|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Crickets..chirp...chirp...chirpp! posted by JimOfOakCreek on March 25, 2005 at 15:21:50:
sorry, Jim, but :
(1) piezoelectric charges are not sensitive to static pressure P, but to the
time derived of pressure dP/dt. So, you won't get anything in a vice, because you
would increase the pressure way too slowly to get any measurable effect,
even connected to a very high impedance instrumentation load. That'not
rocket science, and it has been investigated by Pierre Curie in the '80s
(oh, I'm talking of the 1880s...)
(2) piezoelectricity cannot occur in ANY electrical conductor, but only in
dielectrics. So, nobody will prove you what you ask. What you want to get
proved has just nothing to do with piezoelectricity in cables, so, you
cannot take this negative answer to your request for a victory to your
point of view. See http://www.humboldt.edu/~act/HTML/index.html
BTW, piezoelectricity cannot occur in electrical conductors because of the
very nature of piezoelectricity, in which mechanical strain gives to some
electrons of the material, geometrically placed in special places, enough energy
as to jump from the valence gap (where they are normally confined in all
dielectrics)to the conduction gap, which make them free for a mean path of
several hundred nm (depends on the dielectrics). As conductors have no
external layer electrons in their valence gap but all of them yet in their
conduction gap, the phenomenon is impossible. Dot bar.
(3) As I explain in another post, I'm not at all a cable geek. But, when
you argument, you have to back it up, and to argument in the critical
thinking way . To say: "Jon said it, so it's necessarly wrong", is a
fallacy (called genetic fallacy). To ask people to prove something that
has nothing to do with the discussed topic in order to change your mind
is another fallacy (red herring fallacy). As the request furthermore is unprovable,
since its premises are wrong, you get a third fallacy (reductio ad absurdum
fallacy). And your denigration of the person himself, at the end of your
post, and on other posts of this thread (I don't care of other threads, and
I know that your arguments and way of thinking can be much stronger than in
this thread) is a mix of "horse laugh fallacy", "ignoratio elenchi
fallacy" and "ad hominem fallacy". That's just too much.
You deserve better. Just be more exacting in your argumentation. Think that
people read your posts, who do not care about your wawar with Jon, some of them follow Jon on some topics, but not necessarly all, but are anyway
interested in anything that concern their hobby, audio.
And don't take a grunge against me, should I have thought you wouldn't understand my arguments, I wouldn't have written this post. As I said earlier, you deserve better. But all of us too. Cheers
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Fed up with weak argumentation - Jacques 08:13:16 03/27/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
