[steppe]

I thought of this while looking at a german guy's site (sorry I dont
have the link) where he detailed his own homemade paper caps. I
thought maybe I could go him one better and make PIO caps.

I'll need foil, probably copper, though tin would suffice. I bought
some copper foil for shielding guitars about ten years ago, enough to
try doing this, but it's a little too thick for caps. It doesn't need
to be real thick, just thick enough to handle without breaking.


Paper could be anything that doesn't short through. It needs to be
thick enough to resist shorts up to 600 volts. I'm guessing any kind
of paper would do, but something like fisch-paper (or is it fishe-
paper?) would be best, since it's made as an electrical insulater.


Oil is perhaps the easiest thing to get. I used to work in an HVAC/R
warehouse and they had plenty of oils up to 200 weight (as well as
motor run PIO caps! I ran over one once with a forklift,
accidentally,
and found out it was PIO) . Some were synthetic and kinda pricey, but
I only need a little for each cap. I'm sure I could ask around if I
needed anything exotic, maybe get a sample from a tech or something.
If plain motor oil works fine I wont have any trouble.


Packaging all this is where it gets tough. I bought some Sprague
bathtub caps ( .05 and .1 ufd ) and it would be cool to solder
together a little container for them. I don't have a clue how to do
any of this yet, but I would like to get a website together and post
the results of my experiments.


Does anyone have any info on these? Anything would be helpful, and
you
can email me directly at steppenvalve7 at gmail dot com. Thank you.

[Barry[_4_]]

Ordinary mineral oil from the drugstore will work fine. You do not need
200 weight oils. If you want to go exotic, use castor oil. Paper of any
sort will increase the loss tangent and dielectric absorption. Stick
with PTFE or polystyrene if you need excellent caps, or polypropylene if
price is a concern. But what a waste of time!

If you are trying to recreate oil-filled caps of long ago, I will be glad
to supply you some polychlorinated biphenyls. Free! (I do not have to
pay
to discard it!)

Barry


"steppe" wrote in message
...
I thought of this while looking at a german guy's site (sorry I dont
have the link) where he detailed his own homemade paper caps. I
thought maybe I could go him one better and make PIO caps.

I'll need foil, probably copper, though tin would suffice. I bought
some copper foil for shielding guitars about ten years ago, enough to
try doing this, but it's a little too thick for caps. It doesn't need
to be real thick, just thick enough to handle without breaking.


Paper could be anything that doesn't short through. It needs to be
thick enough to resist shorts up to 600 volts. I'm guessing any kind
of paper would do, but something like fisch-paper (or is it fishe-
paper?) would be best, since it's made as an electrical insulater.


Oil is perhaps the easiest thing to get. I used to work in an HVAC/R
warehouse and they had plenty of oils up to 200 weight (as well as
motor run PIO caps! I ran over one once with a forklift,
accidentally,
and found out it was PIO) . Some were synthetic and kinda pricey, but
I only need a little for each cap. I'm sure I could ask around if I
needed anything exotic, maybe get a sample from a tech or something.
If plain motor oil works fine I wont have any trouble.


Packaging all this is where it gets tough. I bought some Sprague
bathtub caps ( .05 and .1 ufd ) and it would be cool to solder
together a little container for them. I don't have a clue how to do
any of this yet, but I would like to get a website together and post
the results of my experiments.


Does anyone have any info on these? Anything would be helpful, and
you
can email me directly at steppenvalve7 at gmail dot com. Thank you.

[Alexander Dyszewski]

On 17.06.2010 00:47, steppe wrote:
I thought of this while looking at a german guy's site (sorry I dont
have the link) where he detailed his own homemade paper caps. I
thought maybe I could go him one better and make PIO caps.

You might be looking for 'Jogis Roehrenbude'
http://www.jogis-roehrenbude.de/Kondensator.htm
http://www.jogis-roehrenbude.de/Lese...o/DerWKond.htm

Alexander

[glenbadd]

On Jun 18, 2:49*am, Alexander Dyszewski
wrote:
On 17.06.2010 00:47, steppe wrote:

I thought of this while looking at a german guy's site (sorry I dont
have the link) where he detailed his own homemade paper caps. I
thought maybe I could go him one better and make PIO caps.

You might be looking for 'Jogis Roehrenbude'http://www.jogis-roehrenbude.de/Kondensator.htmhttp://www.jogis-roehrenbude.de/Leserbriefe/Edelmann-Ko/DerWKond.htm

Alexander

Tesla Coil builders have long been making their own oil filled rolled
capacitors. These are high voltage types (10KV) but you may be able
to use some of their techniques. It is important to remove all the air
from inside the windings.

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 18, 12:00*pm, glenbadd wrote:
On Jun 18, 2:49*am, Alexander Dyszewski

wrote:
On 17.06.2010 00:47, steppe wrote:

I thought of this while looking at a german guy's site (sorry I dont
have the link) where he detailed his own homemade paper caps. I
thought maybe I could go him one better and make PIO caps.

You might be looking for 'Jogis Roehrenbude'http://www.jogis-roehrenbude.de/Kondensator.htmhttp://www.jogis-roehr...

Alexander

Tesla Coil builders have long been making their own oil filled rolled
capacitors. These are high voltage types (10KV) but you may be able
to use some of their techniques. It is important to remove all the air
from inside the windings.

I myself would never bother to make my own capacitors of any kind.

I have dozens of PIO caps rated for 1,000Vdc or more which I picked up
at sales here and there. But a 10uF PIO typical cap is 100mm high with
50mm x 100mm plan area. I have a few of these and they may well have
deadly toxic oil used in them. All I have are up to 70 years old. I
really should chuck the ****in things out because they are all quite
useless for audio because the capacitance values are tiny for what is
needed for good B+ filtering of for any other purpose such as in
speaker crossovers where the best caps are motor start types which are
polypropylene insulated.
Where such old fashioned PIO caps are excellent is in RF transmitters
where the B+ may be 2,000V and the cap value for B+ filtering does not
need to be high.

Even making a 0.1uF coupling cap at home is difficult. The foil I
would try to source would be available as something say 25mm wide and
supplied on a spool of 100mm dia. The best insulation would be
polypropylene and say 0.01mm thick but lemme tell ya, handling it is
difficult and it is very easy to puncture the plastic film while
handling the cap during manufacture.

To make the cap I woud start with a plastic 6mm shaft about 50mm long
held in a hand operated drill which is held in a bench vice. The two
metal foils and 25mm wide plastic membrane between them have to be
wound onto the shaft together so that each foil protrudes 3mm from
each side of the plastic membrane. To guide the foils and plastic and
maintain even tension while winding 3 things onto the same rotating
plastic shaft will be far too great a challenge for 95% of home DIY
types, most of whom don't have any technical prowesss, and whose most
fiddly task they have eave done is tie their shoelaces.

Once the cap is wound and taped over at completion it can then have
leads soldered to points at each end and to beginning and ends of the
rolled up foils. But polypropylene is not resistant to high enough
temperatures when soldering leads to the foils at completion, although
if you are quick and nimble and you don't over heat the foil with a
quick precise solder then maybe its OK, otherwise teflon or polyester
is more better. Paper has high dielectric losses. The dielectric
constant effectivle raises the C amount that you might have if you
could have pure air between foils which is impossible because the
voltage would arc across. Leads need to be thought about. Silver
plated 0.7mm copper comes to mind.
If paper is used then oil will impregnate the paper if the cap is
soaked in a small container made for the cap. But oil could be used
with teflon, polypropylene or polyester. It will try to flow into
crevices with capilliary action but methinks a vacuum chamber is
really needed and the cap pre-heated to 90C so that under cacuum the
moisture is mostly expelled. Once the cap is allowed to cool in its
bath of oil under a vacuum, the oil is driven under pressure into the
cap. Oil impregnant will damp the tiny movement of cap plates due to
changes of voltage or from vibration effects. Caps can be
microphonic.
But making an oil proof container which will last 50 years in a hot
running tube amp in summer is usually impossible for the DIYer.

Wax is another substance which could be used but it may not be good
under a vacuum. Many olds cap were made using Al foil and waxed paper,
with wire ends connected to foils by processes tou may not achieve at
home easily.

All such caps allowed slow moisture absorbtion, corrosion of metals,
formation of conductive salts, high leakage currents and early cap
failure; I have replaced hundreds of crummy old "paper caps" in old
electronic gear.

I suggest anyone interested in DIY capacitor manufacture should find
out exactly how they mass produce capacitors in the factories before
proceeding any further.

Capacitors were one of the least reliable parts in electronics when
electronics began to be used for other than telephone technology which
got underway in earnest after WW1. Resistors were difficult as well,
but rods of carbon with tight fitting brass end caps seemed to last
quite well. So early tube electronics for radio and audio amps mainly
used transformer coupling wherever possible and capacitors of any sort
were only reluctantly ever used. Resistors were used sparingly.
The limitations of the R&C parts limited the bandwidth and functional
quality of all early electronics.

If anyone winds his own caps, or stacks his own caps by carefully
stacking cut plates and paper/plastic squares say 25mm x 25mm, the he
will discover how difficult it is to get a good cap that will last and
be the right wanted value, and not arc over once a voltage exceeds
100V, and be rugged so the cap is entirely sealed into a plastic box
win epoxy so that lead bending can be done without worry of braking
leads off the ends of foils, or bending foils causing a short.

SoniCap and Auricap are good brands of audiophile grade coupling caps.
Obligato make nice big caps dervived from the way motor start caps are
made.

I quite like the MKP ( polypropylene ) Wima red boxed caps, 630Vdc
rated. These are of German design but I am not sure exactly where they
are made, possibly Taiwan, where the 0.47uF x 630V caps are churned
out of machines like sausages, and costing Wima maybe 5 cents each to
make. I might have to pay $3 EACH to buy a batch of 50 from a local
distributor. They can be siliconed to a tube amp chassis underside
beside the tube sockets and wired point to point.
I think the sound with the Wimas is second to none. I have done AB
tests with different caps in each of two channels and had audiophile
reluctanly sit still, shut up, and just listen while I played music in
one channel then the other and asked them to identify which channel
had the supposedly better caps than "cheap as dirt" Wimas. None were
able to indentify the channel with the caps reputedly "better than
Wimas" more than 50% of the time.
In other words, afaik, and unless anyone **proves** otherwise, as long
as coupling caps are plastic film types using polyester, polypropylene
or telfon, or polycarbonate etc, and they are well rated and not
faulty, they all sound identical, and not color the sound in any way.

Such a statement is PURE HERESY for which I will now be derided
throughout Audiophalia, the country which now has unilaterally
declared a fatwah on all mainstrean beliefs about audio and which
outlaws AB comparisons and which imposes a penalty for disagreement
with Constitutional snake oil theories being burial alive under a
truckload of non audio-logically correct parts kept at the
correctional centre for the offence.

Patrick Turner.

[Ian Iveson]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
On Jun 18, 12:00 pm, glenbadd
wrote:
On Jun 18, 2:49 am, Alexander Dyszewski

wrote:
On 17.06.2010 00:47, steppe wrote:

I thought of this while looking at a german guy's site
(sorry I dont
have the link) where he detailed his own homemade
paper caps. I
thought maybe I could go him one better and make PIO
caps.

You might be looking for 'Jogis
Roehrenbude'http://www.jogis-roehrenbude.de/Kondensator.htmhttp://www.jogis-roehr...

Alexander

Tesla Coil builders have long been making their own oil
filled rolled
capacitors. These are high voltage types (10KV) but you
may be able
to use some of their techniques. It is important to remove
all the air
from inside the windings.

I myself would never bother to make my own capacitors of any
kind.

I have dozens of PIO caps rated for 1,000Vdc or more which I
picked up
at sales here and there. But a 10uF PIO typical cap is 100mm
high with
50mm x 100mm plan area. I have a few of these and they may
well have
deadly toxic oil used in them. All I have are up to 70 years
old. I
really should chuck the ****in things out because they are
all quite
useless for audio because the capacitance values are tiny
for what is
needed for good B+ filtering of for any other purpose such
as in
speaker crossovers where the best caps are motor start types
which are
polypropylene insulated.
Where such old fashioned PIO caps are excellent is in RF
transmitters
where the B+ may be 2,000V and the cap value for B+
filtering does not
need to be high.

Even making a 0.1uF coupling cap at home is difficult. The
foil I
would try to source would be available as something say 25mm
wide and
supplied on a spool of 100mm dia. The best insulation would
be
polypropylene and say 0.01mm thick but lemme tell ya,
handling it is
difficult and it is very easy to puncture the plastic film
while
handling the cap during manufacture.

To make the cap I woud start with a plastic 6mm shaft about
50mm long
held in a hand operated drill which is held in a bench vice.
The two
metal foils and 25mm wide plastic membrane between them have
to be
wound onto the shaft together so that each foil protrudes
3mm from
each side of the plastic membrane. To guide the foils and
plastic and
maintain even tension while winding 3 things onto the same
rotating
plastic shaft will be far too great a challenge for 95% of
home DIY
types, most of whom don't have any technical prowesss, and
whose most
fiddly task they have eave done is tie their shoelaces.

Once the cap is wound and taped over at completion it can
then have
leads soldered to points at each end and to beginning and
ends of the
rolled up foils. But polypropylene is not resistant to high
enough
temperatures when soldering leads to the foils at
completion, although
if you are quick and nimble and you don't over heat the foil
with a
quick precise solder then maybe its OK, otherwise teflon or
polyester
is more better. Paper has high dielectric losses. The
dielectric
constant effectivle raises the C amount that you might have
if you
could have pure air between foils which is impossible
because the
voltage would arc across. Leads need to be thought about.
Silver
plated 0.7mm copper comes to mind.
If paper is used then oil will impregnate the paper if the
cap is
soaked in a small container made for the cap. But oil could
be used
with teflon, polypropylene or polyester. It will try to flow
into
crevices with capilliary action but methinks a vacuum
chamber is
really needed and the cap pre-heated to 90C so that under
cacuum the
moisture is mostly expelled. Once the cap is allowed to cool
in its
bath of oil under a vacuum, the oil is driven under pressure
into the
cap. Oil impregnant will damp the tiny movement of cap
plates due to
changes of voltage or from vibration effects. Caps can be
microphonic.
But making an oil proof container which will last 50 years
in a hot
running tube amp in summer is usually impossible for the
DIYer.

Wax is another substance which could be used but it may not
be good
under a vacuum. Many olds cap were made using Al foil and
waxed paper,
with wire ends connected to foils by processes tou may not
achieve at
home easily.

All such caps allowed slow moisture absorbtion, corrosion of
metals,
formation of conductive salts, high leakage currents and
early cap
failure; I have replaced hundreds of crummy old "paper caps"
in old
electronic gear.

I suggest anyone interested in DIY capacitor manufacture
should find
out exactly how they mass produce capacitors in the
factories before
proceeding any further.

Capacitors were one of the least reliable parts in
electronics when
electronics began to be used for other than telephone
technology which
got underway in earnest after WW1. Resistors were difficult
as well,
but rods of carbon with tight fitting brass end caps seemed
to last
quite well. So early tube electronics for radio and audio
amps mainly
used transformer coupling wherever possible and capacitors
of any sort
were only reluctantly ever used. Resistors were used
sparingly.
The limitations of the R&C parts limited the bandwidth and
functional
quality of all early electronics.

If anyone winds his own caps, or stacks his own caps by
carefully
stacking cut plates and paper/plastic squares say 25mm x
25mm, the he
will discover how difficult it is to get a good cap that
will last and
be the right wanted value, and not arc over once a voltage
exceeds
100V, and be rugged so the cap is entirely sealed into a
plastic box
win epoxy so that lead bending can be done without worry of
braking
leads off the ends of foils, or bending foils causing a
short.

SoniCap and Auricap are good brands of audiophile grade
coupling caps.
Obligato make nice big caps dervived from the way motor
start caps are
made.

I quite like the MKP ( polypropylene ) Wima red boxed caps,
630Vdc
rated. These are of German design but I am not sure exactly
where they
are made, possibly Taiwan, where the 0.47uF x 630V caps are
churned
out of machines like sausages, and costing Wima maybe 5
cents each to
make. I might have to pay $3 EACH to buy a batch of 50 from
a local
distributor. They can be siliconed to a tube amp chassis
underside
beside the tube sockets and wired point to point.
I think the sound with the Wimas is second to none. I have
done AB
tests with different caps in each of two channels and had
audiophile
reluctanly sit still, shut up, and just listen while I
played music in
one channel then the other and asked them to identify which
channel
had the supposedly better caps than "cheap as dirt" Wimas.
None were
able to indentify the channel with the caps reputedly
"better than
Wimas" more than 50% of the time.
In other words, afaik, and unless anyone **proves**
otherwise, as long
as coupling caps are plastic film types using polyester,
polypropylene
or telfon, or polycarbonate etc, and they are well rated and
not
faulty, they all sound identical, and not color the sound in
any way.


Ian

Such a statement is PURE HERESY

*** Not really, it's a fashionable pose for ignorant small
engineers.

*** According to reliable test results I have seen, a well
manufactured polyprop or C0G ceramic cap is considerably
less inclined to produce distortion than a well-made
polyester one.

*** The tests were done using a 1V 1kHz signal applied to
the cap via a series resistance. Distortion was measured
across the cap. That produced by C0G ceramics and polyprop
foil-and-film caps was almost unmeasurable at around -130dB,
AFAIR, whereas polyester was around -100dB. Unbiased or
back-to-back electrolytics weren't much worse than
polyester. Bias worsens distortion for all types. Biased
polar electrolytics were a bit worse (bias voltage was not
great) and other ceramic types were considerably worse than
that, at perhaps -65dB.

*** You probably can't measure such small proportions, and
whether you can hear a difference is unlikely, and would in
any case depend on the circuit and bias level.

*** So many ppl have said they can hear the difference when
they change coupling caps, and perhaps they are not all
ignorant fools. The typically high bias voltage would
accentuate the variation between types of cap, and so
possibly provide an explanation.

for which I will now be derided throughout Audiophalia, the
country which now has unilaterally declared a fatwah on all
mainstrean beliefs about audio and which
outlaws AB comparisons and which imposes a penalty for
disagreement
with Constitutional snake oil theories being burial alive
under a
truckload of non audio-logically correct parts kept at the
correctional centre for the offence.

*** ABX comparisons are mostly pseudo-science ********. Even
the phrase "hear the difference" contains an error so huge
that maybe no-one can see it. A difference is not the kind
of thing we can hear. Neither is it necessarily the case
that we can report on what we hear, as that assumes clear
communications between the reporting part of the brain and
the hearing parts. Further, we are not conscious of
everything we hear, and we react emotionally and physically
to many sounds that we are not directly conscious of.
Comparisons can usefully demonstrate some effects, but those
who use them to deny what they cannot detect are either
malicious or plain stupid.

*** According to ABX reductionism, there is no difference
between one of your staggeringly expensive home made amps
and one I can buy at the supermarket for a tenner.

Ian

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 18, 9:49*pm, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message

snip,

In other words, afaik, and unless anyone **proves**
otherwise, as long
as coupling caps are plastic film types using polyester,
polypropylene
or telfon, or polycarbonate etc, and they are well rated and
not
faulty, they all sound identical, and not color the sound in
any way.

Ian

Such a statement is PURE HERESY

*** Not really, it's a fashionable pose for ignorant small
engineers.

*** According to reliable test results I have seen, a well
manufactured polyprop or C0G ceramic cap is considerably
less inclined to produce distortion than a well-made
polyester one.

Yes but the measurements indicate tiny capacitor caused distortions
compared to massively larger distortions in tubes and other sound
system components.


*** The tests were done using a 1V 1kHz signal applied to
the cap via a series resistance. Distortion was measured
across the cap. That produced by C0G ceramics and polyprop
foil-and-film caps was almost unmeasurable at around -130dB,
AFAIR, whereas polyester was around -100dB. Unbiased or
back-to-back electrolytics weren't much worse than
polyester. Bias worsens distortion for all types. Biased
polar electrolytics were a bit worse (bias voltage was not
great) and other ceramic types were considerably worse than
that, at perhaps -65dB.

Again, caps barely make any difference to measurements in a lounge
room.


*** You probably can't measure such small proportions, and
whether you can hear a difference is unlikely, and would in
any case depend on the circuit and bias level.

I'd say you cannot hear such small measurement changes.



*** So many ppl have said they can hear the difference when
they change coupling caps, and perhaps they are not all
ignorant fools. The typically high bias voltage would
accentuate the variation between types of cap, and so
possibly provide an explanation.

Yes, many report differences between caps. And I have studied the
behaviour of some strident claimsters in my local known group of
audiophiles. They rarely measure anything. Often their sound systems
which they like are bloody horrible for other listeners. They never AB
anything using OTHER PEOPLE'S ears rather than their own. They have
false beliefs in their own hearing powers. They sometimes change all
the known types of caps after some trials then was lyrical about each
and then get sick of the sound of them and change to yet another type
of cap and go through the same silly endless rotating cycle of
adoption, rejection, replacement.


for which I will now be derided throughout Audiophalia, the
country which now has unilaterally declared a fatwah on all
mainstrean beliefs about audio and which
outlaws AB comparisons and which imposes a penalty for
disagreement
with Constitutional snake oil theories being burial alive
under a
truckload of non audio-logically correct parts kept at the
correctional centre for the offence.

*** ABX comparisons are mostly pseudo-science ********. Even
the phrase "hear the difference" contains an error so huge
that maybe no-one can see it. A difference is not the kind
of thing we can hear.

Oh but here you are wrong. Plenty ppl do hear real differences.

The sales of tube powered audio amps is supported by the sonic
difference between tubes and solid state and which tube amp purchasers
finds is very obvious.


Neither is it necessarily the case
that we can report on what we hear, as that assumes clear
communications between the reporting part of the brain and
the hearing parts.

C'mon, not everyone is so dumb they cannot say what they think about
sound quality differences in sound systems.
Its like orchestras. The may play the same bit of music but
differences can be astounding. The reviewers often use very similar
language to reviewers of audio gear.


Further, we are not conscious of
everything we hear, and we react emotionally and physically
to many sounds that we are not directly conscious of.

Motzart and many others worked out all that....


Comparisons can usefully demonstrate some effects, but those
who use them to deny what they cannot detect are either
malicious or plain stupid.

*** According to ABX reductionism, there is no difference
between one of your staggeringly expensive home made amps
and one I can buy at the supermarket for a tenner.


You are gibbering again.

First, all my productions do cost more than the cheapest which can do
the same power output.
But there are far more amplifiers which are much more expensive than
mine.

Second, there are no amps I can buy for a tenner at any supermarket.

Third, my customers can tell the difference between clay and ****.

ABX or some form of comparison is often a useful tool when developing
a sound system. For example, if anyone changes speakers they should
trial the proposed new ones in the presence of the old ones, and only
proceed with a sale if the sound is better, and confirmed by friends.
Of course people are subject to lies and spin of sales ppl present or
wives who hate the old speakers because they are ugly or huge or both.
They are also affected by the disease of consumeritis where the
sufferer becomes dismayed with what he owns about every 12 months or
sooner, and then cannot resist a shopping spree. So often a decision
is made based upon bull**** rather than what matters and the sound
quality gets worse after a transaction.

Patrick Turner.

[Ian Iveson]

Patrick Turner wrote

In other words, afaik, and unless anyone **proves**
otherwise, as long
as coupling caps are plastic film types using polyester,
polypropylene
or telfon, or polycarbonate etc, and they are well rated
and
not
faulty, they all sound identical, and not color the sound
in
any way.

Ian

Such a statement is PURE HERESY

*** Not really, it's a fashionable pose for ignorant small
engineers.

*** According to reliable test results I have seen, a well
manufactured polyprop or C0G ceramic cap is considerably
less inclined to produce distortion than a well-made
polyester one.

Yes but the measurements indicate tiny capacitor caused
distortions
compared to massively larger distortions in tubes and other
sound
system components.

*** Whether the difference is significant is not quite the
same issue as whether the difference exists. It does exist;
whether it's significant or not is moot. It's a shame that
the tests didn't try higher bias voltages, or a combination
of low and high frequencies, because it's likely that more
significant-looking results could be obtained.


*** The tests were done using a 1V 1kHz signal applied to
the cap via a series resistance. Distortion was measured
across the cap. That produced by C0G ceramics and polyprop
foil-and-film caps was almost unmeasurable at
around -130dB,
AFAIR, whereas polyester was around -100dB. Unbiased or
back-to-back electrolytics weren't much worse than
polyester. Bias worsens distortion for all types. Biased
polar electrolytics were a bit worse (bias voltage was not
great) and other ceramic types were considerably worse
than
that, at perhaps -65dB.

Again, caps barely make any difference to measurements in a
lounge
room.

*** Same point


*** You probably can't measure such small proportions, and
whether you can hear a difference is unlikely, and would
in
any case depend on the circuit and bias level.

I'd say you cannot hear such small measurement changes.

*** You're almost certainly right.

*** So many ppl have said they can hear the difference
when
they change coupling caps, and perhaps they are not all
ignorant fools. The typically high bias voltage would
accentuate the variation between types of cap, and so
possibly provide an explanation.

Yes, many report differences between caps. And I have
studied the
behaviour of some strident claimsters in my local known
group of
audiophiles. They rarely measure anything. Often their sound
systems
which they like are bloody horrible for other listeners.
They never AB
anything using OTHER PEOPLE'S ears rather than their own.
They have
false beliefs in their own hearing powers. They sometimes
change all
the known types of caps after some trials then was lyrical
about each
and then get sick of the sound of them and change to yet
another type
of cap and go through the same silly endless rotating cycle
of
adoption, rejection, replacement.

*** Yes we know all that, but delusion has no bearing on
truth. There is an effect that some people say they can
hear, and there is a difference that can be measured. The
measured difference corresponds to what ppl say they can
hear. Whether or not some of those ppl are lying or deluded
doesn't matter much, because AFAIK the order of preference
preceeded the measurements...they said they heard it before
it was measurable.


for which I will now be derided throughout Audiophalia,
the
country which now has unilaterally declared a fatwah on
all
mainstrean beliefs about audio and which
outlaws AB comparisons and which imposes a penalty for
disagreement
with Constitutional snake oil theories being burial alive
under a
truckload of non audio-logically correct parts kept at the
correctional centre for the offence.

*** ABX comparisons are mostly pseudo-science ********.
Even
the phrase "hear the difference" contains an error so huge
that maybe no-one can see it. A difference is not the kind
of thing we can hear.

Oh but here you are wrong. Plenty ppl do hear real
differences.

*** I tried to be clear enough to avoid thoughtless
misunderstanding. What does a difference sound like? You
hear one sound, you hear another, you perceive the one is
different from the other, but you don't hear that
difference.

The sales of tube powered audio amps is supported by the
sonic
difference between tubes and solid state and which tube amp
purchasers
finds is very obvious.

*** ABX reductionists simply reply that tube amp purchasers
like distortion. If you minimise distortion, you approach
the fidelity of the cheap supermarket SS amp. That's where
"hear the difference" tests on individual subjects get you.

Neither is it necessarily the case
that we can report on what we hear, as that assumes clear
communications between the reporting part of the brain and
the hearing parts.

C'mon, not everyone is so dumb they cannot say what they
think about
sound quality differences in sound systems.
Its like orchestras. The may play the same bit of music but
differences can be astounding. The reviewers often use very
similar
language to reviewers of audio gear.

*** Same kind of misunderstanding. Just because some
reviewers, truly or otherwise, can report on some aspects of
their hearing, doesn't mean anyone can report on everything
they hear. It is possible that there are some sounds that
you can be conscious of hearing, and yet you may not be able
to verbalise or write about them, even though you may be an
accomplished speaker or writer. You make a common but false
assumption concerning the integrity of being. To illustrate,
an experiment was done on subjects who had, in an attempt to
cure epilepsy, had the connection between the halves of
their brains cut. Shown a picture of a square with one eye,
a subject could draw it but not describe it. Shown with the
other eye, it could be descibed but not drawn. Something
like that, anyway: you should get the point that your
consciousness is not necessarily integrated, either in
itself or with your senses. Integration is at least in part
a function of hardware, of which you are not directly aware.
You shouldn't even assume that you think what you think you
think.


Further, we are not conscious of
everything we hear, and we react emotionally and
physically
to many sounds that we are not directly conscious of.

Motzart and many others worked out all that....

*** Motzart could play and write what sounds good, but
that's not the same as knowing why. No-one knew much about
brains in his day. Anyway, you may have misunderstood again.
I mean that we react to sounds that we don't know are there
at all...that simply don't impinge on our consciousness.
Just like with "subliminal" visual suggestion used in
advertising. For example, you will begin to react to the
sound of a roaring lion some time before you are conscious
of the sound. You have hearing in hardware that is linked to
your reactions but bypasses your consciousness. After some
processing time, your consciousness may also get the
message, and then you become aware that you are fleeing from
a roaring lion. Comes in handy for avoiding being eaten by
lions, I suppose. OTOH, if the lion eats you quickly enough,
or for a myriad other reasons, you may never know you heard
it, even though it made you jump.

Comparisons can usefully demonstrate some effects, but
those
who use them to deny what they cannot detect are either
malicious or plain stupid.

*** According to ABX reductionism, there is no difference
between one of your staggeringly expensive home made amps
and one I can buy at the supermarket for a tenner.

You are gibbering again.

*** Me? Gibber?

First, all my productions do cost more than the cheapest
which can do
the same power output.
But there are far more amplifiers which are much more
expensive than
mine.

*** That are even more staggeringly expensive. You might
argue that, because nothing else is as expensive as the most
expensive thing in the world, therefore there is only one
expensive thing. Cuts no ice with me, obviously.

Second, there are no amps I can buy for a tenner at any
supermarket.

*** Maybe not quite, but amps with excellent specs,
according to the ABX reductionists, are available for a
relative pittance on the high street.

Third, my customers can tell the difference between clay and
****.

*** I don't know if that expression travels well. You have
valuable clay in Australia, perhaps. Maybe that's why the
Chinese are buying you out. Anyway, you seem to be unaware
that you are arguing in two opposite directions. One minute
measurements are the criterion, and the next it's what ppl
say they can hear that really counts.

ABX or some form of comparison is often a useful tool when
developing
a sound system. For example, if anyone changes speakers they
should
trial the proposed new ones in the presence of the old ones,
and only
proceed with a sale if the sound is better, and confirmed by
friends.
Of course people are subject to lies and spin of sales ppl
present or
wives who hate the old speakers because they are ugly or
huge or both.
They are also affected by the disease of consumeritis where
the
sufferer becomes dismayed with what he owns about every 12
months or
sooner, and then cannot resist a shopping spree. So often a
decision
is made based upon bull**** rather than what matters and the
sound
quality gets worse after a transaction.

*** I don't disagree with any of that. A part of the
explanation could be that subliminal preference would not at
first be apparent, but over time would become associated
with the equipment. For example, of one amp made a sound
that you were not conscious of but nevertheless made you
angry, you would at first wonder why you were feeling angry
but be unable to attribute the feeling to a cause. After a
while, you would come to expect angry feelings whenever you
listened using that amp. You may come to believe that you
are angry with the amp, without knowing why. Stranger things
have happened.

Ian

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 21, 12:32*am, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote
snip
The sales of tube powered audio amps is supported by the
sonic
difference between tubes and solid state and which tube amp
purchasers
finds is very obvious.

*** ABX reductionists simply reply that tube amp purchasers
like distortion. If you minimise distortion, you approach
the fidelity of the cheap supermarket SS amp. That's where
"hear the difference" tests on individual subjects get you.

I have found numerous examples of where tube amps generated THD less
than 0.01%.

Especially so in one recent case where the guys 16W SET amp with 300B
was powering Klipsch speakers rated for 105dB/W/M and so distortion
wasn't a reason why he liked SET amps.

If there is 0.1V at the speakers, and 0.01% is THD and IMD, then it
will be inaudible.

snip,

Third, my customers can tell the difference between clay and
****.

*** I don't know if that expression travels well. You have
valuable clay in Australia, perhaps. Maybe that's why the
Chinese are buying you out.

Some expressions never travel well, but you can make something out of
clay but you can't make anything out of ****.

The Chinese really do like doing business with us.

You see, 3 billion ppl want to have lifestyles like us, all those
Chinese and Indians and Indonesians et all.

When do they want it? within 25 years. It took 250 years for 1 billion
to get as rich as we are.

So there is HUGE DEMAND for every ****in thing you can think of. The
matter of price is a minor concern.

I don't think there is anywhere near enough Earth resources for
several more billion ppl all living *better* than we do.

If I am right there may be wars in future over resources, but its
cheaper to buy your way than bomb your way to wealth and control. The
Japs found out about that the hard way.

The Brits used to own most of Oz, and then the Yanks came in heavy.
Its only natural that when the financial supremacy of the US fades and
the power of the US wanes like what happened in the decline of the
British Empire that China will have a greater % of ownership of
companies in OZ. A huge chunk of Oz companies have always been foreign
owned.

I doubt China will invade Oz. I doubt India wants to. They do like
trading with us instead.

Anyway, you seem to be unaware
that you are arguing in two opposite directions. One minute
measurements are the criterion, and the next it's what ppl
say they can hear that really counts.

ABX testing and differences in sound quality between caps and
components, cables et all is a rather too hard basket for me to deal
with in any reasonable time which I don't have to waste.

People are naturally disagreeable.

But I am lucky to have been able to give people sound they liked to
pay me for.

Patrick Turner

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , "Barry" wrote:
Ordinary mineral oil from the drugstore will work fine. You do not need
200 weight oils. If you want to go exotic, use castor oil. Paper of any
sort will increase the loss tangent and dielectric absorption. Stick
with PTFE or polystyrene if you need excellent caps, or polypropylene if
price is a concern. But what a waste of time!

Tyvek ?

If you are trying to recreate oil-filled caps of long ago, I will be glad
to supply you some polychlorinated biphenyls. Free! (I do not have to
pay
to discard it!)

Barry


"steppe" wrote in message
...
I thought of this while looking at a german guy's site (sorry I dont
have the link) where he detailed his own homemade paper caps. I
thought maybe I could go him one better and make PIO caps.

I'll need foil, probably copper, though tin would suffice. I bought
some copper foil for shielding guitars about ten years ago, enough to
try doing this, but it's a little too thick for caps. It doesn't need
to be real thick, just thick enough to handle without breaking.


Paper could be anything that doesn't short through. It needs to be
thick enough to resist shorts up to 600 volts. I'm guessing any kind
of paper would do, but something like fisch-paper (or is it fishe-
paper?) would be best, since it's made as an electrical insulater.


Oil is perhaps the easiest thing to get. I used to work in an HVAC/R
warehouse and they had plenty of oils up to 200 weight (as well as
motor run PIO caps! I ran over one once with a forklift,
accidentally,
and found out it was PIO) . Some were synthetic and kinda pricey, but
I only need a little for each cap. I'm sure I could ask around if I
needed anything exotic, maybe get a sample from a tech or something.
If plain motor oil works fine I wont have any trouble.


Packaging all this is where it gets tough. I bought some Sprague
bathtub caps ( .05 and .1 ufd ) and it would be cool to solder
together a little container for them. I don't have a clue how to do
any of this yet, but I would like to get a website together and post
the results of my experiments.


Does anyone have any info on these? Anything would be helpful, and
you
can email me directly at steppenvalve7 at gmail dot com. Thank you.

[Patrick Turner]

On Jun 22, 2:18*am, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:48:18 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner





wrote:
On Jun 21, 12:32 am, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote


snip


The Chinese really do like doing business with us.

You see, 3 billion ppl want to have lifestyles like us, all those
Chinese and Indians and Indonesians et all.

When do they want it? within 25 years. It took 250 years for 1 billion
to get as rich as we are.

That's a straw man. One does not have to reinvent the wheel, or the
bow and arrow, or the steam engine, and so on.

Yes, I see that straw man you refer to due my roundabout way of
speaking about world progress on abolition of povety. AFAIK, the
Chinese are trying to become as inventive as possible with their ideas
about nuclear steam engines for the future.

In 100 years time the people may look back to 2010 and our very
primitive lifestyle. Or perhaps they'll be looking for a yew tree from
which they can make a decent bow and arrows to defend themselves
against each other.


So there is HUGE DEMAND for every ****in thing you can think of. The
matter of price is a minor concern.

Price is always a concern because you can't have what can't be paid
for.

The GFC is a sample of very many ppl thinking they can have what they
can't pay for. Despite the limitations to the financial system
operation or its honesty record, life will proceed apace even while so
may grumble about being so poor while trying to pay for a huge house
and a huge car and funding an absurdly unsustainable lifestyle.



I don't think there is anywhere near enough Earth resources for
several more billion ppl all living *better* than we do.

Malthus has been proved wrong over and over again but that never seems
to stop anti-humanists from spitting it back up.

History shows that as societies become more affluent the birth rate
drops and, in some cases, goes negative so you wailing about the
'billions' wanting to be prosperous is counter productive to the very
problem you complain about.

Yes, but if the population stabilises at say 9 billion, and all of
them have our present lifestyle for 80 years each then they will
consume about 5 times current levels of almost everything. We have
only one Planet.

Doom and gloom pedictions could always be laughed at if you lived in
Rome while Augustus was around. World population was small and the
anthropogenic effects on nature were negligible. But not now. Things
are becoming quite different.

If I am right there may be wars in future over resources,

There have always been 'wars' over resources from the first hominids
fighting over a water hole. Of course, humans didn't 'invent' that.
Just watch two stray dogs with one bone between them.

Agreed. Many species just like a fight for a fight's sake. Species
which fight to improve their chance at survival tend to survive well
compared to those who lose the fight so fight genes get passed on. Our
human history is blood soaked. And when resources are short, expect
big fights.

but its
cheaper to buy your way than bomb your way to wealth and control.

You cannot 'buy' your way to 'wealth'. Or, put simply, you can't 'buy'
a million dollars with a penny.

Yes you can. You buy raw materials for pennies and with your labour
you add value and sell the product for far more than the penyworth of
iron ore or coal. The Chinese are doing this very cleverly.

You have to 'produce' wealth. I.E. Make or do something of value..

China is beavering away making a huge amount of stuff which ppl like
to buy and they are getting better off as a result.

"To get rich is glorious"



The
Japs found out about that the hard way.

No, Imperial Japan found out that armed robbery is frowned upon, not
to mention bigotry and mass murder.

And as a result, ordinary Japanese ppl who were not part of the
Imperial lot got swept into the maelstrom of war and finished up
losers. All Japanese learned the hard way. But learn they did, unlike
so many muslim brothers who now vow to never surrender to infidels.
The Germans eventually also got the message. They had big troubles
with WW1, and then they tried again to make a pest of themselves in
WW2. After that they really began to change. Some folks learn real
slow.


The Brits used to own most of Oz, and then the Yanks came in heavy.
Its only natural that when the financial supremacy of the US fades and
the power of the US wanes like what happened in the decline of the
British Empire that China will have a greater % of ownership of
companies in OZ. A huge chunk of Oz companies have always been foreign
owned.

"Foreign owned" is a popular bugaboo but the fact of the matter is
unless you, yourself, make everything you use and consume then you are
dealing with a 'foreign [to you, yourself] owned' entity.

But if all australians owned all the businesses in Oz the profits woud
stay in Oz for its betterment. But foreign companies send profits out
of the country to raise living standards of company home countries
rather than here. Right now our PM is trying to put a "40% super
profits tax" on the mining industry which is dominated by global
companies making money for shareholders mainly elsewhere. There is a
an election soon. The mining companies are spending millions on
newspaper adds to say how poor they all are and how they'll be rooned
if the tax goes ahead.

I don't know if the tax is a good or bad idea. I'm sure I won't see an
extra dollar if the tax does happen.

One thing could be certain, a country which increases taxes to try to
become wealthy is like a many standing in a bucket who tries to lift
himself upwards. Old Churchill said that way back in the 1950s. Ya
gotta let ppl make profits.

But at the same time, ya gotta make the big end of town pay more tax
than they would like to. How else can you have free medical care for
all?

The "Tea Party" movement in the US is a worry. If they prevail the US
will go broke like Greece in 15 years. Too much unpaid debt and not
enough sweat.


It's inherent to 'trade'. I.E. You are 'trading' with someone else
('foreign' to you).

Trade 'outside the country' is problematic for governments because
they don't like things they can't control and rob, pardon me, tax.
Then there's the issue of making sure your war machine is
independently sustainable and whether your trade helps 'the enemy'.

I saw the stickers on bumpers in the 70s, "Taxation is robbery"

The belief in this is OK. No need to shoot ppl with such stoopid
beliefs. Its a free democracy and you may think what you like and say
what you like. But what about if you need 20 grand for some medical
treatment for your son and you can't beg the money from a rich uncle
and you can't borrow it or steal it?

What you need is taxation which pays for hosptials and doctors.if some
country like Japan decides it would like to take over most pacific
nations then a country needs taxes to pay for its defense.

But these days if we did raise taxes and get a better air force and
navy then perhaps it would merely increase the time we might survive
in a fight with China, maybe 3 days instead of only 1 day.

Patrick Turner.

[Ian Iveson]

Patrick Turner wrote:

The Chinese really do like doing business with us.

You see, 3 billion ppl want to have lifestyles like us,
all those
Chinese and Indians and Indonesians et all.

When do they want it? within 25 years. It took 250 years
for 1 billion
to get as rich as we are.

That's a straw man. One does not have to reinvent the
wheel, or the
bow and arrow, or the steam engine, and so on.

Yes, I see that straw man you refer to due my roundabout way
of
speaking about world progress on abolition of povety. AFAIK,
the
Chinese are trying to become as inventive as possible with
their ideas
about nuclear steam engines for the future.

In 100 years time the people may look back to 2010 and our
very
primitive lifestyle. Or perhaps they'll be looking for a yew
tree from
which they can make a decent bow and arrows to defend
themselves
against each other.


So there is HUGE DEMAND for every ****in thing you can
think of. The
matter of price is a minor concern.

Price is always a concern because you can't have what
can't be paid
for.

The GFC is a sample of very many ppl thinking they can have
what they
can't pay for. Despite the limitations to the financial
system
operation or its honesty record, life will proceed apace
even while so
may grumble about being so poor while trying to pay for a
huge house
and a huge car and funding an absurdly unsustainable
lifestyle.



I don't think there is anywhere near enough Earth
resources for
several more billion ppl all living *better* than we do.

Malthus has been proved wrong over and over again but that
never seems
to stop anti-humanists from spitting it back up.

Maybe Malthus saved the world. Who can tell? Society adapts:
Malthus, eco-warriors, et al, have been driving forces in
that process. Whether they were right or wrong, in your
narrow literal sense, is not really the point. Complex
entities aren't like Newton's apple: you need to find a more
sophisticated conception of science, or you'll keep looking
silly.

History shows that as societies become more affluent the
birth rate
drops and, in some cases, goes negative so you wailing
about the
'billions' wanting to be prosperous is counter productive
to the very
problem you complain about.

Yes, but if the population stabilises at say 9 billion, and
all of
them have our present lifestyle for 80 years each then they
will
consume about 5 times current levels of almost everything.
We have
only one Planet.

*** Don't be drawn into accepting flipper's idea of science.
History hasn't shown that at all. Where more affluent
societies do have lower birth rates they also have higher
survival rates and, in cases where population growth is
lower, it's hard to say which, affluence or low rate of
population growth, is cause, and which is effect. There is a
closer and apparently valid correlation between education
and birth rate, but even then it's hard to establish a
causal relationship between the two...could be a babies and
storks type of coincidence. Over a long period of history,
including all parts of the world at all times we know about,
these relationships are not simple even if they exist.

Doom and gloom pedictions could always be laughed at if you
lived in
Rome while Augustus was around. World population was small
and the
anthropogenic effects on nature were negligible. But not
now. Things
are becoming quite different.

If I am right there may be wars in future over resources,

There have always been 'wars' over resources from the
first hominids
fighting over a water hole. Of course, humans didn't
'invent' that.
Just watch two stray dogs with one bone between them.

Agreed. Many species just like a fight for a fight's sake.
Species
which fight to improve their chance at survival tend to
survive well
compared to those who lose the fight so fight genes get
passed on. Our
human history is blood soaked. And when resources are short,
expect
big fights.

*** We're different. We have a conscious social history and
it learns. Human nature, through civilisation, makes
progress.

but its
cheaper to buy your way than bomb your way to wealth and
control.

You cannot 'buy' your way to 'wealth'. Or, put simply, you
can't 'buy'
a million dollars with a penny.

Yes you can. You buy raw materials for pennies and with your
labour
you add value and sell the product for far more than the
penyworth of
iron ore or coal. The Chinese are doing this very cleverly.

You have to 'produce' wealth. I.E. Make or do something of
value..

China is beavering away making a huge amount of stuff which
ppl like
to buy and they are getting better off as a result.

"To get rich is glorious"

*** Traditionally, capital lurches from one crisis of
overproduction to another. It'll be interesting to see how
China manages its exposure to the current one.

The
Japs found out about that the hard way.

No, Imperial Japan found out that armed robbery is frowned
upon, not
to mention bigotry and mass murder.

And as a result, ordinary Japanese ppl who were not part of
the
Imperial lot got swept into the maelstrom of war and
finished up
losers. All Japanese learned the hard way. But learn they
did, unlike
so many muslim brothers who now vow to never surrender to
infidels.
The Germans eventually also got the message. They had big
troubles
with WW1, and then they tried again to make a pest of
themselves in
WW2. After that they really began to change. Some folks
learn real
slow.


The Brits used to own most of Oz, and then the Yanks came
in heavy.
Its only natural that when the financial supremacy of the
US fades and
the power of the US wanes like what happened in the
decline of the
British Empire that China will have a greater % of
ownership of
companies in OZ. A huge chunk of Oz companies have always
been foreign
owned.

"Foreign owned" is a popular bugaboo but the fact of the
matter is
unless you, yourself, make everything you use and consume
then you are
dealing with a 'foreign [to you, yourself] owned' entity.

But if all australians owned all the businesses in Oz the
profits woud
stay in Oz for its betterment.

*** Unlikely. Even assuming the businesses made the same
profits, the only real difference would be who they pay
their tax to. Capital itself is just capital. It goes
wherever it pleases.

But foreign companies send profits out
of the country to raise living standards of company home
countries
rather than here. Right now our PM is trying to put a "40%
super
profits tax" on the mining industry which is dominated by
global
companies making money for shareholders mainly elsewhere.
There is a
an election soon. The mining companies are spending millions
on
newspaper adds to say how poor they all are and how they'll
be rooned
if the tax goes ahead.

*** Isn't that protectionism? Retaliation could hurt.

I don't know if the tax is a good or bad idea. I'm sure I
won't see an
extra dollar if the tax does happen.

*** Probably a bad idea. If you make life hard for capital,
it'll either go elsewhere or beat you into submission.

One thing could be certain, a country which increases taxes
to try to
become wealthy is like a many standing in a bucket who tries
to lift
himself upwards. Old Churchill said that way back in the
1950s. Ya
gotta let ppl make profits.

*** Quite.

But at the same time, ya gotta make the big end of town pay
more tax
than they would like to. How else can you have free medical
care for
all?

*** If labour is cheap, capital may consider universal
medical care to be unnecessary. It only needs to look after
the people it has invested itself in, through education and
training.

The "Tea Party" movement in the US is a worry. If they
prevail the US
will go broke like Greece in 15 years. Too much unpaid debt
and not
enough sweat.

*** But they've got advanced technology, the expertise to
deploy it, and guns.


It's inherent to 'trade'. I.E. You are 'trading' with
someone else
('foreign' to you).

Trade 'outside the country' is problematic for governments
because
they don't like things they can't control and rob, pardon
me, tax.
Then there's the issue of making sure your war machine is
independently sustainable and whether your trade helps
'the enemy'.

I saw the stickers on bumpers in the 70s, "Taxation is
robbery"

The belief in this is OK. No need to shoot ppl with such
stoopid
beliefs. Its a free democracy and you may think what you
like and say
what you like. But what about if you need 20 grand for some
medical
treatment for your son and you can't beg the money from a
rich uncle
and you can't borrow it or steal it?

*** Democracy only in a particular sense. Freedom of speech
is ********; freedom of action is what counts. No money, no
freedom.

What you need is taxation which pays for hosptials and
doctors.if some
country like Japan decides it would like to take over most
pacific
nations then a country needs taxes to pay for its defense.

*** Some day eventually you'd think the general populace,
rather than academics and economists, would cotton on to the
fact that these conundrums are part of how capitalism works.
Maybe never, if the quality of education continues to
decline. OTOH the fact does seem to get more obvious every
cycle we go through. One hope...and of course I'm not the
only one to spot this...is that the green movement will
convince ppl that we all need to work together to wrest
control from capital. Not that I've got anything against it,
it's just that it hasn't got a long-term plan, and I think
we need one.

But these days if we did raise taxes and get a better air
force and
navy then perhaps it would merely increase the time we might
survive
in a fight with China, maybe 3 days instead of only 1 day.

*** Can't see why anyone would want to invade Australia, as
long as you sell your resources at a price they can afford
when they need them. No-one's into world-in-turmoil
scenarios these days, except maybe feudal lords in central
Asia and Africa. The worst that could happen if one
superpower threatened you would be that you'd have to pay
another for protection. Somehow I can't see Australians
enjoying socialism, so you'll have to pay the US. Why don't
Australians do manufacturing, BTW? You'll end up pitted with
craters and nothing to show for it.

Patrick Turner.

[Ian Iveson]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:12:01 +0100, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

The Chinese really do like doing business with us.

You see, 3 billion ppl want to have lifestyles like us,
all those
Chinese and Indians and Indonesians et all.

When do they want it? within 25 years. It took 250
years
for 1 billion
to get as rich as we are.

That's a straw man. One does not have to reinvent the
wheel, or the
bow and arrow, or the steam engine, and so on.

Yes, I see that straw man you refer to due my roundabout
way
of
speaking about world progress on abolition of povety.
AFAIK,
the
Chinese are trying to become as inventive as possible with
their ideas
about nuclear steam engines for the future.

In 100 years time the people may look back to 2010 and our
very
primitive lifestyle. Or perhaps they'll be looking for a
yew
tree from
which they can make a decent bow and arrows to defend
themselves
against each other.


So there is HUGE DEMAND for every ****in thing you can
think of. The
matter of price is a minor concern.

Price is always a concern because you can't have what
can't be paid
for.

The GFC is a sample of very many ppl thinking they can
have
what they
can't pay for. Despite the limitations to the financial
system
operation or its honesty record, life will proceed apace
even while so
may grumble about being so poor while trying to pay for a
huge house
and a huge car and funding an absurdly unsustainable
lifestyle.



I don't think there is anywhere near enough Earth
resources for
several more billion ppl all living *better* than we
do.

Malthus has been proved wrong over and over again but
that
never seems
to stop anti-humanists from spitting it back up.

Maybe Malthus saved the world. Who can tell? Society
adapts:
Malthus, eco-warriors, et al, have been driving forces in
that process. Whether they were right or wrong, in your
narrow literal sense, is not really the point. Complex
entities aren't like Newton's apple: you need to find a
more
sophisticated conception of science, or you'll keep
looking
silly.

History shows that as societies become more affluent the
birth rate
drops and, in some cases, goes negative so you wailing
about the
'billions' wanting to be prosperous is counter
productive
to the very
problem you complain about.

Yes, but if the population stabilises at say 9 billion,
and
all of
them have our present lifestyle for 80 years each then
they
will
consume about 5 times current levels of almost everything.
We have
only one Planet.

*** Don't be drawn into accepting flipper's idea of
science.

My 'idea' of science it observation and experimentation.
What's your
fantasy?

Something rather more sophisticated than Newton, and more
enlightened than naive realism. Wide enough to embrace the
very big, the very small, and the very complex. Your small
science has left you ill-equipped for modern scientific
debate, but you don't seem to have realised your pique is so
puny.

Btw, where did I even mention 'science'?

Ad nauseam, below and elsewhere. I don't have to read much
to know where your head is.

History hasn't shown that at all. Where more affluent
societies do have lower birth rates they also have higher
survival rates

True. Population growth is lower even with the better
survival rate.

and, in cases where population growth is
lower, it's hard to say which, affluence or low rate of
population growth, is cause, and which is effect.

Feel free to make a proposition but just claiming you find
it
difficult to say which isn't 'science'.

Bar-room rhetoric. I didn't say hard for me, I said it's
hard. It's hard for science, and impossible for your "RISC"
version, to establish cause and effect in very complex
systems. Your tiny science is useless for applying to
society, a fact you are fond of celebrating. Save yourself
from future embarrassment and conduct a total rethink.

There is a
closer and apparently valid correlation between education
and birth rate,

Education generally breeds affluence.

Sometimes it might. Sometimes not. Sometimes affluence
breeds education, sometimes not. Sometimes education,
through affluence or by other means, breeds itself, but
sometimes it doesn't. Affluence, through education, might
breed affluence, but not always.

but even then it's hard to establish a
causal relationship between the two...could be a babies
and
storks type of coincidence.

"Could be" isn't 'science' either.

"Could be otherwise" is absolutely crucial to science. You
know that really. I guess you're just feeling bitchy.

Over a long period of history,
including all parts of the world at all times we know
about,
these relationships are not simple even if they exist.

The World population growth rate peaked in 1962-1963 and
has been
declining since. It remains highest in the underdeveloped
countries,
notably the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa,South Asia,
Southeast
Asia, and Latin America.

A convenient snapshot in the context of history. One minute
you're bleating and foot-stamping about scientific rigour,
and the next you're making wild generalisations on the basis
of a few points of data picked for your own purpose.

Doom and gloom pedictions could always be laughed at if
you
lived in
Rome while Augustus was around. World population was small
and the
anthropogenic effects on nature were negligible. But not
now. Things
are becoming quite different.

If I am right there may be wars in future over
resources,

There have always been 'wars' over resources from the
first hominids
fighting over a water hole. Of course, humans didn't
'invent' that.
Just watch two stray dogs with one bone between them.

Agreed. Many species just like a fight for a fight's sake.
Species
which fight to improve their chance at survival tend to
survive well
compared to those who lose the fight so fight genes get
passed on. Our
human history is blood soaked. And when resources are
short,
expect
big fights.

*** We're different. We have a conscious social history
and
it learns. Human nature, through civilisation, makes
progress.

Quite right.


but its
cheaper to buy your way than bomb your way to wealth
and
control.

You cannot 'buy' your way to 'wealth'. Or, put simply,
you
can't 'buy'
a million dollars with a penny.

Yes you can. You buy raw materials for pennies and with
your
labour
you add value and sell the product for far more than the
penyworth of
iron ore or coal. The Chinese are doing this very
cleverly.

You have to 'produce' wealth. I.E. Make or do something
of
value..

China is beavering away making a huge amount of stuff
which
ppl like
to buy and they are getting better off as a result.

"To get rich is glorious"

*** Traditionally, capital lurches from one crisis of
overproduction to another. It'll be interesting to see how
China manages its exposure to the current one.

Capital generally 'lurches' away from overproduction
because falling
prices reduce profits.

And lurching out of one crisis of overproduction, it lurches
into another, ad infinitum. Check out the "spiders web", as
I think it's called in econometrics. That's what
agrigultural policy is mostly concerned with. If there's a
shortage of wheat one year, its price rockets, so all the
farmers plant wheat. Then next year there's too much wheat
and no barley, so they all plant barley...etc. The European
Common Agricultural Policy, for example, is there to
intervene in the market and set quotas so the web is
convergent. Capital's not too much bothered about that
because it works for it. Try the same kind of intervention
in capital markets, OTOH, and they'll scream blue murder and
send you to the salt mines.

There's a fundamental drive to overproduction in the way
that capitalism works which is bound to frustrate even the
cleverest intervention. As you correctly point out, it is
work that adds value, and work alone. Profit can only accrue
if workers are paid less than the value of their labour.
Consequently, in a capitalist world, all the workers
together don't earn enough to buy everything they make, so
not everything can be sold. Capital can get round this
conundrum by growing, such that the workers of the world can
afford what they made yesterday, as long as they make even
more today.

I wonder what proportion of currently-manufactured mobile
phones, for example, go directly from manufacture to
landfill. My town centre is full of bargain store
dumping-grounds for overproduced commodities. Prices can be
a quarter of the going supermarket rate for top-quality
branded perishables.

The
Japs found out about that the hard way.

No, Imperial Japan found out that armed robbery is
frowned
upon, not
to mention bigotry and mass murder.

And as a result, ordinary Japanese ppl who were not part
of
the
Imperial lot got swept into the maelstrom of war and
finished up
losers. All Japanese learned the hard way. But learn they
did, unlike
so many muslim brothers who now vow to never surrender to
infidels.
The Germans eventually also got the message. They had big
troubles
with WW1, and then they tried again to make a pest of
themselves in
WW2. After that they really began to change. Some folks
learn real
slow.


The Brits used to own most of Oz, and then the Yanks
came
in heavy.
Its only natural that when the financial supremacy of
the
US fades and
the power of the US wanes like what happened in the
decline of the
British Empire that China will have a greater % of
ownership of
companies in OZ. A huge chunk of Oz companies have
always
been foreign
owned.

"Foreign owned" is a popular bugaboo but the fact of the
matter is
unless you, yourself, make everything you use and
consume
then you are
dealing with a 'foreign [to you, yourself] owned'
entity.

But if all australians owned all the businesses in Oz the
profits woud
stay in Oz for its betterment.

*** Unlikely. Even assuming the businesses made the same
profits, the only real difference would be who they pay
their tax to. Capital itself is just capital. It goes
wherever it pleases.

But foreign companies send profits out
of the country to raise living standards of company home
countries
rather than here. Right now our PM is trying to put a "40%
super
profits tax" on the mining industry which is dominated by
global
companies making money for shareholders mainly elsewhere.
There is a
an election soon. The mining companies are spending
millions
on
newspaper adds to say how poor they all are and how
they'll
be rooned
if the tax goes ahead.

*** Isn't that protectionism? Retaliation could hurt.

I don't know if the tax is a good or bad idea. I'm sure I
won't see an
extra dollar if the tax does happen.

*** Probably a bad idea. If you make life hard for
capital,
it'll either go elsewhere or beat you into submission.

One thing could be certain, a country which increases
taxes
to try to
become wealthy is like a many standing in a bucket who
tries
to lift
himself upwards. Old Churchill said that way back in the
1950s. Ya
gotta let ppl make profits.

*** Quite.

But at the same time, ya gotta make the big end of town
pay
more tax
than they would like to. How else can you have free
medical
care for
all?

*** If labour is cheap, capital may consider universal
medical care to be unnecessary. It only needs to look
after
the people it has invested itself in, through education
and
training.

Company funded 'health insurance' came into being to
circumvent
government salary rationing.

If you can't entice employees with wages you do it with
perks.

Quite. In proportion to the value of that labour. To the
extent that capital invests itself in education and
training...into human reproduction and development, if you
will...it has an interest in the particular lives of those
particular people. Cheap labour, on the other hand, can die
for all it cares, as long as replacement labour costs less
than healthcare. Perhaps the US has chosen the wrong moment
to partly nationalise health provision, now that the China
phenomenon must force down world labour prices. You won't be
so much worth keeping alive.

Which, incidentally, will eventually impinge on Patrick,
because if the workers of the rest of the industrialised
world stop buying, China and the other tiger economies won't
need so much Australian clay. That's how overproduction
unfurls. Now that bombing overcapacity is no longer
sensible, we need a new plan. Europe has always been in the
middle of our world maps, but there's a risk of us ending up
round the back, in the middle of nowhere, so my effect on
such a plan is unlikely to be great. C'est la vie.

The "Tea Party" movement in the US is a worry. If they
prevail the US
will go broke like Greece in 15 years. Too much unpaid
debt
and not
enough sweat.

*** But they've got advanced technology, the expertise to
deploy it, and guns.


It's inherent to 'trade'. I.E. You are 'trading' with
someone else
('foreign' to you).

Trade 'outside the country' is problematic for
governments
because
they don't like things they can't control and rob,
pardon
me, tax.
Then there's the issue of making sure your war machine
is
independently sustainable and whether your trade helps
'the enemy'.

I saw the stickers on bumpers in the 70s, "Taxation is
robbery"

The belief in this is OK. No need to shoot ppl with such
stoopid
beliefs. Its a free democracy and you may think what you
like and say
what you like. But what about if you need 20 grand for
some
medical
treatment for your son and you can't beg the money from a
rich uncle
and you can't borrow it or steal it?

*** Democracy only in a particular sense. Freedom of
speech
is ********; freedom of action is what counts.

There is no 'freedom of action' without freedom of speech
as you can't
even discuss the 'problem' much less talk about taking an
'action'.

OK, see below. Freedom of speech may become necessary, but
it will never be sufficient. My point is that real democracy
is about what we can do, not just what we can say.

No money, no
freedom.

Which is why property rights rank right up there with
freedom of
speech.

Empty rhetoric. Property rights are the direct opposite of
freedom of property. They apportion freedom according to
wealth and, because rich people can loose their property if
they become poor, this freedom resides with, and is loyal
to, the capital itself, not the people who hold it. Rich and
poor alike are prisoners.

I only mean that freedom of speech is ******** as a
sufficient criterion for democracy. Genuine freedom of
action, including common ownership, would require
negotiation. Then speech becomes rather more genuinely
important. "To each according to need, from each according
to ability" would need lots of talking about, but then
limiting freedom of speech would become pointless and
counterproductive.

What you need is taxation which pays for hosptials and
doctors.if some
country like Japan decides it would like to take over most
pacific
nations then a country needs taxes to pay for its defense.

*** Some day eventually you'd think the general populace,
rather than academics and economists, would cotton on to
the
fact that these conundrums are part of how capitalism
works.

Hate to burst your bubble but "academics and economists"
create more
conundrums than they ever come even close to 'solving'.

Could be true, if a conundrum is a product of thought. Then
people would create them in proportion to the number of
thoughts they had. OTOH, if conundrums are natural
phenomena, then specialists in their respective fields of
study would discover them, not create them. As I guess most
science would agree, discovering the truth is one thing, but
knowing how to change it is quite a different matter.

Maybe never, if the quality of education continues to
decline. OTOH the fact does seem to get more obvious every
cycle we go through.

Did you ever stop to observe that all these cycles you wax
about took
place with the "academics and economists" implementing
their supposed
'fixes'?

Of course. At first you would expect their observations and
conclusions, being only tenuously connected, would have only
small effects, in directions randomly askew from those they
might have predicted. However, practice and influence are
dynamically complementary, so you would expect a worthwhile
science to ensue, eventually. Not within your narrow
definition of science perhaps, but that's your fault for
being a persistant smart-arse Newtonian geek.

One hope...and of course I'm not the
only one to spot this...is that the green movement will
convince ppl that we all need to work together

The first thing the 'green movement' would have to do is
stop lying.

to wrest
control from capital. Not that I've got anything against
it,
it's just that it hasn't got a long-term plan, and I think
we need one.

The only thing missing from that Stalinist ideal is the "5
year plan."

Even for banter, that's out of order. Hitler was a
capitalist, but I wouldn't dream of calling you a Fascist.
Not all the apologists of capital are Nazis, and not all
communists are Stalinists, assuming you are using the term
in the usual derogatory way.

You see how well that turned out and with 5 years a no go
you think
predicting further into the wispy future will work better?

Practice makes perfect. Science and management technology
take time and experiment to develop. China is doing better,
for the moment. In any case, a plan is unavoidable, because
world capitalism is an impossible fantasy and socialism
without a plan is like capitalism without freedom.

Ian