Popular Post 89reksal Posted July 11, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 11, 2017 What's happened on this thread is the same thing that happens over and over and over and over in so many threads on this site. Someone that has actual first hand experience with whatever is being discussed invariably ends up confronted by virtually the same group of forum members that show up in these threads to tell him/her why what they experienced is impossible. The main similarities among this group seem to be a higher education level (at least based on reading some of their posts), an overwhelming self-assured belief that everything in the universe can be explained by their knowledge (I'm basing this on my reading of their posts only), which for most was likely gained in some form of educational institution many years ago, anyone that disagrees with them is most likely imagining things at best, or delusional at worst and finally, and the one defining similarity, the complete lack of any actual first hand experience with what is being discussed in the thread. It's this last similarity which makes their input on these threads so pathetic. For all their education, knowledge, whatever it's called, it should be obvious ( at least to me) that without first hand experience, their comments have far less relevance than any of those from those with actual first hand experience, those same people that they're attempting to refute. Just because someone doesn't understand exactly how or why something functions, doesn't mean it's impossible. Don't these people think that if everyone through the ages thought like them, most of their cherished knowledge, scientific theories, physics, etc. would have never been discovered? For all their apparent knowledge, there seems to also be an astounding closed mindedness. The true pioneers are always the ones that say "what if...", not the ones who continuously say "that's impossible". Perhaps if they had actually tried whatever product or suggestion for themselves, then their explanations or theories would be more welcomed. I do apologize to the OP for the off topic rant. MikeyFresh, Cornan, Wladimir and 1 other 4 Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 26 minutes ago, wgscott said: Do you feel the same about those who question the efficacy of faith-healing? I don't think that's the most applicable analogy, but overall I'd say yes. I'm always open to the possibility/probability that there's a lot more going on the universe than I or anyone else will ever understand. Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 19 minutes ago, marce said: And as we are talking about GROUND heres how to measure the noise: http://www.analog.com/media/en/analog-dialogue/raqs/groundNoiseMeasurement.pdf Maybe this paragraph from the pdf marce linked contains a clue? "Many engineers treat ground planes as if they were made of a superconductor rather than copper and assume that, no matter the current flowing in them, every part of a ground plane is at the same potential. While such an assumption may be reasonable on PC cards bearing only logic circuitry (or it may not, if the logic is very fast), it can lead to unacceptably low performance in PC cards carrying high precision or high frequency analog circuitry." It seems most assume all ground within a device is the same potential. I know I did. Maybe as described above these differences of potential within a given ground system or ground plane are what these boxes are trying to manipulate? Maybe the noise that's being picked up is somehow carrying current from the box back to the connection point, instead of the assumption that current is flowing from connection point to the box. Maybe what's inside the box facilitates this flow of current and is providing the source of it. This flow of current back to the connection point should change the potential of that point which may bring it closer to a more ideal level with respect to the rest of the ground plane/system. It seems having the entire ground plane at the same potential is a good thing. if these boxes are helping do this, then that could result in the sonic improvements some hear. Maybe that's why as Cornan stated, the boxes require some experimentation to find the best locations to use them. Maybe the "best" locations are those that have the greatest potential difference from the rest of the ground plane. A lot of maybes for sure but who knows. Cornan 1 Link to comment
Popular Post 89reksal Posted July 11, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, semente said: I don't agree about the need for "first hand experience". You don't need to drive a car with a missing wheel to know that it won't go far... This seems to be a pretty standard type of response to questioning the need for first hand experience. Some things are so well understood that first hand experience isn't required. I don't need to actually put a bullet in my head to know I mostly likely will die. it's things that are less well understood where I think it's necessary to at least be starting from a base of having tried something for your self. I'm no scientist but I would guess that a main part of any experiment is actually physically performing the experiment at some point. Not just writing theories about why it can't be. Teresa and MikeyFresh 2 Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, plissken said: I wouldn't confuse an antenna with a PCB sporting mixed discrete components with high speed, billion transistor IC's, and multiple power rails. I'm sure there's a point to this comment but I missed it. Care to elaborate? Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, plissken said: Why bring up grounds, where they are referenced from, when the box is simply an inert object that one end of an antenna connects to while the other end connects into something conductive like the rest of your audio system. Wow! Just wow on so many levels. Link to comment
Popular Post 89reksal Posted July 11, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 11, 2017 11 minutes ago, plissken said: It would have domain if the box was some form of grounding mechanism. It's not. On so many levels. Ah, thanks. So because you don't understand it it can't work? So it's safer to assume that Entreq has been around 16 or 17 years, based out of a 12,000 sq/m building selling products designed solely to deceive an unsuspecting customer base? Sorry to say that doesn't work for me. I personally don't have that little respect for the human race. I much prefer thinking even though I don't have a clue how this works, there must be something to it. Maybe not for me, since I haven't actually tried it, but obviously for some. Teresa and MikeyFresh 2 Link to comment
Popular Post 89reksal Posted July 11, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 11, 2017 46 minutes ago, plissken said: You are now replying to me and you have reached beyond your technical limits. I've always thought I was pretty much a professional a..hole. I'm humbled now. I'm in the presence of true greatness. Bill Brown, AnotherSpin, MikeyFresh and 1 other 4 Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, Jud said: From what you have written, it seems to me you have the idea that there would be current flowing to the Entreq box. But current can’t just flow *to* a box in the air, it must flow *through* it. The ground in that case would be the *return path* for the current in a *circuit*. A single wire to a box connected to nothing else provides no return path, thus no circuit, thus no current flowing to/through the box. I think you may have misread my post (I'm assuming you're referring to the post I gave a possible idea on how the box may work?).I actually question whether instead of current flowing to the Entreq as most of us seem to have been assuming, it's actually current flowing from the Entreq to the ground of the attached device, with the contents of the box somehow providing the current source in conjunction with the noise signal (taking into consideration that those noise measurements are valid). This current flowing to Entreq would have to be the situation if people believe noise is the cause (noise somehow being picked up by the Entreq acting as an antenna and being fed back to the device through the ground), so my idea doesn't seem so far fetched to me. 1 hour ago, lasker98 said: 1 hour ago, plissken said: You are now replying to me and you have reached beyond your technical limits. As for rudeness, I guess we have a different definition of rudeness. Link to comment
Popular Post 89reksal Posted July 11, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 11, 2017 31 minutes ago, Jud said: A really central part of scientific experimentation, as it is of any reasonably complex activity, is planning. As you can imagine, you don’t want to waste time and money going off in lots of fruitless directions. So it is essential to eliminate the things you know are impossible before actually performing the experiment(s). Are scientists always 100% right about what is possible and what isn’t? No, but they have a pretty good record overall. And pretty much all the exploratory work on the electrical stuff we’re talking about here was done in the 1800s or even earlier, so we’re not talking about an area of unknowns or controversy. Also from what I remember from my school years, probably the first step in any experiment is developing a hypothesis. Then the experiment(s) are done to prove or dis-prove the hypothesis. In our Entreq example, would you agree that the most basic starting point would be a) they do make an audible difference or b) no, they don't make an audible difference? From there, the most logical next step would be to perform an experiment to prove or dis-prove the hypothesis. My point is that the experiment required to do this is actually testing the product first hand as a start. I don't think many scientific advances have come about by people just writing about how something can't be. I believe this site has devolved into more about the writing about how something can't work rather than the true scientific approach, which should involve an open mind. For people who can seem obsessed with measurements, blind, double-blind and God knows what else, it seems funny to me how little actual first hand experience is considered. Apparently, it's not considered at all by a large part of our community. Lastly, do you honestly believe that everything to be known about electrical theory is already discovered based on work from the 1800's or earlier? You don't think there's a possibility that there may things remaining to be discovered or revised? Wladimir and Teresa 2 Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 13 hours ago, Jud said: It doesn’t really matter if you want the box to be a source or destination for current. It can’t be either. Jud, I have to disagree with that comment. Just so we have a base reference between us, I went to school for Electronics Technician and worked in service for almost 20 years so I do have at least a basic understanding of electronic/electrical theory. I think the box could definitely be either a source or destination for current. Everyone seems to be going off the assumption that there has to be a closed loop for current to flow. I believe that's only true for current to CONTINUOUSLY flow. All that's required for current to flow is a potential differednce (voltage difference) between 2 points and a path for the current to flow between those 2 points. So in the case of the boxes I'm saying that current could flow in either direction, depending on the relative potential difference between the 2 points, and will flow until that difference no longer remains. That's my logic for disagreeing with your comment. As I posted my thoughts in this earlier post: "Maybe this paragraph from the pdf marce linked contains a clue? "Many engineers treat ground planes as if they were made of a superconductor rather than copper and assume that, no matter the current flowing in them, every part of a ground plane is at the same potential. While such an assumption may be reasonable on PC cards bearing only logic circuitry (or it may not, if the logic is very fast), it can lead to unacceptably low performance in PC cards carrying high precision or high frequency analog circuitry." It seems most assume all ground within a device is the same potential. I know I did. Maybe as described above these differences of potential within a given ground system or ground plane are what these boxes are trying to manipulate? Maybe the noise that's being picked up is somehow carrying current from the box back to the connection point, instead of the assumption that current is flowing from connection point to the box. Maybe what's inside the box facilitates this flow of current and is providing the source of it. This flow of current back to the connection point should change the potential of that point which may bring it closer to a more ideal level with respect to the rest of the ground plane/system. It seems having the entire ground plane at the same potential is a good thing. if these boxes are helping do this, then that could result in the sonic improvements some hear. Maybe that's why as Cornan stated, the boxes require some experimentation to find the best locations to use them. Maybe the "best" locations are those that have the greatest potential difference from the rest of the ground plane. A lot of maybes for sure but who know" That could be what the box is trying to do. Somehow it's functioning to even out the voltage across the component(s) ground. Again, maybe the noise picked up is part of the mechanism that somehow allows the contents of the box to generate a charge, creating the possibility for a potential difference between the box and the point on the component it's connected to. So depending on the relative potentials of that point and the box, current will flow either from the component or to the component, at least until there no longer remains a difference between the 2 points. What that should achieve is a change in the ground voltage at that point, which would ideally be closer to the overall ground plane voltage of the component, which based on the pdf marce linked and I quoted above, should be beneficial. This is all theory but it's really the only theory (other than the "antenna" theory, which I believe is too simplistic for words) I've seen proposed in this thread so far. The reason I think it's far more than just an antenna is because if it was just working as an antenna, why not just use some kind of optimized antenna to do the job. Why go to all the trouble and expense to have the box filled with some mystery contents. Just to fool everyone? I know many here will say yes, that's all, but I believe that's beyond far-fetched. fas42 1 Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Jud said: You can build up as much *potential* (that's why it's called "potential") as you like, but nothing's flowing until you complete the circuit. In the case of the Entreq, there's no buildup because there's a conductor, so not even a static potential will occur. The cable between the box and the component completes the circuit. My hypothesis is that the contents of the box, in conjunction with the noise, is what's creating the "buildup". I do appreciate your feedback and tact, but it seems it may be you that doesn't want to hear or consider anything beyond your preconceived ideas about this? I say that with no offense intended but I do get that sense from reading your responses to my posts. Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Jud said: Where is the return for the circuit? Again, no offense meant, but did you read my post above where I attempted to explain my thoughts? There doesn't need to be a return if the box is functioning as I speculated. Current will flow until there's no longer a potential difference between the box and the point it's connected to. That's all that's required. Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, mansr said: There are two possibilities: You are wrong. Maxwell, Ohm, Kirchhoff, Tesla, etc were all wrong. I know which I think is more likely. Please explain how anything I posted violates any of those in #2. I have to question your understanding if you think my basic logic is wrong. Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, marce said: Wheres the return, to form a loop, you need a loop. ALL signals are based on potential differences, you need a loop to form a circuit or NO current flows. marce, I really don't know what more I can add or how many more ways I can try and explain it but please try and follow my thinking: " Jud, I have to disagree with that comment. Just so we have a base reference between us, I went to school for Electronics Technician and worked in service for almost 20 years so I do have at least a basic understanding of electronic/electrical theory. I think the box could definitely be either a source or destination for current. Everyone seems to be going off the assumption that there has to be a closed loop for current to flow. I believe that's only true for current to CONTINUOUSLY flow. All that's required for current to flow is a potential differednce (voltage difference) between 2 points and a path for the current to flow between those 2 points. So in the case of the boxes I'm saying that current could flow in either direction, depending on the relative potential difference between the 2 points, and will flow until that difference no longer remains. That's my logic for disagreeing with your comment. As I posted my thoughts in this earlier post: "Maybe this paragraph from the pdf marce linked contains a clue? "Many engineers treat ground planes as if they were made of a superconductor rather than copper and assume that, no matter the current flowing in them, every part of a ground plane is at the same potential. While such an assumption may be reasonable on PC cards bearing only logic circuitry (or it may not, if the logic is very fast), it can lead to unacceptably low performance in PC cards carrying high precision or high frequency analog circuitry." It seems most assume all ground within a device is the same potential. I know I did. Maybe as described above these differences of potential within a given ground system or ground plane are what these boxes are trying to manipulate? Maybe the noise that's being picked up is somehow carrying current from the box back to the connection point, instead of the assumption that current is flowing from connection point to the box. Maybe what's inside the box facilitates this flow of current and is providing the source of it. This flow of current back to the connection point should change the potential of that point which may bring it closer to a more ideal level with respect to the rest of the ground plane/system. It seems having the entire ground plane at the same potential is a good thing. if these boxes are helping do this, then that could result in the sonic improvements some hear. Maybe that's why as Cornan stated, the boxes require some experimentation to find the best locations to use them. Maybe the "best" locations are those that have the greatest potential difference from the rest of the ground plane. A lot of maybes for sure but who know" That could be what the box is trying to do. Somehow it's functioning to even out the voltage across the component(s) ground. Again, maybe the noise picked up is part of the mechanism that somehow allows the contents of the box to generate a charge, creating the possibility for a potential difference between the box and the point on the component it's connected to. So depending on the relative potentials of that point and the box, current will flow either from the component or to the component, at least until there no longer remains a difference between the 2 points. What that should achieve is a change in the ground voltage at that point, which would ideally be closer to the overall ground plane voltage of the component, which based on the pdf marce linked and I quoted above, should be beneficial. This is all theory but it's really the only theory (other than the "antenna" theory, which I believe is too simplistic for words) I've seen proposed in this thread so far. The reason I think it's far more than just an antenna is because if it was just working as an antenna, why not just use some kind of optimized antenna to do the job. Why go to all the trouble and expense to have the box filled with some mystery contents. Just to fool everyone? I know many here will say yes, that's all, but I believe that's beyond far-fetched." If people can't understand how current can flow between 2 points even though there's no closed loop, then maybe some review of basic electrical theory may help. Don't know what else to say. Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, Jud said: If what you speculate were correct, there would be no such thing as potential. That is, if charge operated like heat, and simply flowed from where there is more to where there is less without a circuit, doing so at the speed of light/electricity, any difference in potential would be immediately eliminated. So it seems to me your hypothesis contains its own contradiction: If current flowed as a result of mere potential without a circuit, there would be no potential to cause current to flow. If the purpose of the box is somehow to adjust the potential of the point on the component it's connected to (only my theory), then what you're stating is pretty much exactly how you want it to work. Once the difference between the box and the connection point is eliminated, then current will no longer flow. Anytime that difference becomes great enough, then current will again flow between the 2 points until the difference is eliminated. In that way it's maintaining the potential of the component connection point at a constant level. Sounds pretty good to me. Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, Jud said: If what you say is true, why is the box necessary? *There would be no difference in potential to start with and nothing to adjust.* Because the internals of the equipment would automatically adjust to eliminate any potential at all, just like heat, except instant, at the speed of light/electricity. Based on this paragraph from a link provided earlier in this thread by marce: ""Many engineers treat ground planes as if they were made of a superconductor rather than copper and assume that, no matter the current flowing in them, every part of a ground plane is at the same potential. While such an assumption may be reasonable on PC cards bearing only logic circuitry (or it may not, if the logic is very fast), it can lead to unacceptably low performance in PC cards carrying high precision or high frequency analog circuitry." It seems from reading that, there may be a possibility that the box is somehow addressing these differences with the ground plane. If it can somehow eliminate or reduce the difference then maybe that's what's creating the audible change people hear. Without the box, there would be no change to the ground plane. The box is necessary to create this change. All this is only speculation on my part. I've seen nothing posted here that would make me believe my theory is impossible. I didn't submit this as a scientific paper for publication. People posted that it HAS to be an antenna. Case closed. I don't see people jumping all over those claims. I'm becoming very frustrated with the responses I'm getting. I wonder if people actually read anything beyond the first line or two of a post. Cornan 1 Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, marce said: without a loop it cant, lots of things are at different potential differences, no current will flow between them unless a complete loop is formed. Wrong. As stated multiple times previously, all that's required for current to flow is a voltage difference between 2 points and a path between the 2 points for current to flow. Once the voltage difference is gone, then current will no longer flow. I believe you may be thinking about continuous current flow within a closed circuit. Then of course a loop is required. Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Jud said: Right, they're talking about current flow in a circuit, and the performance of the ground plane for that circuit. This in no way says you have current flow when there is no circuit, it's talking about best practice for design of ground planes in the context of circuit design. What I took it to be referring to was the potential for issues because ground planes may not have the same voltage at every point within the ground plane. If that's the case, wouldn't it make sense that by eliminating or reducing those differences, however that's achieved, either by improved design or changing the voltage somehow (grounding box?) at a specific point within the ground plane that had a big enough voltage difference compared to other parts of the ground plane, then the potential for issues would be reduced or eliminated? And shouldn't it follow that there could be an audible result form that reduction? Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, marce said: Draw a circuit of the box, there is one wire between the box and the component, because the wire is connected to a GND point on a component it will be at the same potential. Let's take for an example (these are just random numbers for illustrative purposes only), that the voltage at the box end of the cable is 5 volts and at the component end of the cable the voltage is 4 volts. Are you trying to tell me that no current would flow between those points? You don't realize that current would indeed flow until the difference between those 2 points became low enough that current flow would stop? That's the only point I'm trying to make. We're talking 2 different things You're talking closed circuits with continuous current flow, I'm talking transient current flow between 2 different potentials. Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Fokus said: The cat litter box is connected to that one ground point that is the baddest of ground points in the circuit. It's been said that experimentation is needed to find the best point with the system or component to connect to. I would take that to be the "baddest" point. 5 minutes ago, Fokus said: How does the box know how much that point's potential deviates from 'ground'. How does the box know what 'ground' ideally is l All the box is doing (based on my proposed theory) is providing a method of adjusting the voltage at that point. If the voltage from the box is different than the voltage of the connection point, current would flow until the voltage differences have been eliminated. 10 minutes ago, Fokus said: And once the box has dumped its load of electrons into said baddest point, how does it keep that point from deviating again, as the electrons, once set free, tend to run away? If it deviates enough, then wouldn't current again flow until the difference is eliminated? In effect maintaining that new adjusted voltage at a constant level? Much like some kind of self regulating process. Seems quite ingenious to me. Cornan 1 Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 16 minutes ago, Fokus said: Take a piece of dry paper. Or a plastic foil. Put a 9V battery on top of it, and a 1.5V battery next to it. Connect the batteries' + terminals with a wire. Measure the potential at the wire. Oh, wait ... potential compared to what? (Credits to Roberta Flack.) I may be displaying my ignorance here but wouldn't it be something like 7.5 V? 6 minutes ago, Fokus said: I honestly hope you are not employed in any sector that remotely touches on electricity. Thanks for the kind thoughts. Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 25 minutes ago, Fokus said: Take a piece of dry paper. Or a plastic foil. Put a 9V battery on top of it, and a 1.5V battery next to it. Connect the batteries' + terminals with a wire. Measure the potential at the wire. Oh, wait ... potential compared to what? (Credits to Roberta Flack.) This really made me think. I have to say I honestly don't know the answer. Is that really an appropriate analogy for these ground boxes though? Isn't that what the box should be doing based on this theory of how it works? Eliminating any potential difference between itself and the connection point? Please remember this was posted by me in response on a thread that asked for ideas on how these boxes work. This was only my idea based on what I understand. It's quite possible that I don't understand as much as I thought I did. I have no problem admitting that. I hope you'll notice that at no point have I said "this is how these boxes work". Unlike those that have posted "it's an antenna". I believe in having an open mind and part of that involves accepting that I am or may be wrong. Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, kumakuma said: I'm interested in why you are rejecting the antenna theory. The measurements in the thread linked to yesterday clearly show that the noise level increases when the length of the wire increases. I'm not rejecting it at all. My thing is the antenna part is likely only a part of the whole. I can't and won't believe that the only reason these boxes work is because the cable is acting as an antenna and injecting noise back to the ground plane. As I posted in my original post giving a possible explanation, maybe the noise produced by the antenna function is somehow what's activating the contents of the box, creating a voltage source. Believe me, I wish I had never posted the idea in the first place but I think there could be some validity to it. So far it's the only idea I've seen posted other than the antenna one. But we're only on page 17 so there may be hope yet Teresa 1 Link to comment
Popular Post 89reksal Posted July 12, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, kumakuma said: Why do you believe there has to be something else at work here? I'm working from the assumption that these boxes actually do "work". From there, it makes no sense to me to have the expensive box filled with whatever's inside, when all that's required if it is just an antenna, is some type of simple wire acting as an antenna. I know a lot here think it's all just part of the Entreq scam to get as much possible money from the consumer but I prefer to not think that way. I may be proven wrong and these boxes turn out to be a total scam but I would much prefer not starting from that assumption. Teresa and Cornan 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts