talking about tweaks to progressively (and endlessly?) improve the sound.
NT
![]()
"What I've found over the last 15 years of being in high-end audio is that most of the minds are pretty closed. And this is strange: it's the opposite of what you would expect."He could be remarking about some of the people here.
Are you stating that Meitner's use of cryogenic treatment is the same as Peter Belt's use of the "domestic deep freezer??"
![]()
I cannot give you a simple answer because you asking the question in the first place shows that you are not fully understanding the issue.
I do not state that Peter's use of the domestic deep freezer is the same as Meitner's cryogenic treatment. What I am trying to point out is that if EITHER freezing technique alters the 'sound' then the WHOLE freezing issue should be and should have been investigated by the entire audio industry - not just by a few - and that people should be realising that 'there is something going on' which needs investigating !!
I have ALWAYS stated that I believe that Robert Harley's article in 1990 was one of the most significant articles in the history of audio - I use Ed Meitner as one example of how we suddenly realised that someone else (completely independent of Peter) had discovered what Peter had stumbled upon !!!Now, let me explain why I say "that you are not fully understanding or you would not have asked the question in the first place.
Go back 100 years to the first concepts that the micro-organisms that caused septicaemia were 'in the air'. It is like you asking me "Do I think that Joe Bloggs antiseptic treatments are the same as Jack Smiths antiseptic treatments ?" When I have been struggling to try to make people aware that if ANY antiseptic treatments are successful, then people have to begin to seriously consider the "Germs in the Air" concept !!!!
Regards,
May Belt.
![]()
"What I am trying to point out is that if EITHER freezing technique alters the 'sound' then the WHOLE freezing issue should be and should have been investigated by the entire audio industry - not just by a few - and that people should be realising that 'there is something going on' which needs investigating !!"This is complete nonsense. You say this as if there were no research in metallurgy. There is an entire body of research on the subject and the real affects of heat treatments and cryo treaments. The idea that because true cryogenic treatment may affect the properties of a metal that sticking metal in a domestic freezer will also have some affect is completely ridiculous illogical presumption. Why make such presumptions when metallurgists have thoroughly investigated such properties in metals under controlled conditions. The effects are already well documented. There are people who do this stuff for a living. They are called metallugical engineers.
![]()
the fact that I asked the question has nothing to do with "not fully understanding the issue" at all. On the contrary, as a fence-sitter in the subjective/objective squabbles, I understand far more than either side is willing to acknowledge. Sometimes one has to ask rather simple, "dumb" questions to get to the heart of a matter. I ask because Posy Rorer is quite adamant in his denial that cryogenics and domestic deep freezing are the same. If they aren't, then using cryogenic test results to support claims concerning domestic deep freezing is specious. If they are the same, then Posy is incorrect. I'm not claiming one or the other, just following some very simple rules of logic.I have to say that I think the analogy with antiseptics is off the mark. Your final sentence equates, in the analogy, ANY antiseptic treatment with ANY freezing method due to acknowledged efficacy. Well, that isn't actually true. Cryogenics substantively changes material properties, and domestic deep freezing involves temporary expansion and contraction. They are significantly different.
If a cancer patient takes a placebo and his cancer goes into remission, it is NOT the pacebo itself that cured the cancer, but the patient, under the "placebo effect." Cryogenics actually changes things: placebos don't. The placebo effect from domestic deep freezing may involve "freezing," as cryogenics does, but at this point it becomes coincidental. Thus I would posit that you have "been struggling to make people aware: of the placebo efect.
![]()
portray them. Example: a CD will sound better after it has been frozen and thawed. However (and this is all very hush-hush), a CD that has NOT been frozen will sound better after a different CD has been frozen/thawed and simply placed anywhere in the room. Furthermore, the more CDs in one's collection that are frozen, the better the *unfrozen* CD will sound.As you can clearly see, ALL theories regarding cause and effect fly out the window. To further complicate and confuse things - this is also very hush-hush and strictly confidential - freezing/thawing a book in the room will also improve the sound of a CD, regardless of whether the CD has gone thru the freeze/thaw process.
"Example: a CD will sound better after it has been frozen and thawed. However (and this is all very hush-hush), a CD that has NOT been frozen will sound better after a different CD has been frozen/thawed and simply placed anywhere in the room. Furthermore, the more CDs in one's collection that are frozen, the better the *unfrozen* CD will sound.
As you can clearly see, ALL theories regarding cause and effect fly out the window."I can say, "I don't believe you," because you have offered nothing but conjecture. "ALL theories" don't "fly out the window" because someone makes a seemingly absurd claim.
![]()
Not surprised. You say, conjecture, I say experience. Of which you have none, and I have a lot.Thanks for your opinion, anyway.
Prove that your experience is real. Just claiming so isn't good enough.For all anyone knows, your claims could be marketing hype.
nt
![]()
At least you showed that you don't HAVE to be dismissive when someone disagrees with you...The fact that you chose to delete it and replaced it with a "Huh/" is quite telling, though.
![]()
Telling? You've got some nerve. I chose to post a more tactful response knowing you're simply acting out your naysayer fantasies here and have no real experience in these areas, that you are simply spouting off at the mouth. A poser as it were, who's in way over his head.Does that help clarify what I really think? Is that telling enough for you?
![]()
Why did you assume that my use of "telling" meant anything bad? I was actually thinking how surprising it was to have read a reply from you that wasn't laced with anger and bile.So I'm a nay-sayer. I'm looking for proof for any of your claims, and you can't seem to give one, other than relying on an appeal to an "authority" you yourself have made up.
So I "have no real experience in these areas?" Guess what Geoff? I don't think anyone, even you, can have "real" experience in these areas, whatever the areas may be, because I can't find any proof that "these areas" are "real" at all. You made the claim, you supply the proof.
More grumbling from the peanut gallery. And so demanding. Sorry to disappoint you, but the proof must be yours.My stating that I have experience in this area is not an "appeal to authority," by the way. Suggest you catch up on all the latest buzz words in the Skeptics Handbook.
![]()
Gee, Geoff, I didn't realize that's how it works. YOU make the claim, I doubt your claim, so therefore the burden of proof lies with me. Glad you cleared all that up for me.Maybe YOU ought to do a little research on what "appeal to authority" means, because you clearly don't really get it. Anyway, thanks for clarifying the responsibility of proof issue.
![]()
At least learn the Naysayer basics so I can get a little entertainment value out of this.
![]()
!
![]()
Bite me.Your claiming to be an architect and then claiming to know something worth more than 2 cents about audio - now, that's an Appeal to Authority! LOL
Just when you think you know it all, you can still learn something; well, theoretically, probably not in your particular case. HA HA HA
"Your claiming to be an architect and then claiming to know something worth more than 2 cents about audio - now, that's an Appeal to Authority! LOL"You continue to embarass yourself. Yes I am an architect (you can even check it out if you'd like by going to www.polshek.com. I'm sure you'll have lots to say later about that too). Yes, I know more than "two cents" about audio. However, having never related my professional skills with my "two cent" knowledge means there has been no "Appeal to Authority." What it does mean, however, is that you are bothered enough to look at my Asylum profile. Now that's funny! Given how knowledgeable you are about a concept such as the "burden of proof," I'm surprised you would make such an egregious error on such a simple concept as the Appeal to Authority.
"Just when you think you know it all, you can still learn something; well, theoretically, probably not in your particular case. HA HA HA"And just when I thought you'd only blow the "Appeal to Authority" bit, you go ahead and construct an ad hominem. Nice going.
Keep taking all the shots you want, Geoff. By attacking me with such rancor you do a disservice only to yourself.
![]()
More loud snoring. So you're an architect. Big deal. That's my point - that you do consider it a big deal and somehow relevant to PH discussions. You are, as you so kindly pointed out, just another Naysayer... yet one who apparently hasn't memorized the Skeptics Handbook, thus cannot argue effectively for your side. What is left for me to do to entertain myself?
"So you're an architect. Big deal. That's my point - that you do consider it a big deal and somehow relevant to PH discussions."Geoff: Please point out to me where I have made being an architect a "big deal and somehow relevant to PH discussions?" YOU brought up the fact that I'm an architect, not me. YOU looked up my profile and made it part of the "dialogue." I don't think it's relevant at all, and so I've not written about it. You, however, did. What is it about this that is so hard to understand?
You can go "entertain yourself" however you'd like, but this part of your amusement constitutes a record of embarrassing "dialogue" that any number of your prospective clients may read.
![]()
Can I suggest you take a logic course or read a textbook on the subject? After all is said and done, you still don't know what an Appeal to Authority is. Back to the drawing boards HA HA HA
![]()
Oh good joke. "Back to the drawing boards HA HA HA" Brilliant.
![]()
changing sides, as I am rather fond of easy victories. By the way, you still don't know what an Appeal to Authority is.
Here's an annotated description of how the fallacy of the Appeal to Authority works:1) Person A (that's you, Geoff) claims to be an authority on subject S. Here's your claim of authority: "You say, conjecture, I say experience. Of which you have none, and I have a lot." Here's your subject S: the effects of freeze/thaw processes on objects not being frozen/thawed.
2) Person A makes a claim C about subject S. Here's that claim of yours, Geoff: "freezing/thawing a book in the room will also improve the sound of a CD, regardless of whether the CD has gone thru the freeze/thaw process."
3) Therefore, C is true because person A is an authority on S.
This is fallacious when person A is not an authority on the subject at hand. I posit that you cannot claim "authority" because the subject itself is bogus. What you may consider justification for considering yourself to be an "expert" I see as self-deluded nonsense. You were given the opportunity to provide both the research and the results to back your claims, to demonstrate both the concept's validity as well as to contradict my accusation, but you have been unable to do so, claiming that it is my responsibility to prove you're wrong, not your responsibility to back up your claims. You have gone for a little barefoot romp on the logic lawn, where you have inadvertently stepped in a big pile.
Sorry I can't continue this educational banter with you Geoff, but I've got to go find out what I can get for the 2-cents worth of audio knowledge I have.
nt
![]()
d
![]()
nt
![]()
< < Cryogenics substantively changes material properties, and domestic deep freezing involves temporary expansion and contraction. They are significantly different. > >Why do you say this?
If your assertion were true, there must be some "threshold" temperature that "changes material properties" beyond just a "temporary expansion and contraction". So what would you propose as this threshold temperature?
And a few more questions:
- Would the threshold temperature be the same for all materials?
- Would the duration of exposure below the threshold temperature matter?
- Would the rate of re-heating to room temperature matter?I would assert that things are perhaps not so black-and-white as "cryogenics" versus "domestic deep freezing"...
![]()
...of circumstance from room temp all the way down to liquid N. There's one known articulation point, way, way down -- but little is known of the sonic effects at any other point. Moreover, time must become a double variable: Time immersed, and time effectual.We can't say the two methods are the same, or different, until more points are entered on the curves.
So are you actually engaged in testing different temperatures to see where the cryoed effect kicks in?
![]()
< < Cryogenics substantively changes material properties, and domestic deep freezing involves temporary expansion and contraction. They are significantly different. > >< Why do you say this?
I suspect he said it becuase it is established scientific fact.
> If your assertion were true, there must be some "threshold" temperature that "changes material properties" beyond just a "temporary expansion and contraction". So what would you propose as this threshold temperature?Yes there are threshold tempuratures. If you want to know what they are I suggest you consult a genuine metallurgist or some literature on the subject.
> And a few more questions:
- Would the threshold temperature be the same for all materials?
I don't need to consult any metallurgist for this one. No.
> - Would the duration of exposure below the threshold temperature matter?That would be a question for an expert.
> - Would the rate of re-heating to room temperature matter?I can answer this one. Soemtimes yes sometimes no.
> I would assert that things are perhaps not so black-and-white as "cryogenics" versus "domestic deep freezing"...I would assert that this stuff has already been investigated by people who actually know how to inverstigate these things.
Thanks for the funniest line of the week.
![]()
Interesting point. Not being a materials guy I turned to that source of all knowledge, Google. Although what I found was not very satisfying, in no case did I find reference to a threshold temperature. It sounds like lower and longer is better but that at any temperature some of the whatever they are will do whatever it is that they do. And as you soak it, more of the one's that will do it, have.It's just amazing what you can learn from the internet...
True cryo involves taking the material below a temperaure whiere its properties "flip" rapidly to a different state.This applies to metals undergoing treatment for physical properties - hardness etc.
There are lots of ambiguities w.r.t other materials, many not exhibiting a cryo flip.
I doubt whether anyone can scientificly predict the effect of sticking the whole of your CDP in the cooler. Hence the sujective "it sounds better" in the absence of anything else.
![]()
From what little I've found black and white, as in the transfer function of B&W film seems similar to this process. A flip would imply a positive feedback mechanism. Any chance you could point me to an on-line reference?
The implications is that a certain temperature needs to be reached before the effect is noticable, and that the change is permanent (ie not reversible).But this is an advert for their products!
![]()
At least it had pictures of copper. Most sites have about the same information but mostly focused on steel. Very likely the plot of temperature vs effect is an S curve and I wish I could find some data showing what it looks like. Oh well...
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: