Some guy in the Phillippines is selling something he calls the scalarizer which he says makes the tone clearer. He offered to send out a few free for people to try so I got one. It's a small tube about an inch long and quarter inch diameter with two wires coming out. The instructions say to put it anywhere in the signal path, preferably between one of the leads going out of the guitar and the jack, and to keep the device in contact with the body of the guitar. Any tips for figuring out what's inside it? My multimeter says it has a pretty normal resistance (I'll check again tomorow but it was either 4 ohms, 400 ohms, or 4k ohms).
Google searching brought up this quote from the guy sending it out.
Here's a brief explanation on what it is and what it does internally. Please take note that Scalar Electromagnetics is still considered as a fringe science and is still contested so please don't nitpick on it. Its principles were applied by the inventor as he understood it.
The scalarizer is composed of a combination of coils wound around different types of materials, wound in such a way that any excess magnetic fields are canceled out.
Now here's where some scalar electromagnetics come in. In classical electromagnetics, once opposing EM waves cancel out, they are regarded as "gone" or "destroyed".
But that view cannot be supported by the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted. Thus the cancelled waves become something, or go somewhere.
This is where Nikola Tesla's Scalar electromagnetics come in and the simple explanation is that the classical EM waves, once cancelled out do not "disappear" but rather become stationary, non-vectored (e.g. scalar) waves. Scalar waves contain infinite harmonics. The scalar waves generated from excess EMF are kept from dissipating by two sets of Faraday traps built into the device. The scalar waves, with its rich harmonics is then re-mobilized by a magnetic field inside the device brought about by a strong magnet. The scalars then become re-induced into the core and consequently back into the signal path where it manifests as harmonically-related overtones. The result is a tone richer in harmonics and a certain ease in pulling out pinch harmonics.
Because of its action of cancelling out excessive frequencies (e.g. guitars that are too shrill, or pickups that are too muddy), by definition, these excessive frequencies are what power the scalarizer and allow it to do what it does. By same token, guitars that are already endowed with well-balanced tone will not benefit much from the device. Similarly, if you already like the tone you're getting from your guitar, the scalarizer might change that tone. The scalarizer shines where there is mud. Like invariably, the neck pickup of Les Pauls are muddy. Putting a scalarizer on a Les Paul will cure that muddiness.
Hope this helps. I guess that was the best treatise as explained to me, good material for the website.
This is why it's really, truly OK to be skeptical. To hear is to believe. This is also why the inventor is not offended by the skepticism because he himself was skeptical and was only later validated by other guitarists who have tried the device and could hear the difference. It was invented in September of 2006 and tried by other guitarists only in January of this year.
By the way I'm told that two scalarizer samples for the Petrucci forums have been mailed out yesterday and will arrive in about two weeks.
-BAMF from http://www.petrucciforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45149&page=5
100% BS.
You measure a low resistance because there's likely nothing in there except *maybe* a coil of wire..... It's nothing, absolutely nothing.
The fool doesn't even define the term "Scalar" correctly. Tesla's definition and use of the word "Scalar" in reference to waves is analogous to the word "Standing" or "Resonant". Whenever Tesla described waves as being "Scalar", he meant that they were standing resonant waves.
I love how people throw around the name Tesla and expect to be able to sell anything with it. All of Tesla's ideas lived within the realm of real physical science. It really offends me when ignorant people assign his name and ideas to stupid pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo. I swear some of these so-called innovators don't even know how to read! All of Tesla's work was very well documented and written in correct English, yet he constantly gets misquoted and misunderstood by stupid people who don't even have a basic knowledge of physics.
Having followed the link to the Petrucci forum I consequently followed another link to what is apparently the first mention of the Scalarizer device.
http://talk.philmusic.com/board/index.php/topic,34930.0.html (http://talk.philmusic.com/board/index.php/topic,34930.0.html)
To be honest I don`t really have the patience to read a lot of this kind of stuff but it does seem to be tied to a lot of Hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo. References to magic potting mixtures don`t really inspire confidence in me.
As ever, I`m prepared to be corrected.
This is so unbelievably stupid. I need to start selling boxes filled with wire in Asia.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Soulsonic,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Don`t mock the Voodoo it will bite you on the ass.
Quoting from the link.
"And the result, EVERY NOTE WE PLAYED CAME OUT IN FULL DETAIL. I was afraid to commit mistakes coz for one thing, the clarity of the guitar was not clear before the potting. But the magic of the mixture really made it astoundingly clear and punchy. So clear and deatiled that one wrong note may disrupt a jam or an actual gig. "
One wrong note disrupting a gig. They should come to one of my gigs, they would be witness to one disruption after another.
I think they need to be sure the potting is an equal mix of epoxy and brass filings so it can act as a more effective Orgone generator..... I guess that's what my boxes need to be filled with, though I was planning on using melted amber instead of epoxy.
Reminds me of that cable that's sold with "arrows" pointing in one direction ....... like if you connect it the other
way around, your "signal" wont flow as well down a piece of copper wire !! :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes:
There are now five varieties/flavours of Scalarizer
QuoteCrystal core - gives the guitar a flat and sparkly tonal response
Metal core - Crisp and punchy tone, with upper mids emphasis
Organicore - Warm response, with emphasis on the "warm" midrange frequencies.
Hydrocore - Cool, wet and wavy signal. Like having a mild chorus built inside your guitar
Firecore - Aggressive and edgy tone. Like having a permanent "crunch" sound inside your guitar.
Some fairly wild claims are being bandied about here for what is basically a passive device. Methinks something like the Black ice gadget being peddled by some websites.
QuoteCombinations of these scalarizer types will imbibe a guitar with the characteristics of the scalarizers installed. For instance, a guitar with a crystal-metal core combination installed will have both the crisp and punchy tone plus the sparkly character. Organicrystal will give a woody, warm and organic tone plus the sparkly, chimey character. Organic-Metal will give both the crispy, crunchy tone plus the warmth and woody sound of the organicore.
Let the fun begin again !
Quote from: GREEN FUZ on August 14, 2007, 07:28:55 PM
There are now five varieties/flavours of Scalarizer
QuoteCrystal core - gives the guitar a flat and sparkly tonal response
Metal core - Crisp and punchy tone, with upper mids emphasis
Organicore - Warm response, with emphasis on the "warm" midrange frequencies.
Hydrocore - Cool, wet and wavy signal. Like having a mild chorus built inside your guitar
Firecore - Aggressive and edgy tone. Like having a permanent "crunch" sound inside your guitar.
Some fairly wild claims are being bandied about here for what is basically a passive device. Methinks something like the Black ice gadget being peddled by some websites.
QuoteCombinations of these scalarizer types will imbibe a guitar with the characteristics of the scalarizers installed. For instance, a guitar with a crystal-metal core combination installed will have both the crisp and punchy tone plus the sparkly character. Organicrystal will give a woody, warm and organic tone plus the sparkly, chimey character. Organic-Metal will give both the crispy, crunchy tone plus the warmth and woody sound of the organicore.
Let the fun begin again !
I sincerely hope you're joking. I would think that the Metal Core one would just make your guitar sound like incoherent screaming about Jesus.
Yeah, I've got some of those cables with the direction arrows on them.... never heard any difference. The only thing that might dictate the way I had them connected is the fact that they are speaker cables and are terminated differently on either end. I remember the guy talking about breaking them in and that once they've been properly "broken in", you have to take care not to jostle them about or they'd need broken in again...... The only thing that genuinely makes my direction arrow speaker cables special is the fact that they used silver wire in them; that's all I really cared about when I bought them.
Quote
I sincerely hope you're joking.
No, I`m not the Scalarizer`s UK rep. All that crap came off the website I linked to.
I think I'm becoming ill....
SpiceBox'd
Somone check the calander......Its not April 1st!!!
Is anyone stupid enough to buy them?
i think that is the same device you hook on your cable tv antenna jack so that you can watch the porn stuff that goes on channel 15 at 3am.
:D
you wanna watch?
It might be like those magic rocks that minimise 60 cycle hum in your house by placing a few in strategic corners. It would be interesting to try one anyway, see if there is any sort of tone improvement.
Quote from: the_random_hero on August 15, 2007, 12:39:58 AM
It might be like those magic rocks that minimise 60 cycle hum in your house by placing a few in strategic corners. It would be interesting to try one anyway, see if there is any sort of tone improvement.
At least objects like "Shakti Stones" actually interact with the electromagnetic field within a wire in a tangible way... the same way as if you put a transformer next to it... though if it does anything good or whatever is completely subjective a most likely imagined.
I love how the guy selling the Scalarizer says that it's good to put, "Anywhere signal goes through a wire..."
I'd like to see the smoke that happens if someone were to put it inline with a speaker cable.
Or the arching and nastiness that would happen if it were stuck in the plate circuit of the output section of a tube amp.
Or maybe I should wire it up to the mains wiring in my house to give my light fixtures a more pleasant glow?
Stupid... so very stupid.
wow. :o
::)
I think I'm going to use a convolver to make an impulse response of this thing when I get a chance. Then I may try it out with my guitar. Then I'm going to try to cut it open.
put it in with a switch... so yo can hear it on and off... if there is nothing to AB against people start to believe things changed there sound.
Quote from: schnarf on August 15, 2007, 01:21:25 AM
I think I'm going to use a convolver to make an impulse response of this thing when I get a chance. Then I may try it out with my guitar. Then I'm going to try to cut it open.
If it's supposed to work anything like how they say it works, a convolver won't be able to capture it because it's not a "filter"..... of course since it DOESN'T work the way they say it does, then it doesn't matter and a convolver probably CAN capture it because it is just a "filter".
But yeah, you need to cut it in half.
Quote from: schnarf on August 15, 2007, 01:21:25 AM
I think I'm going to use a convolver to make an impulse response of this thing when I get a chance. Then I may try it out with my guitar. Then I'm going to try to cut it open.
Do try it before cutting it open. Please take photos of before, during and after the surgery.
Yeah photos would be nice.
Hey maybe you could x-ray it?
QuoteI need to start selling boxes filled with wire in Asia.
there is loads bs that came from where you are at buddy :icon_lol:
...oh ya, we don't live on trees ::)
I think America invented this kind of BS just to torture the rest of the world. :icon_lol:
:icon_lol: and we buy them in small red cans
anyways... given a good guitar set up and a nice pick-up tilt will give all the required *clarity* for a rockin good time aye !
I usually see complaints of muddy guitar comin from *care-less* people rather than those who have some kinda idea of *whats what * and go abt getting what they want ....
Quote from: schnarf on August 14, 2007, 03:15:54 AM
Some guy in the Phillippines is selling something he calls the scalarizer which he says makes the tone clearer. He offered to send out a few free for people to try so I got one. It's a small tube about an inch long and quarter inch diameter with two wires coming out. The instructions say to put it anywhere in the signal path, preferably between one of the leads going out of the guitar and the jack, and to keep the device in contact with the body of the guitar. Any tips for figuring out what's inside it? My multimeter says it has a pretty normal resistance (I'll check again tomorow but it was either 4 ohms, 400 ohms, or 4k ohms).
so have you tried it?
I know the guy who sells it (not personally though). He is a regular on that forum link posted earlier. I'll ask him to butt-in. ;D
Quote from: goosonique on August 15, 2007, 03:25:56 AM
anyways... given a good guitar set up and a nice pick-up tilt will give all the required *clarity* for a rockin good time aye !
I usually see complaints of muddy guitar comin from *care-less* people rather than those who have some kinda idea of *whats what * and go about getting what they want ....
Yes sir! Savvy guitarists don't need little magic components to sound good. Magic epoxy won't give you a miracle tone.
I don't understand why anyone would buy something so silly.
Yeah, I'd like to see that fool over here. I'd like him to explain to us how a Scalar wave means anything other than a Resonant wave! People use antique and ancient terms to describe things that are common when they're trying to BS people. I could sell special "Reactors" to go into power supplies... I guarantee my Reactors will do a much better job of noise filtering than a standard resistor. I'm sure lots of people would think I was selling something amazing and different just because I was using an old term for something common.
Quote from: soulsonicYeah, I'd like to see that fool over here. [/qoute]
i think that's too strong a word. I already sent him a note. hopefully he can read it asap.
Quote from: soulsonicI'd like him to explain to us how a Scalar wave means anything other than a Resonant wave! People use antique and ancient terms to describe things that are common when they're trying to BS people. I could sell special "Reactors" to go into power supplies... I guarantee my Reactors will do a much better job of noise filtering than a standard resistor. I'm sure lots of people would think I was selling something amazing and different just because I was using an old term for something common.
Well, i think that's called marketing strategy! ;D I've seen those on most of the popular effects manufacturers advertisements. :icon_mrgreen:
Quote from: MartyMart on August 14, 2007, 07:18:49 PM
Reminds me of that cable that's sold with "arrows" pointing in one direction ....... like if you connect it the other
way around, your "signal" wont flow as well down a piece of copper wire !! :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes:
I don't think that's all mojo. Some of them, especially ones used as HIFI interconnects are shielded but the shield is only connected at one end so you don't get ground loops. The arrows point to the end that is connected, and that end is supposed to go to the amp to use its ground.
Hey, Soulsonic, lighten up! Like all snake-oil, it's just entertainment. :icon_biggrin:
BTW, a "coil" could just be an inductive filter of some kind, which might indeed work more or less as advertised, if not for the hocus pocus reasons given.
Sorry, but I find this "product" to be highly offensive.
If you think it's all crap then leave that crap alone. Don't waste your time on it.
Walohcs!
(see my other post)
its garbage no matter how to look at it, or "market" it.
"tone snobs" come into Carvin every day...theyre real jerks/idiots about alot of stuff.
"i want a 7 string guitar, with active electronics, and i want it to have a nice clean tone, none of that heavy metal stuff...and i want the V3 Head.."
one guy had the nerve to argue with me, about different finishes having dramatic effects on the sound of the guitar...
oh, and a fella came in asking how to truebypass a tone circuit in his guitar. i opened her up and saw NO active electronics of any sort...just one of those stupid "black ice" or whatever the hell its called. i ripped that sucker off, and the guy thought his guitar sounded amazing, thereafter....what can i say? im a magic man...
hmm...BBQ sounds good, right about now...
Quote from: thebattleofmidway on August 16, 2007, 10:45:43 AM
its garbage no matter how to look at it, or "market" it.
"tone snobs" come into Carvin every day...theyre real jerks/idiots about alot of stuff.
"i want a 7 string guitar, with active electronics, and i want it to have a nice clean tone, none of that heavy metal stuff...and i want the V3 Head.."
one guy had the nerve to argue with me, about different finishes having dramatic effects on the sound of the guitar...
oh, and a fella came in asking how to truebypass a tone circuit in his guitar. i opened her up and saw NO active electronics of any sort...just one of those stupid "black ice" or whatever the hell its called. i ripped that sucker off, and the guy thought his guitar sounded amazing, thereafter....what can i say? im a magic man...
hmm...BBQ sounds good, right about now...
Yeah, did that guy start going on about the tung oil finish? Ugh... heaven spare us!
It's really cool that you got a job working at Carvin, I only hope it doesn't leave you jaded and frustrated with the music industry..... I speak from first-hand experience from having worked for music manufacturers myself.... it can really wear you down sometimes.
Quote from: shadowmaster on August 16, 2007, 07:23:40 AM
If you think it's all crap then leave that crap alone. Don't waste your time on it.
Is it not crap then? Care to ellaborate? ???
Question - does/could this work in a similar way to the Ebtech HE-2 Hum Eliminator? That apparently uses coils/magnetic fields to help with grounding issues and 'liven' up your tone a bit...
I'm here now soulsonic. Anything you'd like to say to my face ?
I find it amazing that you give credence to shakti coils and trash the more powerful scalar coil configurations found inside the scalarizer. That's like believing in solar power but calling solar panels hokey.
Like it or not soulsonic, I have sold 500 plus units of this device to customers all over the world now and most of them to my knowledge are HAPPY. PROOF will always trump speculation any day.
Just go ahead and read the reviews on the internet. Have a Filipino friend beside you because most of it is in Tagalog.
Similarly, I can send five demo units of this device to members of this forum. Just send me an email at jobet@bamfxaudio.com introducing yourself, your nick on this forum and your snail mail address. I will also ask for a few agreements documented in email before I send you your demonstration unit.
The great thing about it is that it has applications in stompboxes. Visit www.bamfxaudio.com . The site is still growing and I'm still populating it with the work I've done with it re: guitars and stompboxes .
There are a few possibilities here.
(a) you may have indeed discovered new rules of physics and electronics that let you make a new, undiscovered principle work actively, passively, and purely acoustically.
(b) you may THINK you have done (a), being truly deluded
(c) you may have discovered that there are always people who will fall for the purest nonsense in advertising about something they wish was true.
(a) is so unlikely that I only include it to be polite, and because I have learned over the years that it is possible that there are Mother Nature's Rules that I don't know yet.
(b) is more likely, as the potential for human self delusion is very large. You may truly believe your advertising. Lots of people do.
(c) is however most likely. Unfortunately, you are using the language and vocabulary of the audio hifi tweako lunatic fringe in advertising. There is a large body of hifi advertising that uses the same style - a pseudoscientific explanation of some as-yet undiscovered effect that magically cleans up, clears up, enhances, or otherwise just makes things MORE BETTER!!! at the cost of only buying this widget. The use of this language style is almost always a dead giveaway that the product being sold is a hoax.
Notice I do not say your device IS a hoax. Only that it is extremely unlikely to work as advertised, and that it is advertised in the same manner as many things which are hoaxes in the audio world. So I invite you to educate me. Tell us how it works in clear, unambiguous language not employing hifi tweako mumbo jumbo. I will then respect you a great deal for discovering a new set of electronic rules that were unknown.
Your advertising ignites my curiousity. I have a burning sense of wonder about how audio equipment works. My curiousity is such that if I don't hear from you in such a way by, say, January 1, I simply will not be able to stand not knowing and I'll have to buy one of the devices and figure it out for myself. Of course, I'd have to arrange such a purchase through third parties so I could be sure to get a representative device; and I have a very busy schedule, so it may not be exactly January 1, could be any time after that.
I genuinely hope that every word of your advertising is true. That would be so exciting!!
Hi RG. I'm a newbie here, but if you're RG Keen, I am very much honored to have met you interactively here, and to say, a lot of my knowledge in modding and DIY'ing comes from you and your site.
Okay to the matter at hand.
I have been quite conservative, in a way, in the way I've handled the scalarizer. A good place to start is at the beginning. I have been playing with scalar devices since 2002 or so. Being an Electronics Engineer myself, I have found this very hokey at the start. But certain results seemed to jibe. So to get a few things out of the way, I did not discover anything, and neither do I understand the math as is put in www.cheniere.org (Tom Bearden's site). And yes, i don't believe in scalar weaponry and all that stuff (yet) until I see one in action for myself. So let's get that much out of the way.
From the things that I've learned from experience, and the things that I've read but have not yet tried, this was the principle that most intrigued me. Scalar waves contain infinite harmonics. I learned how to create scalar waves, or at least from the info on the internet. Caduceus coils, shakti coils and others. My playing with these things did not involve music and playing guitar yet. Then in September of last year, I made my first device. I didn't tell anybody what it was or how it worked, yet. My friend and landlord, who is a far better guitar player and ear than i am became my first guinea pig. I said "let's put something in your guitar". He said "what will it do?" I said " I don't know yet". Actually, I said that so as not to contaminate his findings.
I made him listen to his guitar without the device. Then I installed it. His face crumpled in amazement and said "it sounds like Angel's harps!" Of course he couldnt have heard angel's harps already, but I got the idea.
Not yet contented, I tried it on other friends, who said the same things. Then as a soft launch and as its popularity grew, I started charging for it, and I still do to this day. This started only in January of 2007, a few months after my first installation. I can say that in the 500 scalarizers sold and installed on practically every audio device that we could think of (guitars, keyboards, guitar effects, microphones, mike preamps, mixers), I'm quite satisfied, and luckilly, so are the many previous customers. Only now, actually by circumstance, am I venturing out into the international markets, although I've already had a number of informal US sales before.
So there. You can say, in a way, I've acted as conservatively, as scientifically and as "engineer-like" as I could on the product. And aligning with this, I would be honored if you take the first demo unit that I'm offering for the diystompboxes forum. I've sent out 7 units to the Petrucci forum with their agreement that they would post an honest review (good, bad or never mind) of the unit. Only one did turn in a review and thank goodness, it was a good one.
I'm surprised that the threadstarter wanted to break the unit I sent him open. This is , in a way, a disappointment and a violation of trust. At any rate, the unit has been filed with the Philippine Patent office, and by virtue of reciprocity with the US Patent Office, I am somewhat protected from a similar application and it should tide me over as I write the International Patent application.
Again R.G. , I would be honored if you take the first unit for this forum. Even the postage is on me, there is nothing to lose.
You may also contact Brian Wampler. His conclusion, and I quote "it works". I will contact him again soon with new application notes on how to install the scalarizers on guitar effects pedals. I keep on forgetting.
Anyway, thank you for your reply and your attention.
Jobet
It is a pleasure to meet you. I will take a look at some of the references you mention and do more research.
I have to tell you though, that until I can come up with a reasonable explanation, I still have the same opinions. It is indeed unfortunate that you have described your device in the language of the "free energy" group. Even if your device is a worthwhile genuine advance, you have set yourself back by describing it so.
I have the opinion that there is not yet any device that can take advantage of the zero-point energy; I take that back - there is no device that humans can use as yet to do so. I do believe Steven Hawking's explanation about how black holes do in fact produce a positive output from the zero point energy. We can't control black holes as yet.
There is a logical explanation for proof that no zero point energy tapping devices exist as yet. It's the application of Occam's Razor and basic economics.
The essence of engineering economics is the equivalence of money and energy. For instance, a US dollar is most easily defined at the moment as being worth a bit more than 1% of the energy in a barrel of oil. Let's assume that the MEG mentioned in the web site you reference exists and works as shown. It's of simple construction; I could build one and test it, and so could many other people, easily. So therefore if it works as stated, I could make a device that would produce an excess of energy, in the form of electricity. So I could, personally, set up a device that would reduce my electric bill every month. I could use that money to build another unit, and reduce my bill further. Eventually I pay nothing for electricity because it is coming out of my MEGs free.
If I am disciplined, I continue to use my monthly "electric bill" money to build more MEGs. Now I produce an excess of electricity. In Austin, the electrical utility must, by law BUY my self produced electricity if I set up the feeds to the power line correctly. And I can, because I have a source of free electricity and cash that I'm not paying. At some point, I have invested enough of my monthly electricity bill to gain a monthly payment back from the power company. When that happens, I have a positive cash flow from selling my excess electricity, and I get free money. I invest the returns in more and bigger MEGs. Soon, the power company approaches the legislature and demands to not have to pay me because they're going broke. The legislature rescinds the "must buy" law for them. But I can now (a) sell big MEG setups to my neighbors (b) sell the excess power to my friends (c) use the excess power to manufacture things with the free electricity, turning it into money again. I can in particular manufacture big MEG setups to sell to anyone who wants to be free of electrical bills.
I can use my free electricity to convert water to oxygen and hydrogen and power machinery with. So my gasoline bill vanishes. Even simpler, I use the excess money to buy gasoline so the gasoline bill effectively vanishes. Money equals energy again.
You see what happens. If the MEG works, we would now be witnessing the dismantling of the power companies and oil companies. It's been long enough since the patenting of the MEG. Even if the government/big business/etc. tried they could not suppress it because once the principle is known and spread to the net, people can independently go make their own. Think of the vast business enterprise that has arisen around the trade in drugs, which is being vigorously and violently suppressed. The governments can't stop it. In the same way, governments are powerless to suppress something so fundamental as free energy, which equals free money. Especially where the ability exists to start with such a simple device as shown in the MEG patent. If there was a huge investment to be made, millions if not billions of dollars to create even the first kW-Hr of electricity, they maybe it could be suppressed. But the MEG as shown can be made by a guy who's sitting in his garage back in the hills in Idaho and wants to live off-grid anyway. There are a lot of those people in the USA, enough that a real free-electricity device that worked would instantly be picked up and used. They use solar cells to do the same now.
Even if such a device existed, and could be restricted to the energy companies, it would instantly kill the global trade in oil. No reason to cooperate with those dirty guys wherever else if I can make my own energy here. If I'm an oil company I can use the free electricity to SYNTHESIZE oil. To say that the ongoing oil trade is a sham is to imply that the entire fiscal and legal energy of governments and business is increasingly invested in a sham to hide a free energy source. The sham must collapse, or eventually the entire business world is doing nothing but participating in a scheme to hide the free energy.
That there is no sign of such a collapse is an indication that the MEG (or some alternate, but equivalent result device) does not yet exist. Occam's Razor tells us that of the two possibilities, (i.e. free energy existing but being hidden and suppressed, versus not yet existing) the simpler explanation must be the most likely one.
This is a long winded way of saying that if you had simply said "I have this neato new device that really makes your guitar sound great. How it works is a secret." I would not have questioned it for a second. I have no doubt that you may in fact have come up with some arrangement of coils, capacitors, permanent magnets, etc. of entirely conventional structure that does make a guitar sound great. New frequency shaping devices and subtle distortions (which can be magnetic in nature) exist and can be combined and recombined. But they do not rely in entirely new physical principles, only new uses of the existing physical laws. That's what I meant when I said that your choice of language sets you back.
And it may move you into category (b). You may genuinely believe you're tapping scalar waves or whatever.
I wish you no disrespect. It has always been important to me that pseudoscience not slip into musical electronics the way it has corroded hifi electronics.
I will do the research.
I appreciate your offer to send a unit for research, but no, I cannot accept such a unit. You imply that you would not like an evaluation unit to be reverse engineered, and I have no interest in a unit that cannot be reverse engineered. It's really of no use to me to know that something sounds great without knowing why. Even if I don't reverse engineer it, someone will. I'm not the only one who can. And patent applications must include an explanation of how the device works. So the working of the device will be come public domain at some point anyway, through your patent application.
Since you have already filed a Phillipine patent, and by extension for a US one, I encourage you to explain your device fully in public. As you note, you're already protected from later filed patents, so there is not much to lose for you.
Again, I will go do my research before I get into this further; and I do mean no disrespect.
Thanks RG.
Let's get a few more things out of the way so as to avoid speculation about me or my motives.
I am a "hopeful" for free energy. Yes, I've tried many, many things before, to include fuel vaporizers on cars. Yes they work, but not to the extent of the 200mpg Pogue carburetor. Many explanations exist, the most plausible one being that the oil companies have put in paraffin in the gasoline which clogs up the catalyzers in units like the Pogue, Ogle and countless other range-extending fuel devices.
My own car, a 1600 cc Toyota corolla is fitted with two fuel savers, an air injector (corrects the air-fuel mix, specially on idle) and a fuel pre-heater, which vaporizes the more volatile components of gasoline. Savings are great for me, but could sound modest for others. I won't lie nor brag about it...the figure is 15 kilometers per liter, highway. This number is easily kicked in the butt by the Honda VTI Civic, which makes 17 kilometers per liter. But for a 1994 car with very traditional fuel injection, which only makes 11 kilometers per liter highway, 4 kilometers per liter more is a form of savings. And my engine burns cool. Anyway, that's OT, but I was just going to segue to saying...oh...I'm not to say anything more about that on the net, sorry. Let's just leave it at that that I am really a free energy "hopeful". And I don't believe that a thing works until it works for me. Even if I did succeed in a free energy device, I'm not stupid to put that on the internet.
That's the thing. The scalarizer is *not* a Free energy device. It's something that does things to low-level audio.
Okay...my patent description is on another laptop which is not accessible to me, so I'll do the explanation free-hand.
It is a scalar field generating device. Scalar fields, to my understanding, created simply by making opposing magnetic fields coincide. All scalar coils operate on this principle, at its simplest, just by running two adjacent conductors that have currents that are opposing in direction. As you can imagine, this is very easy to do.
Taking from my learning under Don Croft, he said that scalar coils must be wrapped in boundary coils, which I realized, could mean "Faraday Traps", i.e. things that prevent magnetic fields from escaping. So the primary scalar coils are then protected by two sets of Faraday traps. I won't go into the detail of that for now, but it's part of the secret. Then, after countless experimentation, I realized that the scalar waves, being stationary, will do not much good anywhere if they were not "re-mobilized". Acting on a hunch, I put in a powerful 4,000 Gauss neodymium magnet on the assembly. That hit the spot.
And that was it. Everything fell into place. The only thing missing at this point was the core material, which is basically material of varying magnetic permeability. I tried various materials starting from natural quartz crystals, then ferromagnetic material, then something organic, then various liquids in small watertight enclosures around which the coils were wrapped in. I must have tried 15-20 materials, to include graphite, various ceramics etc and eliminated those that were too difficult to fabricate or those with too-close sound to the existing ones. With these, I landed on the five core types that I am offering now. I didn't even know what they would sound like, but each find really did floor me, specially the hydrocore, which even I thought was "impossible!". As Paul Teutel Jr. would say "if you do it trial and error, you're bound to get somewhere". Anyway that was the story to that. So its basically a scalar coil, two sets of Faraday traps, a remobilizing magnet and a core material.
Anyway, just to show that this is a serious item, here is the acknowlegement page for the Philippine patent I applied for it :
(http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/5492/acknowledgement2lq9.jpg)
So sir, I truly, honestly understand why anyone or even everyone would be a skeptic about this. I was its very first skeptic, and that's why it took me too long to get out to the market with it. Only after several repeated, paid, highly lauded installations was I fully convinced that this device must be shared with the guitar-playing (and audio-using) public at large. You can say, I'm an Adam Savage and Jaime Heinemann fan. I will try something at least once to see if it works. And this is the same reason why I dare other people to try it on their cheapest, sh*ttiest guitars. I will readily close shop if I am not contributing to the art of the guitar, because I'll just be throwing my reputation away.
While I do realize that putting my language in league with Tesla and Croft and Bearden will also put me in the "hokey" crowd, neither can I lie about the true inspiration which led me to develop the scalarizer. So it's more truthful marketing than ever because I had more to lose by being truthful. So again, while I agree with what you said about not giving the explanation being better for me, I'd rather take the other tack. Anyway, there's the explanation and story to it. Believe it, don't believe it, doesn't matter so long as you TRY IT, and tell me if it works or not, does it do what I said it would, or not. Like I said, Empiricism and proof will trump speculation any day.
Warmest. And thank you again. Your sentiments on the matter are most enlightening. Most presumably it is representative of any thinking civilized man, specially a technically-inclined one.
Jobet
I'm going to sell mojo bags on ebay. You put one on top of your amp, and it makes the girls go crazy.
Quote from: frankclarke on December 16, 2007, 12:47:35 PM
I'm going to sell mojo bags on ebay. You put one on top of your amp, and it makes the girls go crazy.
Better yet, experiment putting a strong neodymium magnet on top of the output tranny of a tube amp. This will remobilize the trapped B-Field in the transformer core and will make your amp sound richer.
Try it. It's cheap.
QuoteMy own car, a 1600 cc Toyota corolla is fitted with two fuel savers, an air injector (corrects the air-fuel mix, specially on idle) and a fuel pre-heater, which vaporizes the more volatile components of gasoline.
QuoteI'm an Adam Savage and Jaime Heinemann fan.
That's interesting cos they did an episode where they busted a couple of fuel savers.
You sound serious, so I'm thinking R.G's possibility (b) sounds very plausible.
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PM
I am a "hopeful" for free energy.
So am I. Or at least for a better way than we have now, even if it's not free. I'd prefer anything that's decentralized, not easy to control from one place.
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PM
Even if I did succeed in a free energy device, I'm not stupid to put that on the internet.
Good! You're smart.
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PM
That's the thing. The scalarizer is *not* a Free energy device. It's something that does things to low-level audio.
Yes, that was clear. However, the lack of evidence for scalar waves will get back to people not believing you about your scalarizer. Better simply to say "I've found a new way to hook up coils and stuff that sounds good. By referring to scalar waves as the inspiration, you cast doubt on the truth of your whole explanation.
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PM
It is a scalar field generating device. Scalar fields, to my understanding, created simply by making opposing magnetic fields coincide. All scalar coils operate on this principle, at its simplest, just by running two adjacent conductors that have currents that are opposing in direction. As you can imagine, this is very easy to do.
Yes. It's done in every twisted pair cable and coaxial cable on the planet, all the time.The principle of creating a magnetic field as the sum of the M-fields of currents in conductors is well known to physics indeed. However, the fields from two adjacent conductors with current in them in opposing directions add, instead of opposing. It's the entire basis of inductance and electromagnets, with both AC and DC. So this is very much everyday physics.
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PM
Taking from my learning under Don Croft, he said that scalar coils must be wrapped in boundary coils, which I realized, could mean "Faraday Traps", i.e. things that prevent magnetic fields from escaping. So the primary scalar coils are then protected by two sets of Faraday traps. I won't go into the detail of that for now, but it's part of the secret.
This is a tough one. Unless I misunderstand your meaning, there are no "Faraday Traps" at temperatures above absolute zero. No existing materials except a superconductor will shield or prevent penetration of a magnetic field. Ferro materials shunt them, and conductors oppose changing M-fields, but an M-field will reach right through them in some measure.
Did you really mean a method to prevent M-field from leaking out? Or just coils to repel the M-field away in a certain direction? That's basic physics, and understandable by the normal processes.
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PMThen, after countless experimentation, I realized that the scalar waves, being stationary, will do not much good anywhere if they were not "re-mobilized". Acting on a hunch, I put in a powerful 4,000 Gauss neodymium magnet on the assembly. That hit the spot.
A Neo magnet produces a powerful local "DC" magnetic field. Unless this is moving, I don't see how the scalar waves were moved by it. Or is the Neo magnet moved somehow?
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PM
The only thing missing at this point was the core material, which is basically material of varying magnetic permeability. I tried various materials
...
Anyway that was the story to that. So its basically a scalar coil, two sets of Faraday traps, a remobilizing magnet and a core material.
Permeability is a common concept in physics. Materials are one of (a) nonmagnetic (b)diamagnetic or (c) ferromagnetic. Nonmagnetic materials only interact with magnets by their electrical conductivity. A magnet not moving with respect to a nonmagnetic material is unaffected, and its field extends as it normally would if the material is not there. This is how you can move iron filings around on a piece of paper. Diamagnetic materials have a weak opposition to magnetic fields, and trivially so. Ferromagnetic materials do have high permabilities, and do so conceptually by aligned electron spin. Their permeabilities are all variable, in that they vary with the intensity of the B-field inside the material. They all saturate, when all the available spins are aligned, at which time the permeability drops dramatically.
So are your cores a, b or c? Or some new class of magnetic materials?
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PM
Anyway, just to show that this is a serious item, here is the acknowlegement page for the Philippine patent I applied for it :
No question here. I fully believe you have filed for a patent, and I hope you get it.
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PM
While I do realize that putting my language in league with Tesla and Croft and Bearden will also put me in the "hokey" crowd, neither can I lie about the true inspiration which led me to develop the scalarizer. So it's more truthful marketing than ever because I had more to lose by being truthful. So again, while I agree with what you said about not giving the explanation being better for me, I'd rather take the other tack. Anyway, there's the explanation and story to it. Believe it, don't believe it, doesn't matter so long as you TRY IT, and tell me if it works or not, does it do what I said it would, or not. Like I said, Empiricism and proof will trump speculation any day.
Nothing wrong with being brutally honest. I respect that. However, I think there may be an alternate way to explain what you have done that is more within the bounds of normal physics.
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PM
Warmest. And thank you again. Your sentiments on the matter are most enlightening. Most presumably it is representative of any thinking civilized man, specially a technically-inclined one.
I will keep open the possibility that there is something I do not understand fully. Happens all the time. However, to be honest with myself, I must try to use the training I have to fit against any new phenomena. So I will explore; hence my questions.
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PMBetter yet, experiment putting a strong neodymium magnet on top of the output tranny of a tube amp. This will remobilize the trapped B-Field in the transformer core and will make your amp sound richer.
And here we have the glimmer of an explanation. Of course it will change the way the amp sounds. I first used this effect when I suggested magnetic offsets to wah inductor coils.The B-H curve of ferromagnetic fields is curved, but symmetrical. It is largely but not perfectly linear over much of its range, but changes dramatically near saturation. If you add a static magnetic bias to an other wise magnetically balance magnetic device, it pushes the zero-signal B-field inside the device to one side of its B-H curve. As such, signals will hit saturation on one polarity of the signal before they hit it on the other. That makes for asymmetrical distortion of the signal.
There is no question that asymmetrical distortion can sound good; and also no question that putting a neodymium magnet on an output transformer could easily push it to one-sided B-H curve, and asymmetrical distortion.
And it is possible that this is what you mean, and are merely using different words. I am always mindful that language is a flexible tool, as taught to us by our dearly departed president, William Jefferson Clinton's remark that "It all depends on what your definition of "is" is.".
It is possible that your use of a neo magnet and "coils" has produced an offset inductor or transformer effect, and possibly in combination with other parts this is softly saturating and maybe adding some tone contol peaks and dips. That would indeed add new harmonics, and maybe sound good. But I don't yet see non-standard physics at play there.
So I'll do more research.
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 01:11:15 PM
Better yet, experiment putting a strong neodymium magnet on top of the output tranny of a tube amp. This will remobilize the trapped B-Field in the transformer core and will make your amp sound richer.
I read the magnet on the wah inductor, never thought of other coils. Plus you could have an electromagnet driven by the guitar signal to make it touch sensitive.
Fuel Saver mojo bags: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html
I'm inclined to default to a position similar to that of R.G.
There are *plenty* of cool things just waiting to be learned and discovered. Could this thing be one of them? Perhaps. However, I'm more likely to believe that whatever action it makes relative to the sound of a guitar is something that can be explained by well-known Physics (and, by proxy, Electronics).
That said -- I went to your site and listened to all of the clips (one of the links didn't work -- I think it was the link to the "active" version demo, but don't quote me on that).
You mentioned the word "subtle" in your web site -- that is an understatement. I didn't stop to look at the bit rate of the resulting mp3's -- and I know you mentioned that some of the characteristics could be lost due to the encoding/recording process. As one who happens to have pretty good hearing, I can certainly admit to the audibility of loss in lower bit-rate mp3 files.
To be brutally honest, I could not hear much difference between the clips. Those differences I did here (and there were some), were things that, to my ear, could be attributable to variances in playing technique OR due to some RL/RLC notching. Again -- not denying that there may be sonic differences, just not convinced that it is due to scalar waves or something "new". If your device truly lives in the realm of the subtle, I might recommend a shorter clip -- but running at a high bit rate.
This whole bit about recording demos is tricky stuff -- especially when A-B comparisons are involved. There are so many variables that influence the sound - variances in playing technique right at the forefront -- all the way down to studio temperature/humidity changes, and the like.
sounds like those Bybee Quantum Purifier things...
Quote from: theblueark on December 16, 2007, 01:40:52 PM
QuoteMy own car, a 1600 cc Toyota corolla is fitted with two fuel savers, an air injector (corrects the air-fuel mix, specially on idle) and a fuel pre-heater, which vaporizes the more volatile components of gasoline.
QuoteI'm an Adam Savage and Jaime Heinemann fan.
That's interesting cos they did an episode where they busted a couple of fuel savers.
You sound serious, so I'm thinking R.G's possibility (b) sounds very plausible.
They're not all the same. Simple pre-heaters will work by skewing the level of the vaporized gasoline content, and the gains are modest. I haven't been able to make a Thermal Catalytic Cracking type fuel saver to work yet. I've made my own design but the first prototype I made leaked like crazy at the catalytic bed. I haven't been able to revisit that one yet, but it's good you brought it up. Magnets in the fuel line are still hokum in my mind. But I'm open.
Okay guys. Just like any other inventor with no possible means of measuring scalar fields, I am constricted to work on hypotheses and validate/invalidate these as I go along. These explanations are what I offer because these are the ones I've been operating from. If I've been wrong about my hypothesis...of course that's a possibility. But however, unless someone proves me wrong, I just have to continue operating from these hypotheses.
Okay, in alignment, let's continue the story. The passive scalarizers were great. Then I thought to myself...what would happen if I had a second scalar coil wrapped around the original assembly, then power that with a battery ? The sound produced should be even richer than the original passive variety because more scalar waves, containing infinite harmonics
So I did another prototype with that configuration. And oddly enough, the sound was indeed richer, to the point of sounding "processed" already albeit in my ears, in a good way.
So this may be a case of the hypothesis being confirmed or the wrong hypothesis making me think that the hypothesis is correct.
Okay let me offer another failed experiment, or rather learning experience. I had a prototype that did not have the boundary coils, just the scalar coil. The sound was so raw to the point of being harsh. No, I don't have an explanation for that yet, all I know is that this was the result.
Quote from: PerroGrande on December 16, 2007, 02:59:17 PM
That said -- I went to your site and listened to all of the clips (one of the links didn't work -- I think it was the link to the "active" version demo, but don't quote me on that).
You mentioned the word "subtle" in your web site -- that is an understatement. I didn't stop to look at the bit rate of the resulting mp3's -- and I know you mentioned that some of the characteristics could be lost due to the encoding/recording process. As one who happens to have pretty good hearing, I can certainly admit to the audibility of loss in lower bit-rate mp3 files.
To be brutally honest, I could not hear much difference between the clips. Those differences I did here (and there were some), were things that, to my ear, could be attributable to variances in playing technique OR due to some RL/RLC notching. Again -- not denying that there may be sonic differences, just not convinced that it is due to scalar waves or something "new". If your device truly lives in the realm of the subtle, I might recommend a shorter clip -- but running at a high bit rate.
This whole bit about recording demos is tricky stuff -- especially when A-B comparisons are involved. There are so many variables that influence the sound - variances in playing technique right at the forefront -- all the way down to studio temperature/humidity changes, and the like.
Yes I do realize that. While we did this in the studio and we could hear what was happening, recording just didn't produce much results. Anyway, I've done the soundclipping again, this time on an el cheapo RJ SG guitar and will post more clips soon. I'll take your suggestions to heart.
Here's another of our experiments. We pitted a "scalarized" Behringer B1 microphone against a Neumann U87. We oriented it top to bottom and as close to each other to reduce the effects of panning.
(http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/9982/1040839ps2.jpg)
Our conclusion : The U87 won in the high-frequency clarity but by only a very small margin. The difference was so close that it took the golden ears of that guy in the photo (he's among the top recording engineers here in the country) to hear the difference, which when he pointed it to us, we started to hear it as well during the A-B session.
Then we ran the clips through the frequency response modules of the DAW software. Here's the results. Left is for the Behringer B1, right is for the Neumann U87 :
(http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3076/picture1cl6.png)
They're almost the same except for the higher bass on the B1 and the "rounded" edges on the U87. The higher bass was because we disengaged the low-cut filter on the B1. No I don't know what the rounded edges mean yet.
Encouragingly enough though, a recording engineer colleague of ours, based in New York asked us "what microphone did you use to record the last album you did ? " We replied "A scalarized Behringer B1 microphone". He said "Dang, I should have not bought my Neumann U87!". From another golden ear, that's a $120 microphone versus a $3000 one !
Like I said, there is a wealth of experimentation results in the one year and four months that we've been running experiments on the scalarizers. I have here the clips of five microphones recording pink noise, one of them was our workhorse Behringer B1. I haven't run them yet on the frequency analysis graphs.
Oh I think Cooledit 2.0 has a Fourier Analysis feature. I think I'll run those on that. Whew...just interacting with you guys sure is productive for me :D !
I'd be more interested in seeing a "scalarized" B1 vs. a "non-scalarized" B1 -- side by side, just like you did with the B1 vs. U87.
Don't get me wrong -- the B1 vs. U87 comparison is interesting. However, without a "control" group, the comparison is somewhat apples to oranges.
Yup.
It just so happened that the Scalarized B1 was already in our mike cabinet and was a prized tool of our trade, and to dismantle it just for the test was too unnerving to consider. As my partner said "don't touch it if it aint broke !".
I can do this again, this time however on an el cheapo generic $2 dynamic microphone. Or wait, I know of other studios who just junked their B1's when they got something better. I'll borrow one. Thanks again Big Dog ! (that's what Perro Grande means doesn't it ? :D )
edit: wait, we've done this already before and the results are sitting in our old DAW machine. I'll just dig them up.
Yep -- means Big Dog :) My nickname is in honor of my beloved Doberman Pinscher who passed away this past summer. :icon_cry: For 10 years, he was an unwavering friend and companion to me and my family.
I'll be interested to see/hear your results. And, of course, if that studio has some more B1's in the "junk bin" I would be happy to take some off their hands... ;D ::)
Took me a while to digest the questions. Whew ! That's like taking the Electromagnetics section of my Engineering board exam hehehe.
Okay, to the best of my understanding. I might not be able to squeeze in the five years of my tinkering with scalar fields, but I'll give this a go.
Quote from: R.G. on December 16, 2007, 01:51:15 PM
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PM
It is a scalar field generating device. Scalar fields, to my understanding, created simply by making opposing magnetic fields coincide. All scalar coils operate on this principle, at its simplest, just by running two adjacent conductors that have currents that are opposing in direction. As you can imagine, this is very easy to do.
Yes. It's done in every twisted pair cable and coaxial cable on the planet, all the time.The principle of creating a magnetic field as the sum of the M-fields of currents in conductors is well known to physics indeed. However, the fields from two adjacent conductors with current in them in opposing directions add, instead of opposing. It's the entire basis of inductance and electromagnets, with both AC and DC. So this is very much everyday physics.
Scalar fields are produced when two opposing magnetic fields coincide. For instance, if the north and north of a magnet were to be faced to each other, and some mechanical way were present to prevent the magnets from moving, a scalar field is created between them and becomes a "scalar bubble". Force is there, and yet there is no resultant. It's akin to two elephants pushing each other. There is no vector and yet the forces operating are massive. Electromagnetically, it can be produced when two wires with opposing currents are adjacent. This creates a north-north and south to south orientation hence preventing the build-up of the M-field. If north-south orientations were created, as in the case of a straight-wound coil, then inductance will increase because the magnetic fields add up vectorially. Scalar coils are thus also categorized as "non-inductive coils", by applying this principle, and the same principle is used on non-inductive wirewound resistors.
Quote
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PM
Taking from my learning under Don Croft, he said that scalar coils must be wrapped in boundary coils, which I realized, could mean "Faraday Traps", i.e. things that prevent magnetic fields from escaping. So the primary scalar coils are then protected by two sets of Faraday traps. I won't go into the detail of that for now, but it's part of the secret.
This is a tough one. Unless I misunderstand your meaning, there are no "Faraday Traps" at temperatures above absolute zero. No existing materials except a superconductor will shield or prevent penetration of a magnetic field. Ferro materials shunt them, and conductors oppose changing M-fields, but an M-field will reach right through them in some measure.
Did you really mean a method to prevent M-field from leaking out? Or just coils to repel the M-field away in a certain direction? That's basic physics, and understandable by the normal processes.
Yes the goal was to prevent magnetic fields from leaking out. If I failed that, then at the very least prevent a certain amount of the M-field from leaking out so it can be "bumped" and concentrated against other M-fields thus resulting in magnetic scalarization.The coils that do this are actually doing this physically, just like the faraday cage would prevent EM fields from getting in or coming out. It's not important that this is done perfectly, only a certain amount that will allow the scalarizing action (and hence tone enrichment) to come out is enough.
Quote
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PMThen, after countless experimentation, I realized that the scalar waves, being stationary, will do not much good anywhere if they were not "re-mobilized". Acting on a hunch, I put in a powerful 4,000 Gauss neodymium magnet on the assembly. That hit the spot.
A Neo magnet produces a powerful local "DC" magnetic field. Unless this is moving, I don't see how the scalar waves were moved by it. Or is the Neo magnet moved somehow?
Okay. In analogy, it's like the two elephants pushing against each other with massive force. Then comes a small boy and pushes on the hiney of one of the elephants. The massive force is still there, but now it starts to move because of the small imbalance of force. Yes, the magnet provides a sort of magnetic bias, which is necessary to allow the scalar field to move and allow the harmonics that they carry to be inserted in the signal path. Actually, the boundary coils are also the "capture" coils, in which the scalar fields and their attendant harmonics are re-induced.
Quote
The only thing missing at this point was the core material, which is basically material of varying magnetic permeability. I tried various materials
...
Anyway that was the story to that. So its basically a scalar coil, two sets of Faraday traps, a remobilizing magnet and a core material.
Permeability is a common concept in physics. Materials are one of (a) nonmagnetic (b)diamagnetic or (c) ferromagnetic. Nonmagnetic materials only interact with magnets by their electrical conductivity. A magnet not moving with respect to a nonmagnetic material is unaffected, and its field extends as it normally would if the material is not there. This is how you can move iron filings around on a piece of paper. Diamagnetic materials have a weak opposition to magnetic fields, and trivially so. Ferromagnetic materials do have high permabilities, and do so conceptually by aligned electron spin. Their permeabilities are all variable, in that they vary with the intensity of the B-field inside the material. They all saturate, when all the available spins are aligned, at which time the permeability drops dramatically.
So are your cores a, b or c? Or some new class of magnetic materials?
[/quote]
Okay. I didn't exactly have a methodology when I was trying out things, it was all random. Obviously only the metalcore had any real magnetic properties so its just ferromagnetic. Most other materials were non-magnetic but they were reacting (okay theoretically in my imagination, and empirically, in our ears) with the B-fields generated by the coils. And in various ways. I don't have a hypothesis on this yet, but I offer you a few results. Graphite sounded just like crystalcore, perhaps because it was crystallized carbon. Ceramics sounded also like crystal, but they had an edgy "bite" to it. Aircore sounded also like crystal, but with less of the chime-like sounds. Those were the reasons why these were not included in the line.
Quote
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PM
While I do realize that putting my language in league with Tesla and Croft and Bearden will also put me in the "hokey" crowd, neither can I lie about the true inspiration which led me to develop the scalarizer. So it's more truthful marketing than ever because I had more to lose by being truthful. So again, while I agree with what you said about not giving the explanation being better for me, I'd rather take the other tack. Anyway, there's the explanation and story to it. Believe it, don't believe it, doesn't matter so long as you TRY IT, and tell me if it works or not, does it do what I said it would, or not. Like I said, Empiricism and proof will trump speculation any day.
Nothing wrong with being brutally honest. I respect that. However, I think there may be an alternate way to explain what you have done that is more within the bounds of normal physics.
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PM
Warmest. And thank you again. Your sentiments on the matter are most enlightening. Most presumably it is representative of any thinking civilized man, specially a technically-inclined one.
I will keep open the possibility that there is something I do not understand fully. Happens all the time. However, to be honest with myself, I must try to use the training I have to fit against any new phenomena. So I will explore; hence my questions.
Quote from: Jobet on December 16, 2007, 12:21:20 PMBetter yet, experiment putting a strong neodymium magnet on top of the output tranny of a tube amp. This will remobilize the trapped B-Field in the transformer core and will make your amp sound richer.
And here we have the glimmer of an explanation. Of course it will change the way the amp sounds. I first used this effect when I suggested magnetic offsets to wah inductor coils.The B-H curve of ferromagnetic fields is curved, but symmetrical. It is largely but not perfectly linear over much of its range, but changes dramatically near saturation. If you add a static magnetic bias to an other wise magnetically balance magnetic device, it pushes the zero-signal B-field inside the device to one side of its B-H curve. As such, signals will hit saturation on one polarity of the signal before they hit it on the other. That makes for asymmetrical distortion of the signal.
There is no question that asymmetrical distortion can sound good; and also no question that putting a neodymium magnet on an output transformer could easily push it to one-sided B-H curve, and asymmetrical distortion.
And it is possible that this is what you mean, and are merely using different words. I am always mindful that language is a flexible tool, as taught to us by our dearly departed president, William Jefferson Clinton's remark that "It all depends on what your definition of "is" is.".
It is possible that your use of a neo magnet and "coils" has produced an offset inductor or transformer effect, and possibly in combination with other parts this is softly saturating and maybe adding some tone contol peaks and dips. That would indeed add new harmonics, and maybe sound good. But I don't yet see non-standard physics at play there.
So I'll do more research.
Yes the magnet will produce an offset in the B-field.Your hypothesis sounds good too. In my hypotheses, there is enough B-fields built up in the core of a transformer that simply making them move to hit the coils again will make the sound richer. I have a hunch that there are a good number of output trannies that have a small amount of counter-rotated windings in them thus creating a scalar field. Maybe the winders are not exactly aware of what they're doing, but what they do know is that trannies wound this way would sound much richer than those that are just wound straight. Putting a magnet on top of output trannies like these will intensify the effect.
Okay as for the skewed B-H field inductor theory, here's my take on it. Many people who hear the crystal core notice this action :
1. "Painful", shrill frequencies are mitigated.
2. "Bell chime" effects are noticed.
Many have even said that the treble increased as a whole and made guitars livelier sounding. Taking from this, had the scalarizer been an inductor, it would have discriminated against the high frequencies and passed the low frequencies. The observation should have been the reverse: that the bass gets increased and the treble is mitigated. Which then puts in doubt the skewed inductor hypothesis in question, because the thing is not acting like an inductor. There is a small reactance in it caused by the boundary coils, but they are too small to affect the total action.
We're not even talking about distortion here, I mean the type that happens in output trannies. The guitar signal is too miniscule to pull the cores into saturation, even on the metalcore.
I'm not saying that this is the bible truth, it's just the best information/ digestion that I have at this time.
wow my head hurts from trying to comprehend all of this thread, but it's a good hurt.
thanks jobet and rg for a very stimulating read!
i will stay tuned.
OK, I've done a lot of research. All of the references on the web I've found so far break down into two camps. These are:
(a) What I have to call the lunatic fringe, sadly. These contain everything from conspiracy-suppressed free energy to cures for cancer, common cold, warts, eczema, to time travel. Not very likely to produce repeatable results.
(b) Observations that no amount of testing of the ideas of the scalar wave/scalar bubble, caduceus coils, etc. ever produced repeatable results, let alone the purported results.
Here's a typical quote, from wikipedia:
QuoteMagnetic fields interaction
SFT is based on "non-symmetrical regauging" potentials, demonstrated by the interaction of two magnetic fields.
When the field lines oppose each other, the magnets are pulled together. When the fields are aligned in the same direction, the magnets push apart. When two magnets strongly oppose each other but are not permitted to move apart, the force between them is said to create a "scalar bubble" between the magnets. The greater the repulsive force, the larger this scalar bubble becomes. As the magnets move away and the pushing force decreases, the scalar bubble shrinks in size and strength.
In a similar manner, two magnets that are strongly attracted create a "scalar void" between them that grows larger the closer the two magnets become. Two magnets powerfully attracted to one another create a very large scalar void, that decreases as the attracting magnets are moved apart.
Despite the claims of its proponents, no repeatable experiments were able to show the existence of the scalar field. All observed effects were shown to comply to the standard physical laws of electrodynamics. The observations are in spectacular agreement not only with classical electromagnetics, but also with quantum electrodynamics, both of which are fields of physics.
(italics are mine, for emphasis)
Engineers are perhaps the least bound to theory of any of the scientific disciplines; an engineer with no theoretical explanation for why something happens will happily tablulate
what happens and work from the tables. That may be what is happening here. You may have, to paraphrase zach, ignored the standard explanations and not knowing what could not be done, and experimented until you found your own beautiful reality. It just doesn't map all that well to the reality everyone else uses.
I can find no convincing argument that there is any kind of consistent result from any of the zero-point energy/scalar wave stuff. Boy is there ever a cloud of verbal fluff of the worst lunatic-fringe kind there though. If you want a ride through some of this, type caduceus coil and Gibbs into google for a look at the Hyper Dimensional Resonator and the other swarm of things crawling around on the corpus of this kind of pseudoscience. Some of it is funny, and some of it is just sad.
Jobet - in the absence of additional information, I think you have mislead yourself. I believe you may have some sort of effect on signals going through your widget. However I do not think it has anything to do with unknown and unprovable scalar field physics. IF there is an effect on signals and IF the effect is repeatable, I see no evidence of any way alternate physics can be behind it, since to date no one has been able to unambiguously demonstrate that any of these even exist. The history of human psychology in general and audio psychology in specific is full of people who have either deliberately deluded others or inadvertently deluded themselves.
I think you are doing yourself and any customers a disservice with this characterization of whatever your widget is. I believe that the longer you use this characterization of your device, the more you veer into deliberate pseudoscience. I urge you to find a description of your device's operation within the bounds of normal electronics and electromagnetics.
I respect your view.
Have I misled myself ? That is a possibility although as you said, things do fit in my reality and the more I operate from that which I established, the more proof of this "reality" do I find.
I guess there's only one thing left for you to do then. Empirically test the device.
If you want to believe wikipedia and put more weight there, that's up to you. I have five years of my own experience (e.g. "reality) behind me. It's really painful to depart from paradigms that we have kept and nurtured and form our established set of beliefs. I won't ask you to depart from your own if you're not yet ready. Albeit, scalar waves are just one small skip away.
How difficult is it to think that opposing magnetic waves will become non-vector (e.g. scalar) waves ? What does classical electromagnetics say about "cancelled" waves? It says that these are destroyed. But wait...the first law of thermodynamics forbids that. So where do they go ? Do they go to some limbo inaccessible to us ?
If that makes me a looney, that's okay sir. I am in good company :D . All pioneers will eat ridicule for breakfast :D Just a little more sir. Open your mind, just a little bit more. The proof is already here, sitting in my shop, waiting to be mailed to you. How can one ridicule solar energy when the solar cell already works ?
Look through these
http://www.bamfxaudio.com/links.html
and find the links for Philmusic. You might have to wade through non-English posts, but in here is the empirical PROOF that the thing works.
Of course I can change the explanation. But I would be lying. You don't want that do you ? I mean there are too many lies going around already.
Quote from: Jobet on December 17, 2007, 01:39:56 AM
I guess there's only one thing left for you to do then. Empirically test the device.
The problem is that listening to it would do nothing to explain what difference it makes. I have no doubt that it may make a subtle difference in sound. I have great doubt that we need to step outside accepted physical phenomena to explain it.
At some point, one of the devices will certainly be disassembled and reverse engineered by someone. At that point, I feel certain that any changes it makes in signal will be explainable in terms of conventional electronics theory.
The problem is that there is no repeatable evidence that any of the rationale you give for your device's operation even exists.
QuoteOf course I can change the explanation. But I would be lying. You don't want that do you ? I mean there are too many lies going around already.
Rephrasing that a bit, you could change the explanation, but you maintain that your existing explanation is correct. That is unfortunate, because standard electromagnetic theory can be tested and demonstrated by disinterested observers. Your explanation cannot be demonstrated to exist, from what I read. That your device does
something does no more to prove that scalar waves are the basis for its operation than flames are the evidence for the existence of phlogiston. If I tried very hard, I could come up with a plausible sounding explanation for grass dying in the winter because tiny invisible mice are eating the roots at night when no one is looking, and cite as evidence for this that the grass turns brown. It's the same circularity of argument that insisting that listening to your device proves the existence of scalar waves.
I have a very open mind - but given the bulk of evidence for how Mother Nature insists that the universe works, it takes more than a different tone from a few coils and other parts to demonstrate a new set of Rules. If the whole scalar wave stuff exists, it should be repeatably testable by disinterested observers. That doesn't seem to be the case. Occam's Razor cleaves the arguments and tells us that the simplest explanation is that you believe in something that is not necessarily so, rather than there being a whole branch of theoretical physics that has been passed around in whispers since the time of Tesla.
My condolences.
You seem to be decent fellow otherwise. I wish you
I've been told by some of my closest friends that this could well be the very first mainstream application and demonstration of the existence of scalar waves.
If there is no empirical evidence to support me, then it's just because nobody has gone there yet. Like before Magellan, the earth was flat. No I don't want to presume, but it does seem that way. It is the first mainstream application of scalar waves that produces tangible, oops, I mean sonic evidence.
The author of Wikipedia, well...let's just say I don't know him and it should be mutual.
So there, let's leave it at that. I'm not really out to get any of your votes. However, I hope it does occur to you that your conclusion will seem hollow, when the chance to debunk it is already in front of you, and you didn't take it.
If you look at the links on Philmusic, on one of the threads there is posted pictures of a stripped scalarizer. Yes, I don't mind if you all looked and saw that it is a set of coils, with a magnet, wrapped around something.
Yet on the same thread and others there are the praises, the findings and all that. Oh yes, even the flames. :D Again, if you have an alternate explanation, I'm all ears. And conversely, we can webcam up and I can show you what's inside and how it's made. If that makes a difference. If not, let's leave it as it is.
It's okay sir. As Jim Croce said "if it gets me nowhere, I'll go there proud". Fortunately, it got me a little somewhere already.
Warmest.
Jobet
Scalar fields or not, if your device produces changes to the sound of a device that can be quantified and demonstrated, and are generally regarded as "pleasing to the ear", then you're still on the "plus" side of scale.
I'm steering clear of the Physics conversations for the moment. My undergrad degree is in Physics, so I'm not completely without clue when it comes to the underpinnings of this conversation. ;)
From a marketing perspective, R.G's point is very sound. Say, for example, in a reasonable double-blind test your device can be shown to be "superior sounding" to a majority of respondents; and frequency-response curves and Fourier Analysis can show that there is, in fact, a visible change (for the better) after installing your device. If you have these things, and your product is reasonably priced for the effect it produces, then you don't necessarily need to claim (true or otherwise) that scalar fields are involved in the production of the effect.
QuoteIf there is no empirical evidence to support me, then it's just because nobody has gone there yet.
...or it is because it doesn't exist. Again, I'm not saying that this is or isn't the case here -- just that there is another possibility.
I'm still interested in seeing the "before/after" B1 curves and Fourier analysis. While I'm not necessarily convinced that you've discovered a scalar field application, I'm not ruling out the possibility that what you've created might sound good (even if it is within the realm of plain ol' Physics). ;D
Good idea.
Let's steer clear of the Physics, call the device the X-Widget, proceed with the empirical data (Fouriers etc) and proceed from there.
Suits me just fine. Let's do that.
I'll design the test methodology for the large unit that we use for vocals and run pink noise through that.
:D
Any differences I hear in the clips are extremely slight, and could be accounted for by differences in picking pressure between the clips, as far as I can tell.
QuotePeople use antique and ancient terms to describe things that are common when they're trying to BS people.
Excuse me, I need to go change the condensers in my amp...
Quote from: Jobet on December 17, 2007, 03:33:33 AM
I've been told by some of my closest friends that this could well be the very first mainstream application and demonstration of the existence of scalar waves.
If this is true I hope you've been working on your nobel acceptance speech. Seriously!
1) People can notice relationships that are subtle, but real, and go for many years attributing them to the only potential causes they know of, even though those are not the real causes of the phenomenon in question. Perfect case in point is astrological signs. The position of stars many light years away could not hope to have any effect on personality/temperament, yet individual characteristics have been attributed to the location of stars in the cosmos at the time of that person's birth for countless generations. Of course, none of those generations had even the faintest clue that there are seasonal fluctuations in hormones that can influence neural development in utero, so they attributed these subtle, but somewhat reliable patterns of birth-date/personality to the only things they had dependable information on - the location of the stars. To cite that genius of logic and rhetoric, Donald Rumsfeld, there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, and things can happen for reasons we don't yet know about because we didn't realize those reasons could exist. I think delusion is much too strong a word for it. However, humans have a deep-seated urge to find causes for things, and even when the causes identified are not the "real" causes, they are more comforted by having a cause they can point to than by not having one.
I hope that doesn't come off sounding like an insult. The point is that you have a given training, and a given experience with the device, and it has to lead somewhere, right? It may be that what you perceive auditorily is correct, but the theoretical explanation is a few degrees off. Maybe. Maybe not.
2) The thing that doesn't seem to have been discussed here yet (or maybe I missed it in the longer and more convoluted posts) is how an effect that is subtle can consistently supercede whatever the technology is that is under test. There are things I can do to a crappy guitar/speaker/amp/etc that will improve it sonically because it makes up for shortcomings in the technology; shortcomings that are a reflection of lower quality control at point of production. Those same interventions will not always work, however, especially if I apply them to what was a good product from the start. There have been countless amps from "the golden era" that had everything the better-known amps had except for maybe a high-enough plate voltage, a decent speaker, a well-designed cabinet, enough capacitance in the power supply, or whatever. There have been countless guitar pickups produced in the golden era that had everything going for them except that the manufacturer didn't pot them, matched them up with 100k volume pots, used too much shielding on the cover, used poor magnets, etc. In other words, they had everything except X, and so suffered in audio quality. All it took was something so bonehead simple, and a sow's ear instantly became a silk purse.
So I ask myself, whether the phenomena you report reflect something that can be imposed on top of any technology you want to throw at it, or whether it is a phenomenon that compensates for some shortcomings that routinely appear in many (but not all) products. For example, the BBE process compensates for cumulative errors in phase alignment between harmonics and fundamentals along the signal path, all the way out to the drivers. Conceivably, one should be able to identify a signal path where phase alignment/coherence is paid attention to and maintained at each step of the way, and the BBE process adds little other than coloration. The BBE process is a real and repeatable phenomenon, but because its very nature is compensatory, it is not a robust enough phenomenon to override the technology ALL the time, just enough of the time to be a useful consideration in many instances.
That's certainly not a weakness. Rather it is a matter of understanding what the legitimate expectations for the product may be. At the moment, you and many others are clearly "knocked out" by how something so simple could produce the effect noted. I think what elicits so much doubt here is the sense that the phenomenon appears to have no limits, or at least none have been alluded to. My sense is that much greater confidence in what you claim would be prompted if you were able to say "It will work under THESE circumstances for THESE reasons, but will show diminishing returns and often no added value under THOSE circumstances for THOSE reasons." When a phenomenon has real and more importantly predictable limits, people are generally more willing to set doubt or suspicion aside.
Naturally, when you stumble onto something that impresses the daylights out of you, it is only human nature to be enthusiastic about what it does do, and spend less time thinking about what it doesn't do. That is often the point where people may make commercial claims they later wish they hadn't made. Just a thought, not a criticism.
And just in case no one noticed, not ALL cutting age R&D in the effects world goes on in North America, Japan, or Europe. Sometimes people in other parts of the world stumble onto stuff too. :icon_wink:
Sounds like a plan, Jobet! Although -- I think the "Scalarizer" name is kinda cool -- so I'll pass on the X-Widget name for the time being. ;D
Regardless of what it is or isn't, what it does or doesn't do, people are claiming that they like the resulting sound. So *something* is clearly happening.
I was speaking with a co-worker today discussing, of all things, expensive speaker wire (and the audiophile who dropped 15K-bucks on his speaker wire). I made the comment that, psychologically, there may be a mechanism deep, down within the psyche that says something like, "yo... you just dropped 15K on freaking wire. This wire is GOING to sound better -- even if it doesn't really sound better." (probably related to the self-preservation mechanism -- lol)
Anecdotally speaking, I would venture a guess that this lil' gizmo does NOT fit into that category. Guitar players tend to be bombarded with the "good tone is expensive" message from early on. This device isn't priced in the "expensive" category for most players, so I'm postulating that the "yo..." mechanism doesn't kick in.
Then there is the "music store" syndrome... I know that for me, when I play a guitar in the store, it seems to play better and sound better than when I get it home. Has anyone else noticed this? I've had it happen several times. I think that in some way, somehow, going to the store intimidates me -- probably because there are SO many guitar players who have skills far greater than I hanging around at most music stores. The result is that I unconsciously dial-up my "A-Game" (such as it is) when I'm there. When I return home and relax, the A-game goes away. Ostensibly, this could explain some of the reports. The device gets installed, and the subsequent A-game shows up for a while. Who knows?
I'm eager to see the resulting data that you turn up. ;D
Quote from: Jobet on December 17, 2007, 10:38:50 AMGood idea.
Let's steer clear of the Physics, call the device the X-Widget, proceed with the empirical data (Fouriers etc) and proceed from there.
Suits me just fine. Let's do that.
I'll design the test methodology for the large unit that we use for vocals and run pink noise through that.
Good! I think you'll get a much better response to it.
I'd be very interested in the impulse response, the swept-sine waveforms at a number of signal levels, and the pink noise response.
If it does produce repeatable, measurable effects on time and frequency response and harmonic spectra, it doesn't really matter whether it's scalar waves or Banquo's ghost in there making it work that way, does it?
Yes. Glad we agreed on something. Truly, it really doesnt matter and the sooner we got that out of the way, the better.
Luckily, we still have an MXL Blue Bottle condenser microphone that is still stock. This is what I'll use as the test instrument.
Just came from the shop, we A/B éd Behringer CS100 compressors. One without a scalarizer, the other with a scalarizer. The owner of the one without the unit was floored. Anyway, nuff of that for now, I think it better belongs on the Philmusic boards. Since I'm a newbie here and yeah, I still have to build my credibility around here :D
I'll be able to do this test by Saturday or so, because semester is ending at the university and it's that time for last minute paper checking and grade calculating.
In the meantime, you can dive into this review. For the life of me, I don't know this guy but judging from the gear and his scalarizer combinations, he must be the owner of a number of those 30 or so units that made its way to the US. The third review from the guy named Ricardo.
http://reviews.harmony-central.com/reviews/Guitar/product/Gibson+Baldwin/LP+Signature/10/1
Took a short break. Couldn't seem to get this desire to get a test done out of my head.
So I was able to come up with a very simple test methodology that didnt require me to be in my studio.
I rigged up a baby jack cable, cut it in half and inserted a crystal scalarizer in series.
I then plugged one end of this setup to the lineout of my laptop, and the other to the line in, thus creating a feedback loop.
Firing up Cooledit Pro 2.0, I generated a pure sine wave at 1 kHz, and put that in one track of the multitrack view.
Then I set the recording in to the line-in jack and started recording to another track. So what happened is that the sine wave coming out of the line-out goes back into the line in and gets recorded on another track. I set both tracks to an amplitude of -1dB for maximum uniformity.
So here's the results. The pure sine wave when run on a frequency analysis showed this graph :
(http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/1839/puresineet3.gif)
The track from which the scalarizer was installed in showed this track :
(http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/5435/srsxtaldh8.gif)
I don't want to get over-excited but it does seem to appear that harmonics are being generated by the scalarizer setup.
Reminds me of the spectrum analysis for an exciter. I remember a directx plugin that did something similar... sounded good on guitar, but processing an entire mix thru it usually just sounded like distortion, unlike both a physical BBE or the plugin version.
Is this test repeatable? If someone else were to run the same test the same way on the same software... ;)
Edit: I see the level is higher also... Is it also amplifying? I has so far imagined it would be basically passive, with a little signal loss, but there is juice running thru there so...
Quote from: Meanderthal on December 18, 2007, 03:07:06 PM
Reminds me of the spectrum analysis for an exciter. I remember a directx plugin that did something similar... sounded good on guitar, but processing an entire mix thru it usually just sounded like distortion, unlike both a physical BBE or the plugin version.
Is this test repeatable? If someone else were to run the same test the same way on the same software... ;)
Edit: I see the level is higher also... Is it also amplifying? I has so far imagined it would be basically passive, with a little signal loss, but there is juice running thru there so...
Yeah. I guess it can be replicated. The method is all in there. I got two sign-ups for scalarizers...they can easily replicate this. The shapes might be different though because I'm planning on sending mostly metal scalarizers.
Whew...I hope you're not implying that I pulled out a BBE VST plug in. I don't have it and we didn't acquire it after our Chief Recording engineer said it was no good.
The higher levels...I don't know what to make of it yet. Could be noise ingress. Or if we wanted to play with Tesla-esque parlance, it could also be a manifestation of "negative resistance" :D . But RG's right, lets do Occams Razor and the levels are coming from a higher noise floor. There is no amplifying, if you notice the 1kHz fundamental, they are at exactly the same levels for both charts. It's the noise floor that came up because the audio had to get out of the computer, pass through the baby jack cable and through the scalarizer and back into the computer.
I doubt if the spikes are noise though. They're perfect, falling on every multiple of 1. One would have to be very lucky to get that kind of result, considering that noise is energy of a random nature.
No, a BBE analysis wouldn't look like that at all on a sine wave, since it doesn't generate harmonics. But, an exciter would look like that, and if this works the way you say it does, it would fall into the category of exciter... maybe scalar exciter? Those harmonics appear to be multiples of the fundamental. When you had been saying infinite harmonics, I had been thinking white noise, so I was a bit confused until I saw that.
Anyway- I had suggested an independent test (peer review, standard operating procedure for new discoveries) because it establishes proof, there would no longer be a question of if it does anything, nor what it does. The only question that would remain is: How is it doing what it does? The answer would fall then into 2 categories- 1- it works the way you say it does, and 2- it works some other way. Either way, you're on to something big... If it were me I'd go that route.
Some 35 years ago, I was wiring up my crappy little turntable (crystal cartridge!) to my equally crappy guitar amp. My dad came into my bedroom, and because the wire from the tone arm was too far for me to reach while I was holding onto something (probably an unsoldered wire, knowing me), I asked my dad to hand it to me. In a kind of "manual spoonerism", he picked up the wire and inadvertently extended his empty hand to me instead of the one holding the shielded cable. There we found ourselves, holding hands, with the other hand holding a cable. Much to my surprise, the sound was louder and better than when I had directly plugged the cables together the previous day. We got my kid sister to come in the room and hold hands with each of us, and damned if the volume wasn't even louder.
So, you know, as much as I am inclined to dismiss stuff as poppy%^&*, there is a little part of me that has witnessed some strange strange s**t, and remains open to the counter-intuitive, including sources of level-boost where you weren't expecting them. :icon_wink:
Couldn't wait to get home from school/work. Ran the same tests again as I did. Yep, it really does.
So I proceeded to do it on the metalcore. 1k pure sinewave looped back through a baby plug cable with a metalcore spliced in between Same effects but look at this chart :
(http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9928/mtlsrs1kob6.gif)
Interesting. Same harmonic spikes, however if you notice, the even order harmonics (2nd, 4th, 6yh and 8th) are larger than the odd-order (3rd,5th, 7th). Wow. This little bugger is discriminating against buzzsaw type odd-order harmonics ! Now my eyes are confirming what my ears have been telling me this past year. Thanks guys, if not for you, I wouldn't have thought of this simple test rig.
Unfortunately, you don't need scalar waves to do that. Plain old diodes generate harmonics just fine. So do tuned circuits create response spikes from noise by resonance.
If you're thinking that there are no diodes in there, don't forget that you can get rectification effects from metals touching dissimilar metals and other materials. That's how cat's whisker receiver sets work.
Can you get harmonics visible to the 10th order with cat whiskers ?
Besides, the wires used are magnet wire althroughout. There is no dissimilarity, and more importantly, there is no "point contact".
I'm not saying that you can't do it any other way, it's just the way I did it (or I think I did it, according y'all).
If we're going around this bush in this way, we might as well stop coz we are going to get nowhere fast this way. No amount of evidence will ever be enough at the rate this is going.
I thought we agreed to sidestep the physics ? Let's call it the Cat Whisker Widget then ? How come all pedals have dissimilar metals and them and yet will not produce this effect, clipping diodes, power , soldering lead and copper pads and all that. Want me to eliminate that by making a Cat whisker out of a razor blade and a strand of wire and pass the signal through that ?
I cannot "force" you to take it into your paradigm if it will not fit in any way. Either your mind is already set and hence cannot be helped, or you really want it to not be as I think it is. Because we can do this allll day and find every frikkin explanation from cosmic rays to sunspots affecting the harmonics to global warming to ambient electrical noise being the cause. Everything EXCEPT the primary principle on which the device is designed on.
Okay okay. Let's give it a rest.
No researcher worth his salt should be drawing conclusions this early. Myself included.
I'll do this again on a pro-grade setup which will have far less electronic noise than the run-of-the-mill laptop soundcard.
Unless I'm missing something, it sounds like you're not controlling for the process of re-recording the sine wave. If you're comparing the frequency spectrum of the pure sine wave to that of the sine wave re-recorded with your widget in the signal path, it seems like the wrong comparison to make. You should be comparing the sine wave re-recorded through a regular cable to the sine wave re-recorded through your widget. That would control for any effects that might creep in during the D/A A/D conversions that are happening when you patch line out to line in.
My apologies if I misunderstood and this is what you're already doing, but all of this testing will be much more productive if everyone can agree that the methodology is sound.
Quote from: Jobet on December 19, 2007, 10:10:00 AM
Can you get harmonics visible to the 10th order with cat whiskers ?
Yes.
Quote from: Jobet on December 19, 2007, 10:10:00 AM
Besides, the wires used are magnet wire althroughout. There is no dissimilarity, and more importantly, there is no "point contact".
No oxidized wires? No solder joints? No resonances? No noise?
Quote from: Jobet on December 19, 2007, 10:10:00 AM
I'm not saying that you can't do it any other way, it's just the way I did it (or I think I did it, according y'all).
And like I said, there is no doubt that it does SOMETHING or even that it sounds good, maybe even better than anything has ever sounded before, maybe even like angels singing. But that it does SOMETHING is no evidence of HOW it does it until you dig into it.
Quote from: Jobet on December 19, 2007, 10:10:00 AM
If we're going around this bush in this way, we might as well stop coz we are going to get nowhere fast this way. No amount of evidence will ever be enough at the rate this is going.
That's a good statement, and in the interest of keeping an open mind, you might think of it as applying both ways.
You have concocted a thing that does something. You built it according to some "guidance" you got by reading speculative stuff off the internet. You also randomly substituted things in until you got some sound you like. Then
because you got something you liked, you accepted wholly that the stuff you read that led you down the path must be true; and that
four hundred years of really smart people doing trial and error and figuring out a whole set of interlocking natural laws must be wrong. Not only that, you refuse to listen to any explanation of how that collection of centuries of work can equally well explain the effect.
The next thing you would say back is that every so often, some really smart guy comes along and throws conventional physics out on its ear; you would cite Newton, Einstein, and the distributed discovery of quantum physics. And you'd be right. However, all of those "revolutions" produced new extensions to the body of work that were (a) testable, and (b) produced repeatable results when tested, and (c) produced predictions for effects that could be tested and show the difference between the previous thoughts and the new work. The difference here is that I have looked hard, and I can find no evidence,
even in the proponents of scalar wave theory, that shows (a) testable (b) repeatable (c) predictive evidence that they even exist. I grant you that it is possible that there is a new subtlety to the laws of physics that has yet to be discovered. There is a huge body of hot-shot young physicists that would love to get their name on that next discovery. But they are going to test the dickens out of it first to keep from looking like a fool in front of their peers.
A good maxim to remember is that the race is not always to the swift nor the contest to the strong, but that's the way to bet.
QuoteI thought we agreed to sidestep the physics ?
Actually, you agreed to sidestep the physics in your explanations. And that would be fine, I would have no objections to that at all. You came back with some data that shows your device does something, which is great. But there's not a shred of evidence about HOW it does it. I merely pointed out how the existing body of knowledge might explain that.
Quote from: Jobet on December 19, 2007, 10:10:00 AMI cannot "force" you to take it into your paradigm if it will not fit in any way. Either your mind is already set and hence cannot be helped, or you really want it to not be as I think it is.
Think about what you just said.
I think all R.G is trying to say is that we know it sounds good. We just don't know why.
We knew things fell to the ground. Newton showed us why and how we can use his laws in a repeatable and provable manner.
We (maybe) know what your device can do. But until anyone can prove scalar waves, it remains a theory.
And heres your problem. THERE IS NO IOTA OF PROOF THAT SCALAR WAVES ARE NON-EXISTENT EITHER. And here we go with the conondrums that the lack of proof of existence of one thing is not evidence of its existence and etc etc etc we will never finish. Why,a concept so IDIOTICALLY simple as coinciding magnetic fields not being destroyed albeit just stopping, e.g. becoming standing waves or longitudinal waves is so far away from your paradigm, just because WIKIPEDIA SAID SO. What is so difficult to understand about that ? Standing Waves, as in you know, the energy that gets trapped in coaxial cables and waveguides...ARE PRETTY MUCH ACCEPTED IN COMMUNICATIONS THEORY. Here...wiki this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave) .
You want some physics name-dropping ? Scalar coils were patented by Nikola Tesla himself. Yes his name has been bashed, maligned and used for less than noble causes, and yes he was one of the greatest physics thinkers of his day. Wikipedia unknown author, or Tesla that certified genius who invented , among other things, that kind of electricity powering your home now. Guess who Ill be putting my chips on.
Repeatable ? Testable ? Thats what Im doing right now. Im putting charts to what otherwise is already an auditorily approved product, both by me and a LOT of soft-launch customers.
And I cant see why you cant let it rest. We decided to put the HOW aside and concentrate on the WHAT.
I did not concoct any of it. I did not theorize any of it. I am an engineer, more concerned with application rather than theory. And so far everything Ive done confirms the principles they rest on. Oh my goodness, my coils effects were actually the result of cold solders, noise, repeated SEVEN HUNDRED TIMES in SEVEN HUNDRED UNITS with FIVE HUNDRED UNITS SOLD my goodness. You must remember, or know if you dont know yet, that this device ALREADY HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD IN THE PHILIPPINES, with a few units shipped worldwide already.
Gawd ! Why didn't I think about that ! Oxidized wire, solder and noise all coming together to make guitars and audio devices sound better. GOODNESS ! Why didn't I think of that ! Maybe it deserves a patent ! That's Occams Razor for you folks. It's easier to think that solder, oxidized wire, resonance and noise CONSISTENTLY makes audio devices sound better than oh whats that...standing waves.
I dont need this shyt, and neither do I need your approval on the matter. Lets drop this now. Our twines will NEVER meet.
this is starting to make me laugh...
there's no need to get upset.
if that's how you react to the minimal questions and probing that have been done here, then i can't imagine what will happen when you try to take it to the next level. i.e. every physicist in the world scrutinizing and testing and trying to get answers out of you.
that's going to be the REALLY funny part.
True. The academic scientific community really tears people a new one if there is ANY doubt or slight imperfection in their method. I once watched in horror at a GSA (geologic society of america) conference as someone pointed out to a presenter that they had made a grave miscalculation and that their results were entirely flawed because of this one minor misstep. The whole years research; *poof*- evaporated. And then there was they guy who misspelled "Arctic" as "Artic" in his title slide. He never had a chance.
The simple solution to a lot of these kinds of issues would be a little honesty in the the marketing-speak.
"I'm not really sure how this works but I really like how it sounds. A lot of other people do too. You might like it as well", for example.
This goes a lot farther with me than the 300,000th builder claiming he found that one tubescreamer tweak the other 299,999 missed, or the guy with the OD he claims is new & different that turns out to just be another mundane TS clone, or the one who claims his circuit was developed as part of discovering a portal to the next dimension, or etc, etc... If only the world were so simple... (sigh...)
Quote from: gijimmbo on December 19, 2007, 02:01:03 PM
there's no need to get upset.
Exactly. No one's questioning that it works, as you've should it appears to have a measurable affect on audio signals and people seem to like the sound, that's all that really matters.
The only thing that's being questioned is how it works, so far, as R.G. has consistently pointed out you haven't shown that it's effects are caused by anything other than proven scientific means.
Quote from: Jobet on December 19, 2007, 01:29:31 PM
I dont need this shyt, and neither do I need your approval on the matter. Lets drop this now. Our twines will NEVER meet.
Ummmm........does this mean your not sending R.G. a sample? So, after all this, we don't get to find out how it really works. :P
I gather it is the frustrated way of saying that they agree to disagree.
I'll just note that it is VERY hard to bust your ass on something, and be met by either skepticism or indifference. I think Jobet has held up admirably well under the circumstances, but everyone has their breaking point, don't they.
Well, this has certainly got contentious, hasn't it.
Jobet -- Take a deeeeep breath and count to 10 very slowly. You're absolutely on the right track with the empirical testing that you're doing. Theoretically, if I had a scalarizer and a copy of Cool Edit with a reasonably proficient sound card, I could conduct the exact same test and get the same results. THAT is a repeatable, quantifiable test that can withstand peer review. In other words, you're going in the right direction!
With a repeatable test that has been peer reviewed, you could put those charts up on your web page and show what your device does. As DougH correctly pointed out, some clean empirical data trumps some of the crap that I see on "boutique" pedal sites and (especially) audiophile cable claims.
Consider someone who is looking to spend money... If they see:
"This pedal is made with Spring Green LED's -- cast from pure hobnobium plastic, oriented north, all catching the morning rays from the sun during the solstice. This aligns the poobahbium crystal matrix inside the aural intensifier that is integrated with these LEDs during manufacture. Low oxidation of the leads and solder joints is assured, as soldering takes place only during polar precession in a pure dogfartium environment...." Only $1,499.00! Order now! (the pedal is a tube screamer...)
vs.
"Our device when connected produces additional overtones when connected. The chart on the left shows a pure sine wave, while the chart on the right shows the same wave run through our device. Here are some sound clips with A/B comparisons." Only $25.00! Order now!
I'm going to take a long hard look at the second product, after I catch my breath from laughter at the first explanation.
Now...
Have you proven that this device is harnessing/using scalar waves? No.
Has it been proven that it doesn't somehow use scalar waves? No.
One of the above two statements might occur in step 385. You are on step 3.
What you HAVE proven is that the device does *something* and isn't just snake oil. That is very cool, indeed. Many, MANY products don't survive to step 3 (or 2 for that matter), as they are exposed as frauds by testing (or they never undergo any serious testing and rely on the kind of marketing I spoofed above).
I commend you for a willingness to look for controlled, repeatable testing methodologies. It lends a lot of credibility to your product.
Quote from: PerroGrande on December 19, 2007, 05:31:04 PM
Many, MANY products don't survive to step 3 (or 2 for that matter), as they are exposed as frauds by testing (or they never undergo any serious testing and rely on the kind of marketing I spoofed above).
Remember that goop that you put on ICs to make a pedal sound "warmer"?
We have one person's word that it does anything. Peer review would be the start of the discussion.
Okay guys.
Just to establish things, I'm writing this without having read any of the posts after mine. This is to ensure that I don't react like a powder keg again. :D This is going to be a white paper cum narrative so bear with me, and before I begin, I'll do the "whereas" statements first.
1. I've long realized that ego and emotion are natural enemies of science.
2. I guess I'm not at my best when I lack sleep.
3. Twain was wrong and Hegel was right. The twines do meet. This is a realization I got as I went deeper into thought about this matter.
Okay before I start, I'd like to say that you are a godsend Mr. Keen. Notwithstanding ruffled feathers on my part. And if I got touched off in my last post, I apologize. And along with that apology, I have to tell you straight off, your "cat whisker" diodes really did sound (and still does) like a smartass crack. It was construed as an insult to my intelligence, and please, don't assume any because you don't really know me. Notwithstanding, it was all good and very clarifying for me. It appears that this is not a case of pseudoscience, just misconstrued or miscommunicated science. Let me explain, and this will be long :
As I composed my last reply, I was going "what da f is the big deal. Scalar waves, stationary waves, standing waves, they're all the same, why all the hoopla?" So to make my point about the wikipedia article, I went to wikipedia and pulled out the article on Standing waves, which I reckon, would be a lot more digestible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_waves)
Yes, it was all there, what I was saying about coincident EM signals. This is the stuff of microwave engineering we were taught at school. But lo and behold an animated gif in the article made my mind make movies of moving, pulsing EM waves interfering with each other, adding up in some places and cancelling in some places, making smaller waves that oscillate faster. Yes, I can infer, those are the harmonics. Prior to this, I only knew the WHAT (scalar waves/ standing waves contain infinite harmonics) but I didn't know WHY. My weakness in thought process is that while I think in pictures, I noticed that they are static pictures and I failed to visualize two moving waves interfering with each other, superposing and hence creating the higher order frequencies
Against my better judgement, I spent the day experimenting away. I should be checking papers and computing grades, but what the hey. The very first thing I did was to rig a silicon diode across the loopback cable setup that I made for the scalarizer. Yup, there were harmonics. Lots of harmonics, with the near order ones exhibiting very high levels. I guess this is why people don't stick diodes in their guitars :D. Okay, set that aside and after some errands, mozied down to my workshop.
I pulled out an active duocore crystal scalarizer, which is composed of two scalar coils which sandwich one straight coil. The second coil is supposed to be powered by the lithium battery. Instead of that, I shorted the leads thus putting tshe 2nd scalar coil in parallel with the original configuration. Before I began I said "hah, this should confirm that the scalar coils are what make the harmonics".
I first listened to the passive crystal scalarizer to create a mental baseline, then replaced it with this new "passive, triple-coil" scalarizer. Yup, without a doubt it was brighter, richer and just to eliminate a little personal bias I had two friends listen to it as well. Confirmed. It was better than the ordinary passive scalarizer, to the point that it almost sounded "processed". This development actually challenges the active duocore line and might make it un-necessary. After all, guitarists are averse to putting batteries in their guitar.
But I didn't stop there. I was intrigued by the "magnetic bias" theory of RG. It sounded...well...sound. So I rigged a simple coil wound around a screw, and stuck the most powerful, small neodymium magnet I could find in the shop. Yup. It sounded good to. There was a subtle increase in brightness as I stuck the magnet in, confirming the addition of harmonics. Nice, and very natural sound too.
Next, I then rigged a single scalar coil around a screw again, installed that in my squier strat, and started playing. Boy, it was too harmonic-rich that it actually hurt my ears. And the funny thing...sticking the magnet and removing it did not seem to produce any noticeable difference.
Inferences/Conclusions :
1. The core material used is reacting with the M-field in the way that its permeability delays the arrival of the interfering signal from coinciding with other M-fields. Metalcore thus being the fastest, and it seems, hydrocore having the slowest core propagation time.
2. Jumping from #1, it would then appear that a larger unit, with larger cross-sectional diameter of the core material will result in an even longer delay in the arrival of the opposing and interfering M-field. This is a good subject of a new experiment.
3. The scalarizer, being a "blend" of a straight electromagnet, a scalar coil and a permanent magnet, actually operates in two actions : (a)the electromagnet and magnet working together to create a "magnetic bias" which will skew the signal wave up or down with respect to ground thus producing asymmetry, which is rich in even-order harmonics AND (b)the scalar coil by itself which produces harmonics across the board. Thus, it appears that the harmonic order creation can be varied by tweaking the ratio of the straight coil vs. the scalar coil.
4. Never go to message boards when lacking in sleep and pumped up with caffeine.
As next steps, I have arranged for the use of a more extensive laboratory with stuff that I'll need such as inductance meters, sweep and function generators, and spectrum analyzers.
So laying that down, I just have to say "thank you" R.G. for putting me in a challenging situation. You are truly a godsend. Our little discourse has actually raised questions which I needed to answer, made me think more deeply and in "motion pictures", and overall seems to have catalyzed the development process. Just when I thought I had the product line down pat, looks like I'll be re-designing a few things.
With that, Merry Christmas folks. I'll read your posts later. After I've finished checking papers and computing grades.
Jobet
PS Two takers for scalarizer samples already, three more slots open for "peer review". By the way, given the development upstairs, I might be fabricating new units based on the new learnings, so it might arrive next year. Email me at jobet@bamfxaudio.com :D
QuoteAnd along with that apology, I have to tell you straight off, your "cat whisker" diodes really did sound (and still does) like a smartass crack. It was construed as an insult to my intelligence, and please, don't assume any because you don't really know me.
If it sounded that way, I apologize as well. It was not meant as a shot at you, but rather a means of showing how wide the possibilities are. I meant, and still mean no offense to you.
I like all of you guys. I won't pretend to know anything when it comes to any of this. I will say that I tip my hat to the inventing spirit jobet. Engineering's feeling more and more like culinary school to me. Tesla and Edison experimented and experimented. I think I just regurgitate a proven solution. If I need a cake, these ingredients work. That type of thing. It seems like we're at the pinnacle of understanding but it's kind of stifling when you think you're at the top. What else is there to create?? Sometimes, I just want to throw out everything, go to home depot, buy some pipe, wire, cement, screws, go to kroger's, buy some jello, flour, a mixing bowl, and see what I can rig up. Let other people figure out how it fits into our universe. This is dumb. My posts will probably become more and more incoherent as my vacation wears on and I just sit here thinking noncoherently with no coherents coherently coherenting. I like cheese. ;)
Quote from: R.G. on December 20, 2007, 05:42:38 PM
QuoteAnd along with that apology, I have to tell you straight off, your "cat whisker" diodes really did sound (and still does) like a smartass crack. It was construed as an insult to my intelligence, and please, don't assume any because you don't really know me.
If it sounded that way, I apologize as well. It was not meant as a shot at you, but rather a means of showing how wide the possibilities are. I meant, and still mean no offense to you.
In two words, "most stimulating". Thank you so much.
1. ok, i have a couple of points to make, as i usually just hang back and read....
a. he has offered to send his product out for free and pay for the postage...
why doesn't someone take him up on it...like r.g. or mr. hammer... and try out the device for yourself. don't see that anyone has anything to lose by doing so.
b. if some of the forumites try it out and there is an audible difference, then who cares how it works....if it is bull, than no one has lost any money except for jobet who sent the product out to begin with.
i will say that i really dont care how it works....does it work? i think that there was an excellent point brought up that it may be better for jobet to try and not explain how it works, but that it simply does work....offer a money back guarantee....
i get the feeling that he is not trying to mess people around and that he really believes in his product. a lot can be said for that.... i would really like to hear other peoples findings from this forum.
good luck...
Quote from: trendyironicname on December 20, 2007, 09:17:37 PM
My posts will probably become more and more incoherent as my vacation wears on and I just sit here thinking noncoherently with no coherents coherently coherenting. I like cheese. ;)
The less sense matter and matter is more than sense
Quote from: casey on December 20, 2007, 11:38:37 PMa. he has offered to send his product out for free and pay for the postage...
why doesn't someone take him up on it...like r.g. or mr. hammer... and try out the device for yourself. don't see that anyone has anything to lose by doing so.
I won't take a free one because it's of no use to me to have one just to listen to, as I mentioned. If the device turns out to be a step forward, I will buy one. In that case I will have no hesitation at cutting it apart and finding out how it works. I would not feel so free if it was given to me to evaluate.
Quote from: casey on December 20, 2007, 11:38:37 PMb. if some of the forumites try it out and there is an audible difference, then who cares how it works....if it is bull, than no one has lost any money except for jobet who sent the product out to begin with.
If it works, there is a positive audible difference, GREAT! Good sound is scarce, and there ought to be more of it. Like I said to Jobet, I think he's doing himself a disservice by how he describes it. But the proof is in the listening.
On the other hand, I
do care how it works, just like I cared how the tube screamer worked, and the fuzz face, and the Vox wah, and ...
I'm kind of nuts about how everything works. There have to be a few of us around to keep the magic new goodies coming out, right? So if it's worthwhile, I'll find out how it works eventually.
Quote from: casey on December 20, 2007, 11:38:37 PMi will say that i really dont care how it works....does it work? i think that there was an excellent point brought up that it may be better for jobet to try and not explain how it works, but that it simply does work....offer a money back guarantee....
I suggested that he do that, I believe.
Quote from: casey on December 20, 2007, 11:38:37 PMi get the feeling that he is not trying to mess people around and that he really believes in his product. a lot can be said for that.... i would really like to hear other peoples findings from this forum.
I don't think he's trying to pull a fraud, and does believe in what he makes. And we WILL find out how it works, eventually.
Tsk. I guess poor inventors like myself are really in a no-win situation in places like this. if it doesnt work or works sub-par, it's snake-oil. If it does work, it gets reverse-engineered and eventually ripped off.
Anyway, since this seems to be the culture around here, and if I can't beat it I might as well join it. Maybe anyone here got the schematic of the Hermida Zen Drive ? Maybe I can manufacture a few hundred units and help him out with his backlog.
Tsk tsk.
Quote from: Jobet on December 23, 2007, 08:34:03 AM
Tsk. I guess poor inventors like myself are really in a no-win situation in places like this. if it doesnt work or works sub-par, it's snake-oil. If it does work, it gets reverse-engineered and eventually ripped off.
Anyway, since this seems to be the culture around here, and if I can't beat it I might as well join it. Maybe anyone here got the schematic of the Hermida Zen Drive ? Maybe I can manufacture a few hundred units and help him out with his backlog.
Tsk tsk.
Jobet, I think I speak too frankly and it comes out in a way that seems wrong to you. That was an observation. Whether anyone here reverse engineers your stuff or not, someone will - just like the Zen Drive has already been reverse engineered. No, not by me.
You're patenting your widget. Good. That's the ONLY way to ensure exclusivity legally. To get the patent, at least in the USA, you must describe how the device works in the patent itself. If you get the patent, you have the right to sue others that infringe to insure the exclusivity. But you must publicly document how it works to get the patent. That's the deal the government exacts to provide you with 20 years of exclusivity.
I have been on your side of this question, as you know. Some things I've invented have simply been given away by posting at GEO, including some that I'm sure are patentable. Things that are too valuable to give away, I just keep my mouth shut about. It is simply a fact that if you make a big public splash about your effect technology, you will attract the attention of people who want to see how it works. And I think that much of the content at GEO that you enjoyed was some of the "how it works" stuff about other people's effects, although perhaps much older ones.
You're in a unique position Jobet. You have a pedal that works by what to everyone else is mystical means, using new physical principles that no one else understands. You may be able to patent it and keep others away by force of law. But by far the best thing to do is what I always advise inventors to do - outrun the competition. You're already way ahead of everyone else, right? So use your advantage of being first, and more importantly being smarter to go make the next new innovation. You can leave your competitors in the dust.
Once again, I seem to have offended you. I apologize again, and I will do my best to refrain from commenting on this again. Best of luck with your endeavors, wherever they take you.
Thanks for clarifying, and thanks for the assurance.
Someone already filed away at a scalarizer unit. It's on one of the last posts of the scalarizer thread (original) at Philmusic. Anybody interested, you're all welcome to look. It's a set of coils wound around a material, either metal, or natural quartz or...others. And yeah, I gave the guy hell for it because it was a betrayal, I let him into my shop as a friend and he yapped it all out. That's spilled milk anyway.
Like I said, everythings there. Testimonials, raves, potshots and as a culmination, the "naked" shots of the contents of the scalarizer.
www.bamfxaudio.com/links.html
and more specifically,
http://talk.philmusic.com/board/index.php/topic,35791.1530.html
Thanks RG. Language, specially written, does have its vagaries.
In fairness to my lack of understanding though, it was quite leading and easy to infer, or misconstrue an intent on your part reverse-engineer the scalarizer, what with not accepting a demo unit because you won't be able to crack it open.
Heck, this thread itself is about reverse-engineering the scalarizer.
I dunno. Could it be hopeless to make an honest buck with an original idea, or is the threat of lawsuit really the way to go ?
After all, my original family are all in the US. They can sue on my behalf anyway.
Thanks for the GEOfx site by the way. I learned a lot from you.
I think part of what has been suggested is that with a patent, you own the technology, and that gives you advantages over the guy selling a tweaked tubescreamer- you would have the ability to license the technology, could bring you in a lot of dough if other folks build and sell this thing and it catches on, in the meantime you get the time to work on R&D rather than spending all your time marketing and manufacturing it... or you could do all of the above if ya wanna be real busy.
That's what I got out of it... Didn't sound like a "Give up" to me...
Filing the patent, peer review, testing, reverse engineering, all of this works towards your benefit... Just like nobody was able to 'steal' the light bulb from Edison, nobody will be able to steal this from you either...
LMAO I have never seen any one beat around the bush so hard to try to sell something in my life.He should run for office.
How does it ( If it does) change the signal of a guitar?( HUMM did some one ask this already?)just plain how does it do it. No need in goggled links to the theory of sound waves just plain and simple how does it work. Lets see what happens surely he is running out of goggled links by now..
Quote from: wlrs on December 27, 2007, 11:40:19 AM
LMAO I have never seen any one beat around the bush so hard to try to sell something in my life.He should run for office.
How does it ( If it does) change the signal of a guitar?( HUMM did some one ask this already?)just plain how does it do it. No need in goggled links to the theory of sound waves just plain and simple how does it work. Lets see what happens surely he is running out of goggled links by now..
(yawn). It would help you know if you actually back-read the thread.
ok who is tired of this link now?
ME................ ::)
What a coincidence. So am I.
Wait, so was the original question answered? How DO you figure out an epoxied circuit? :icon_lol:
Ehh. Just wait for the patent to come out. It will be public domain by then.
I have been following this thread and I am actually amazed how civil the basic discussion (outside comments aside) has been.
Without a doubt we'll hear more about the Scalarizer, whether it has an electrically equivalent circuit or not.
I like all of you guys. I won't pretend to know anything when it comes to any of this. I will say that I tip my hat to the inventing spirit of jobet. Engineering's feeling more and more like culinary school to me. Tesla and Edison experimented and experimented. I think I just regurgitate a proven solution.
+1!
One key to being a good scientist is not to become emotionally attached to whatever the outcome
of your experimenting might be. That can lead to observational bias.
If you want to see Scalar Waves, for example, you're more likely misinterpret data.
If the suggestion that you're trying to snake oil upsets you, it's time to consider whether or
not you' might be actually selling snake oil.
I've been working as and around scientists (the ones that publish in peer reviewed journals)
for the last 20 years. They are generally a very ambitious group. If an avenue of research
seems promising, they will go down it.
IMHO, if there was anything at all to scalar wave theory, legitimate scientists would be all
over it.
Just my opinion.
Hi Jack.
Electromagnetic Standing waves have long been accepted and is in fact a parasitic parameter in transmission media. It can't be measured directly, having no resultant, but it can be measured indirectly using a Standing Wave Ratio meter.
Okay, just to put this matter to rest, here's the bomb.
Till the patent is finished, y'all can think it's snake oil. I don't mind. :D
Warmest regards folks. Let's concentrate on doing pedals instead.
How does it compare to the Bybee Quantum Purifier? That's what I'm wondering...
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/1202/bybee.htm (http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/1202/bybee.htm)
It's another small device that makes everything it's installed in sound better, though it works on a completely different principle. Or so they say... I haven't heard one myself. :-[ Could these Bybee things really be a scalarizer with black paint all over it, claiming it's their own work? Or is the Bybee device snake-oil?
Whew. Thanks. For a while there I thought there was something like the scalarizer already.
No, they're not the same, the bybee operates on the 1/f noisefloor and makes it more musical. The scalarizers act on the f*n frequencies. Fundamentally different ends of the spectra.
But hey, like I said, till I file the PCT application, the scalarizer is snake oil. Let's keep it that way for now.
Is it possible to request for a lock on this thread BTW ? Thanks.
Oh ok. I'm not sure I understand the 1/f vs f*n thing, but I'll take your word for it.
Are you really the author of "MLF da Babe", and "MLF da Money", the NLP programs to attract women subliminally and succeed at business? That's what it says at http://www.powerconsultants.net/aboutus.htm (http://www.powerconsultants.net/aboutus.htm), where you're a Managing Partner with an MBA and BS in EE. Wow! I guess with all of that going on plus your scalarizer business there's little time left to research esoteric physics, let alone pick up the guitar. You're quite the Renaissance man!
Sorry, I don't know anything about locking threads.
Oh, btw... would it be ok for me to use that amazing psychic image as a forum avatar? May I have your permission? I'll link it here...
(http://www.powerconsultants.net/jobet.jpg)
Quote from: Jobet on December 28, 2007, 03:08:25 AM
...snip
Is it possible to request for a lock on this thread BTW ? Thanks.
Why would you want that? Think of the sweet vindication you can bring down when you prove
that your device operates on a principle that was previously thought to be snake oil?
Anyway, it's an interesting thread.
Quote from: Ardric on December 28, 2007, 04:00:01 AM
Oh ok. I'm not sure I understand the 1/f vs f*n thing, but I'll take your word for it.
Are you really the author of "MLF da Babe", and "MLF da Money", the NLP programs to attract women subliminally and succeed at business? That's what it says at http://www.powerconsultants.net/aboutus.htm (http://www.powerconsultants.net/aboutus.htm), where you're a Managing Partner with an MBA and BS in EE. Wow! I guess with all of that going on plus your scalarizer business there's little time left to research esoteric physics, let alone pick up the guitar. You're quite the Renaissance man!
Sorry, I don't know anything about locking threads.
Oh, btw... would it be ok for me to use that amazing psychic image as a forum avatar? May I have your permission? I'll link it here...
(http://www.powerconsultants.net/jobet.jpg)
:D .
And I'll be starting with my PhD in Technology Management next school year. Thats when I cannot pick up my guitar anymore. Obviously these worlds do not need to collide. And my NLP'ing days...they seem too long ago.
Quote from: Jobet on December 28, 2007, 04:24:44 AM
Quote from: Ardric on December 28, 2007, 04:00:01 AM
Oh ok. I'm not sure I understand the 1/f vs f*n thing, but I'll take your word for it.
Are you really the author of "MLF da Babe", and "MLF da Money", the NLP programs to attract women subliminally and succeed at business? That's what it says at http://www.powerconsultants.net/aboutus.htm (http://www.powerconsultants.net/aboutus.htm), where you're a Managing Partner with an MBA and BS in EE. Wow! I guess with all of that going on plus your scalarizer business there's little time left to research esoteric physics, let alone pick up the guitar. You're quite the Renaissance man!
Sorry, I don't know anything about locking threads.
Oh, btw... would it be ok for me to use that amazing psychic image as a forum avatar? May I have your permission? I'll link it here...
(http://www.powerconsultants.net/jobet.jpg)
:D .
And I'll be starting with my PhD in Technology Management next school year. Thats when I cannot pick up my guitar anymore. Obviously these worlds do not need to collide. And my NLP'ing days...they seem too long ago.
So what was the science behind MLF da babes?
Quote from: Jobet on December 28, 2007, 03:08:25 AMIs it possible to request for a lock on this thread BTW ? Thanks.
I'm not suggesting/requesting that you do, but to answer your question: if you ever want a thread locked, click on the 'report to moderator' link (there's one in each 'panel') and they'll deal with it (as they see fit) when they next check in.
Quote from: Jack Collins on December 28, 2007, 04:11:01 AM
Quote from: Jobet on December 28, 2007, 03:08:25 AM
...snip
Is it possible to request for a lock on this thread BTW ? Thanks.
Why would you want that? Think of the sweet vindication you can bring down when you prove
that your device operates on a principle that was previously thought to be snake oil?
Anyway, it's an interesting thread.
My IP lawyer called. Asked me wtf am I doing. Apparently he's seen the exchange on these boards. Oh well. No big. I'll just stop replying to it maybe and it will drop down. I could use the time, so to speak.
Quote from: Jack Collins on December 28, 2007, 04:31:04 AM
Quote from: Jobet on December 28, 2007, 04:24:44 AM
Quote from: Ardric on December 28, 2007, 04:00:01 AM
Oh ok. I'm not sure I understand the 1/f vs f*n thing, but I'll take your word for it.
Are you really the author of "MLF da Babe", and "MLF da Money", the NLP programs to attract women subliminally and succeed at business? That's what it says at http://www.powerconsultants.net/aboutus.htm (http://www.powerconsultants.net/aboutus.htm), where you're a Managing Partner with an MBA and BS in EE. Wow! I guess with all of that going on plus your scalarizer business there's little time left to research esoteric physics, let alone pick up the guitar. You're quite the Renaissance man!
Sorry, I don't know anything about locking threads.
Oh, btw... would it be ok for me to use that amazing psychic image as a forum avatar? May I have your permission? I'll link it here...
(http://www.powerconsultants.net/jobet.jpg)
:D .
And I'll be starting with my PhD in Technology Management next school year. Thats when I cannot pick up my guitar anymore. Obviously these worlds do not need to collide. And my NLP'ing days...they seem too long ago.
So what was the science behind MLF da babes?
Totally different from the science we're dealing with here, I assure you :D
(oops sorry)
(oops sorry again.}
Why are you re posting everything as a quote?
Jobet you dont seem the most level headed guys
Sorry bout that. Was attempting to remove some vital details. I must have been hitting the quote button rather than the modify button.
Quote
My IP lawyer called. Asked me wtf am I doing. Apparently he's seen the exchange on these boards. Oh well. No big. I'll just stop replying to it maybe and it will drop down. I could use the time, so to speak.
Yah right.
Quote from: Jobet on December 28, 2007, 05:19:51 AM
Quote from: Jack Collins on December 28, 2007, 04:31:04 AM
Quote from: Jobet on December 28, 2007, 04:24:44 AM
Quote from: Ardric on December 28, 2007, 04:00:01 AM
Oh ok. I'm not sure I understand the 1/f vs f*n thing, but I'll take your word for it.
Are you really the author of "MLF da Babe", and "MLF da Money", the NLP programs to attract women subliminally and succeed at business? That's what it says at http://www.powerconsultants.net/aboutus.htm (http://www.powerconsultants.net/aboutus.htm), where you're a Managing Partner with an MBA and BS in EE. Wow! I guess with all of that going on plus your scalarizer business there's little time left to research esoteric physics, let alone pick up the guitar. You're quite the Renaissance man!
Sorry, I don't know anything about locking threads.
Oh, btw... would it be ok for me to use that amazing psychic image as a forum avatar? May I have your permission? I'll link it here...
(http://www.powerconsultants.net/jobet.jpg)
:D .
And I'll be starting with my PhD in Technology Management next school year. Thats when I cannot pick up my guitar anymore. Obviously these worlds do not need to collide. And my NLP'ing days...they seem too long ago.
So what was the science behind MLF da babes?
Totally different from the science we're dealing with here, I assure you :D
So there is actually some legitimate scienctific principles behind your product "MLFdaBabe"? What does MLF stand for anyway?
So geeky.
Magnetic Lines of Force.
Quote from: Jobet on December 23, 2007, 10:32:30 AM
Thanks for clarifying, and thanks for the assurance.
Someone already filed away at a scalarizer unit. It's on one of the last posts of the scalarizer thread (original) at Philmusic. Anybody interested, you're all welcome to look. It's a set of coils wound around a material, either metal, or natural quartz or...others. And yeah, I gave the guy hell for it because it was a betrayal, I let him into my shop as a friend and he yapped it all out. That's spilled milk anyway.
Like I said, everythings there. Testimonials, raves, potshots and as a culmination, the "naked" shots of the contents of the scalarizer.
www.bamfxaudio.com/links.html
and more specifically,
http://talk.philmusic.com/board/index.php/topic,35791.1530.html
Thanks RG. Language, specially written, does have its vagaries.
Sorry I messed this post I guess my eye balls where burnt out by then.It would of saved allot of hoopla if you had said this in the beginning tho..
Oh well best of luck for ya man.
WLRS