Per Stromgren wrote in message
line.

No, I was not aware of the Smith chart, I'm afraid. But it seems to me
(after some 30 minutes of Googling I just performed) that it is just a
calculation tool, and it does not per se introduce any alternative
theory. As far as I can see, there is no mention of this tool to work
in the application you just showed us. Most sources say "RF broadband
use only" or something to that effect.

Or did I miss something?

Per.

A Smith will show the change of impedance of a transmission line, for
a line as short as 0.002 WL. This is not a new theory, it's just the
way it is. If one rotates the cursor of a Smith chart by 0.002 WL, one
will be able to read, how the impedance of a 0.002 WL line changes.

There is no low frequency limit to Smith Charts. The only limits a
the transmission line must be at least 0.002 WL long and the line must
have very low series resistance.

The case I cited was a 100 ft line, of 12 gage wire. A line of 100 Ft
is just barely long enough to allow Smith chart calculations. A 12
gage cable has just barely low enough series resistance, to allow the
Smith chart to work accurately.

Of one thing I'm su calculating the loss of a 100 ft line, using
discrete component models, will not give correct results.

Bob Stanton

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message


No, it shows nothing of the kind. It shows that you have a model
of a physical phenomenon that gives an answer that satisfies you.
Until such time as you check those answers against the real physical
behavior in a way that is clear, unambiguous, consistent and predictive,
your models are worthless.

The *Smith chart* is not my model, it's Bell Lab's model. It is a
transmission line solving graph, that has been in use for more than 65
years. It's taught by every electrical engineering college in the
world. It's in every RF text book. But, if you think it is worthless,
that is your right.

You could become quite well know by proving that, as a predictor of
transmission line behavior, it is worthless!

Lots of luck. :-)

Bob Stanton

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message


No, it shows nothing of the kind. It shows that you have a model
of a physical phenomenon that gives an answer that satisfies you.
Until such time as you check those answers against the real physical
behavior in a way that is clear, unambiguous, consistent and predictive,
your models are worthless.

The *Smith chart* is not my model, it's Bell Lab's model. It is a
transmission line solving graph, that has been in use for more than 65
years. It's taught by every electrical engineering college in the
world. It's in every RF text book. But, if you think it is worthless,
that is your right.

You could become quite well know by proving that, as a predictor of
transmission line behavior, it is worthless!

Lots of luck. :-)

Bob Stanton

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
The case I cited was a 100 ft line, of 12 gage wire. A line of 100 Ft
is just barely long enough to allow Smith chart calculations. A 12
gage cable has just barely low enough series resistance, to allow the
Smith chart to work accurately.

So, what Mr. Stanton seems to want to do is when the tool
can't work with the pjysical reality, change the physical
reality so the tool does.

I assume everyone else here finds such an approach odd.

If a 100 ft speaker wire is "barely enough" to allow Smith
chart calculations, and almost NO ONE is using 100 foot long
speaker leads, why the hell are we wasting our time on this
Smith chart nonsense?

Of one thing I'm su calculating the loss of a 100 ft line, using
discrete component models, will not give correct results.

Mr. Stanton, since you have utterly failed to show us any
ACTUAL loss data from such a line, any handwavings you care
make about what this model shows or that model doesn't is
simply pointless time-wasting.

Mr. Stanton, how's about you go find out REALLY what the losses
are. THEN compare the ACTUAL results to your model.

Call us if you need another wastebasket.

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
The case I cited was a 100 ft line, of 12 gage wire. A line of 100 Ft
is just barely long enough to allow Smith chart calculations. A 12
gage cable has just barely low enough series resistance, to allow the
Smith chart to work accurately.

So, what Mr. Stanton seems to want to do is when the tool
can't work with the pjysical reality, change the physical
reality so the tool does.

I assume everyone else here finds such an approach odd.

If a 100 ft speaker wire is "barely enough" to allow Smith
chart calculations, and almost NO ONE is using 100 foot long
speaker leads, why the hell are we wasting our time on this
Smith chart nonsense?

Of one thing I'm su calculating the loss of a 100 ft line, using
discrete component models, will not give correct results.

Mr. Stanton, since you have utterly failed to show us any
ACTUAL loss data from such a line, any handwavings you care
make about what this model shows or that model doesn't is
simply pointless time-wasting.

Mr. Stanton, how's about you go find out REALLY what the losses
are. THEN compare the ACTUAL results to your model.

Call us if you need another wastebasket.

In article ,
(Bob-Stanton) wrote:

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message


No, it shows nothing of the kind. It shows that you have a model
of a physical phenomenon that gives an answer that satisfies you.
Until such time as you check those answers against the real physical
behavior in a way that is clear, unambiguous, consistent and predictive,
your models are worthless.

The *Smith chart* is not my model, it's Bell Lab's model. It is a
transmission line solving graph, that has been in use for more than 65
years. It's taught by every electrical engineering college in the
world. It's in every RF text book. But, if you think it is worthless,
that is your right.

You could become quite well know by proving that, as a predictor of
transmission line behavior, it is worthless!

Find out how a transmission line's behaviour is different at, say, 100
Hz than it is at, say, 10 MHz. Then decide if a Smith chart will tell
you the "truth" at 100 Hz.

Hint: The "high frequencyapproximations" for Zo and so on DO NOT WORK at
100 Hz.

Isaac

In article ,
(Bob-Stanton) wrote:

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message


No, it shows nothing of the kind. It shows that you have a model
of a physical phenomenon that gives an answer that satisfies you.
Until such time as you check those answers against the real physical
behavior in a way that is clear, unambiguous, consistent and predictive,
your models are worthless.

The *Smith chart* is not my model, it's Bell Lab's model. It is a
transmission line solving graph, that has been in use for more than 65
years. It's taught by every electrical engineering college in the
world. It's in every RF text book. But, if you think it is worthless,
that is your right.

You could become quite well know by proving that, as a predictor of
transmission line behavior, it is worthless!

Find out how a transmission line's behaviour is different at, say, 100
Hz than it is at, say, 10 MHz. Then decide if a Smith chart will tell
you the "truth" at 100 Hz.

Hint: The "high frequencyapproximations" for Zo and so on DO NOT WORK at
100 Hz.

Isaac

On 10 Nov 2003 17:21:37 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:


The *Smith chart* is not my model, it's Bell Lab's model. It is a
transmission line solving graph, that has been in use for more than 65
years. It's taught by every electrical engineering college in the
world. It's in every RF text book. But, if you think it is worthless,
that is your right.

Well, being in "every RF text book" tells us something, does it not?
Radio frequency techniques can not automatically be applied to the
snail pace of audio frequencies. If you still think that the
transmission line model can be applied to AF, please show us some
reference that supports you. Because all sources I (and I suppose many
others here) have seen indicates the opposite to what you say.

For someone with a hammer, everything looks like nails!

Per.

On 10 Nov 2003 17:21:37 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:


The *Smith chart* is not my model, it's Bell Lab's model. It is a
transmission line solving graph, that has been in use for more than 65
years. It's taught by every electrical engineering college in the
world. It's in every RF text book. But, if you think it is worthless,
that is your right.

Well, being in "every RF text book" tells us something, does it not?
Radio frequency techniques can not automatically be applied to the
snail pace of audio frequencies. If you still think that the
transmission line model can be applied to AF, please show us some
reference that supports you. Because all sources I (and I suppose many
others here) have seen indicates the opposite to what you say.

For someone with a hammer, everything looks like nails!

Per.

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Dick Pierce) wrote in message


No, it shows nothing of the kind. It shows that you have a model
of a physical phenomenon that gives an answer that satisfies you.
Until such time as you check those answers against the real physical
behavior in a way that is clear, unambiguous, consistent and predictive,
your models are worthless.

The *Smith chart* is not my model, it's Bell Lab's model.

No, YOU are the one, Mr. Stanton, who is championing it's use
in an application for which it was not designed. It is therefore
YOUR model. YOU made it that way, thus it's up to YOU to prove its
efficiacy for the use YOU are claiming.

To date, you have not provided a single shred of measured data that
supports your claim.


It is a
transmission line solving graph, that has been in use for more than 65
years. It's taught by every electrical engineering college in the
world. It's in every RF text book.

Yes, you are right, it's in every RF text book.

Why isn't it in every electrical engineering text book that does NOT
deal with RF?

But, if you think it is worthless, that is your right.

Mr. Stanton, your dishonest misrepresentations are showing again.
Please do not lie about what I said. Here is EXACTLY what I said:

"Until such time as you check those answers against the real
physical behavior in a way that is clear, unambiguous,
consistent and predictive, your models are worthless."

Now, Mr. Stanton, that's very different tha what you're implying,
isn't it. Since YOU haven't shown us ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE to show that YOUR use of a Smith chart is appropriate for
an application for which it was not design, YOUR use stands completely
unsubstantiated and, until YOU come up with the supporting evidence,
it's no more useful than any other model which has NO supporting
evidence.

You could become quite well know by proving that, as a predictor of
transmission line behavior, it is worthless!

You are becoming well known in your own right of using models without
ever taking ANY effort of seeing whether they work or not.

Mr. Stanton, who uses 100 foot long speaker cables in their home?
What sort of idiotic nonsense is that? I don't think anyone disagrees
that there are significant transmission line effects at 10 Hz with
speaker cables stretched from here to the moon. But so what?

Your model fails on several fronts: you have utterly failed to show
that your models predict actual physical behavior better than other
models, you have selected a completely unrealistic, pathological case
that, by your own admission "barely fits" the model.

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Dick Pierce) wrote in message


No, it shows nothing of the kind. It shows that you have a model
of a physical phenomenon that gives an answer that satisfies you.
Until such time as you check those answers against the real physical
behavior in a way that is clear, unambiguous, consistent and predictive,
your models are worthless.

The *Smith chart* is not my model, it's Bell Lab's model.

No, YOU are the one, Mr. Stanton, who is championing it's use
in an application for which it was not designed. It is therefore
YOUR model. YOU made it that way, thus it's up to YOU to prove its
efficiacy for the use YOU are claiming.

To date, you have not provided a single shred of measured data that
supports your claim.


It is a
transmission line solving graph, that has been in use for more than 65
years. It's taught by every electrical engineering college in the
world. It's in every RF text book.

Yes, you are right, it's in every RF text book.

Why isn't it in every electrical engineering text book that does NOT
deal with RF?

But, if you think it is worthless, that is your right.

Mr. Stanton, your dishonest misrepresentations are showing again.
Please do not lie about what I said. Here is EXACTLY what I said:

"Until such time as you check those answers against the real
physical behavior in a way that is clear, unambiguous,
consistent and predictive, your models are worthless."

Now, Mr. Stanton, that's very different tha what you're implying,
isn't it. Since YOU haven't shown us ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE to show that YOUR use of a Smith chart is appropriate for
an application for which it was not design, YOUR use stands completely
unsubstantiated and, until YOU come up with the supporting evidence,
it's no more useful than any other model which has NO supporting
evidence.

You could become quite well know by proving that, as a predictor of
transmission line behavior, it is worthless!

You are becoming well known in your own right of using models without
ever taking ANY effort of seeing whether they work or not.

Mr. Stanton, who uses 100 foot long speaker cables in their home?
What sort of idiotic nonsense is that? I don't think anyone disagrees
that there are significant transmission line effects at 10 Hz with
speaker cables stretched from here to the moon. But so what?

Your model fails on several fronts: you have utterly failed to show
that your models predict actual physical behavior better than other
models, you have selected a completely unrealistic, pathological case
that, by your own admission "barely fits" the model.

Isaac Wingfield wrote in message news:isw-

Find out how a transmission line's behaviour is different at, say, 100
Hz than it is at, say, 10 MHz. Then decide if a Smith chart will tell
you the "truth" at 100 Hz.

Hint: The "high frequencyapproximations" for Zo and so on DO NOT WORK at
100 Hz.




I know that the formula for characteristic impedance, Zo = sqrt(L/C),
is only a high frequency approximation. The correct formula for all
frequencies, is: Zo = sqrt((R + jwL)/(G + jwC)).

A Smith Chart will give accurate results if: jwL (which is also XL)
is much larger than R (cable series resistance).

A 12 gage cable has about 0.2uH/ft inductance and 0.0016 Ohms/ft
series resistance. At 20 KHz, the XL/ft is 0.251 Ohms. That is 15.6
times larger than the R/ft.

Data published by Belden and others, gives insertion loss figures for
100 ft of 12 gage, two wire, speaker cable, terminated by 4 Ohms.
Analysis of these data leads me to believe that the Smith Chart still
gives accurate results when the XL is 15.6 times larger than R.

At 100 Hz, the XL is *much* smaller than R. At 100 Hz, the speaker
cable is simply a resistance. Smith Chart results wouldn't apply.


Bob Stanton

Isaac Wingfield wrote in message news:isw-

Find out how a transmission line's behaviour is different at, say, 100
Hz than it is at, say, 10 MHz. Then decide if a Smith chart will tell
you the "truth" at 100 Hz.

Hint: The "high frequencyapproximations" for Zo and so on DO NOT WORK at
100 Hz.




I know that the formula for characteristic impedance, Zo = sqrt(L/C),
is only a high frequency approximation. The correct formula for all
frequencies, is: Zo = sqrt((R + jwL)/(G + jwC)).

A Smith Chart will give accurate results if: jwL (which is also XL)
is much larger than R (cable series resistance).

A 12 gage cable has about 0.2uH/ft inductance and 0.0016 Ohms/ft
series resistance. At 20 KHz, the XL/ft is 0.251 Ohms. That is 15.6
times larger than the R/ft.

Data published by Belden and others, gives insertion loss figures for
100 ft of 12 gage, two wire, speaker cable, terminated by 4 Ohms.
Analysis of these data leads me to believe that the Smith Chart still
gives accurate results when the XL is 15.6 times larger than R.

At 100 Hz, the XL is *much* smaller than R. At 100 Hz, the speaker
cable is simply a resistance. Smith Chart results wouldn't apply.


Bob Stanton

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message
One full rotation around the chart equals one wavelength.
Let me correct the statement (above) that I wrote in the previous
message.
One full rotation around the Smith Chart actually represents *1/2
wavelength* of transmission line.

Mr. Stanton, how about some other corrections?
Try the following on for size:

1. "You know, with all my hand waving about the Smith chart,
I have never once actually measured a cable to see if I
am right or not. I have three potential answers, one from
my beloved Smith chart, one from some RF simulation program
of unknown pedigree, and one from a lumped parameter analysis
also of some unknown pedigree. What's REALLY missing is the
actual data to see if ANY of the predictions are right."

2. "I have a hypothesis. It's counter to other hypotheses floating
around out there. In order to see whether my hyptheses is any
more valuable that others, I have to make falsifiable predictions.
To be falsifiable, my predictions have to be unambiguously
confirmable by measurements. And if the error in the measurements
is greater that the difference between my predictions and those
of others, nothing has been proven.

"I haven't done any of that yet. And, until I do so, my model has
no real value. Things that have no real value are without worth.
Things that have no worth are, well, 'worthless.'"

3. "Actually, using 100 foot speaker cables was kinda silly.
I redid the calculations using 10 feet and, you know,
you just can't use a Smith chart any more. See, a wavelength
in a cable at 20 kHz, even considering a 50% velocity factor,
is 7500 meters which is about 24,750 feet or some 4.69 MILES.
Now, a speaker cable 10 feet long will have a delay on the
order of 0.07 degrees between one end and the other at 20 kHz.
Now, at the highest rate of change, 0.07 degrees will result
in a difference in voltage between one end and the other to
the tune of 0.00122: due to the transmission delay alone, that
means if I put 10 volts in at 20 kHz, what will come out the
other end will be 9.988 volts at the other. That's a difference
of 0.012 volts due to the transmission line delay.

"That would mean, it seems, that the ENTIRE cables is acting
pretty much as a single element. Why, with only a MAXIMUM
difference in voltage of about one part in a thousand between
one end and the other, it sure seems to be ACTING like a
single part. I mean, golly, for it to be a transmission
line, doesn't there have to be a significant difference in
time and thus phase (since time and phase are duals of one
another, mathematiclly) in order for the very concept of
'transmission' to have sufficient strength to dominate the
behavior of the system we hold before us?

"So I says to myself, 'Self, how does that compare to simple
Ohmic attenuative effects?' So using my 10 feet of 12 gauge
annealed coper wire, which has an Ohmic loss of 0.00158 Ohms
per foot, I found out that the total series resistance is on
the order of 0.032 Ohms which, considering a nominal load
impedance of 8 ohms, results in a voltage across the load of
9.96 volts.

"'My goodness,' I hear myself exclaim, 'the effects of just
ONE of the lumped-parameter effects is at least as great as
the alledged (but, to this point UTTERLY unverfied by ANY
corrobarative experimental data) transmission line effects!

"Could I be wrong? Could I have overemphasised the important
of the transmission line effects? Is it possible that I really
DO have to throw out my collection of antique Smith charts,
like my wife has been telling me, because after 23 attempts to
unload them on EBay wity a reserve price of $186,240, not once
did I get a bid?

"Zut alors! What am I to do?"

Try those corrections for a start.

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message
One full rotation around the chart equals one wavelength.
Let me correct the statement (above) that I wrote in the previous
message.
One full rotation around the Smith Chart actually represents *1/2
wavelength* of transmission line.

Mr. Stanton, how about some other corrections?
Try the following on for size:

1. "You know, with all my hand waving about the Smith chart,
I have never once actually measured a cable to see if I
am right or not. I have three potential answers, one from
my beloved Smith chart, one from some RF simulation program
of unknown pedigree, and one from a lumped parameter analysis
also of some unknown pedigree. What's REALLY missing is the
actual data to see if ANY of the predictions are right."

2. "I have a hypothesis. It's counter to other hypotheses floating
around out there. In order to see whether my hyptheses is any
more valuable that others, I have to make falsifiable predictions.
To be falsifiable, my predictions have to be unambiguously
confirmable by measurements. And if the error in the measurements
is greater that the difference between my predictions and those
of others, nothing has been proven.

"I haven't done any of that yet. And, until I do so, my model has
no real value. Things that have no real value are without worth.
Things that have no worth are, well, 'worthless.'"

3. "Actually, using 100 foot speaker cables was kinda silly.
I redid the calculations using 10 feet and, you know,
you just can't use a Smith chart any more. See, a wavelength
in a cable at 20 kHz, even considering a 50% velocity factor,
is 7500 meters which is about 24,750 feet or some 4.69 MILES.
Now, a speaker cable 10 feet long will have a delay on the
order of 0.07 degrees between one end and the other at 20 kHz.
Now, at the highest rate of change, 0.07 degrees will result
in a difference in voltage between one end and the other to
the tune of 0.00122: due to the transmission delay alone, that
means if I put 10 volts in at 20 kHz, what will come out the
other end will be 9.988 volts at the other. That's a difference
of 0.012 volts due to the transmission line delay.

"That would mean, it seems, that the ENTIRE cables is acting
pretty much as a single element. Why, with only a MAXIMUM
difference in voltage of about one part in a thousand between
one end and the other, it sure seems to be ACTING like a
single part. I mean, golly, for it to be a transmission
line, doesn't there have to be a significant difference in
time and thus phase (since time and phase are duals of one
another, mathematiclly) in order for the very concept of
'transmission' to have sufficient strength to dominate the
behavior of the system we hold before us?

"So I says to myself, 'Self, how does that compare to simple
Ohmic attenuative effects?' So using my 10 feet of 12 gauge
annealed coper wire, which has an Ohmic loss of 0.00158 Ohms
per foot, I found out that the total series resistance is on
the order of 0.032 Ohms which, considering a nominal load
impedance of 8 ohms, results in a voltage across the load of
9.96 volts.

"'My goodness,' I hear myself exclaim, 'the effects of just
ONE of the lumped-parameter effects is at least as great as
the alledged (but, to this point UTTERLY unverfied by ANY
corrobarative experimental data) transmission line effects!

"Could I be wrong? Could I have overemphasised the important
of the transmission line effects? Is it possible that I really
DO have to throw out my collection of antique Smith charts,
like my wife has been telling me, because after 23 attempts to
unload them on EBay wity a reserve price of $186,240, not once
did I get a bid?

"Zut alors! What am I to do?"

Try those corrections for a start.

"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
m...

snip
Bob Stanton

Oh dear, lots of heat, not much light ;-)

The Smith Chart was introduced as a convenient visual method to
avoid some tedious math. It is the equivalent of a slide rule.

The original question was "How to measure speaker cable inductance
and capacitance?"

Get hold of an LCR meter. Short (connect together live and ground at
the far end of the cable), select "Inductance" on the LCR meter, and
measure the inductance (to be picky, try and use an LCR meter that
does the test in the audio range - ISTR the Wayne Kerr boxes used
something like 1571Hz (extra credit if you can work out why ;-)).

Select "Resistance"on the meter. Measure DC resistance.

Open circuit the far end of the speaker cable, select "Capacitance"
on the LCR meter, measure capacitance.

Now, work out the loss at 20kHz from a low impedance source
of the (lumped element) network you have measured into an 8/4 ohm
(whatever) load.

Pretty low, huh? That says the "lumped" approximation is just fine.

Incidentally, this is sometimes used by _very_ reputable RF cable
manufacturers to check the characteristic impedances of their cables
(the extra measurement needed is with a ruler).

Regards
Ian

"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
m...

snip
Bob Stanton

Oh dear, lots of heat, not much light ;-)

The Smith Chart was introduced as a convenient visual method to
avoid some tedious math. It is the equivalent of a slide rule.

The original question was "How to measure speaker cable inductance
and capacitance?"

Get hold of an LCR meter. Short (connect together live and ground at
the far end of the cable), select "Inductance" on the LCR meter, and
measure the inductance (to be picky, try and use an LCR meter that
does the test in the audio range - ISTR the Wayne Kerr boxes used
something like 1571Hz (extra credit if you can work out why ;-)).

Select "Resistance"on the meter. Measure DC resistance.

Open circuit the far end of the speaker cable, select "Capacitance"
on the LCR meter, measure capacitance.

Now, work out the loss at 20kHz from a low impedance source
of the (lumped element) network you have measured into an 8/4 ohm
(whatever) load.

Pretty low, huh? That says the "lumped" approximation is just fine.

Incidentally, this is sometimes used by _very_ reputable RF cable
manufacturers to check the characteristic impedances of their cables
(the extra measurement needed is with a ruler).

Regards
Ian

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message

No, YOU are the one, Mr. Stanton, who is championing it's use
in an application for which it was not designed. It is therefore
YOUR model. YOU made it that way, thus it's up to YOU to prove its
efficiacy for the use YOU are claiming.

To date, you have not provided a single shred of measured data that
supports your claim.



That right, I don't have any measured data. Perhaps you could grab
some cable from your junk box, and grace us with some measurements.



Yes, you are right, it's in every RF text book.

Why isn't it in every electrical engineering text book that does NOT
deal with RF?


The Smith Chart is for solving transmission line problems. Only RF and
video people deal with transmission lines on a regular basis. So, why
would other areas of electrical engineering care about Smith Charts?


Mr. Stanton, your dishonest misrepresentations are showing again.
Please do not lie about what I said. Here is EXACTLY what I said:

"Until such time as you check those answers against the real
physical behavior in a way that is clear, unambiguous,
consistent and predictive, your models are worthless."


Dick, you also said: "It shows you have a model of a physical
phenomenon that gives an answer that satisfies you." (You forgot that
part.)

I interpeted your words to mean you doubted the accuracy of the model
I used (the Smith Chart). But, now that we both agree the Smith Chart
is accurate, let us go on.

Now, Mr. Stanton, that's very different tha what you're implying,
isn't it. Since YOU haven't shown us ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE to show that YOUR use of a Smith chart is appropriate for
an application for which it was not design, YOUR use stands completely
unsubstantiated and, until YOU come up with the supporting evidence,
it's no more useful than any other model which has NO supporting
evidence.

:-)I get a kick out of some of your comments. :-) Now calm down boy,
calm down! Relax, take a deep breath and count to ten.

So far, all I have done is propose a theory. I have referred to some
well known facts about transmission lines, and I have drawn some
conclusions from those facts. Anyone in this group is free to show
where I might be wrong. When I'm wrong I sometimes even admit it.
(rarely)

You are becoming well known in your own right of using models without
ever taking ANY effort of seeing whether they work or not.


I do model a lot of stuff. No, I don't run tests to see whether my
models work. (I'll leave that up to you Dick.) Since I have almost
100% comfidence in my models, why should I test them?


Mr. Stanton, who uses 100 foot long speaker cables in their home?

Bill Gates?

What sort of idiotic nonsense is that?

Actually, many PA applications require long runs to the speakers. PA
people are also concerned with power loss in cables.


I don't think anyone disagrees
that there are significant transmission line effects at 10 Hz with
speaker cables stretched from here to the moon. But so what?


I disagree. A transmission line that long would have so much resistive
loss, that it wouldn't in any way function as a "well behaved"
transmission line. It is a common misconception that a long, long,
speaker line would have "transmission line" characteristics, at audio
frequencies.


Your model fails on several fronts: you have utterly failed to show
that your models predict actual physical behavior better than other
models, you have selected a completely unrealistic, pathological case
that, by your own admission "barely fits" the model.

Oh really! Please show me mathematically where my theory fails. Thank
you in advance.


Bob Stanton

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message

No, YOU are the one, Mr. Stanton, who is championing it's use
in an application for which it was not designed. It is therefore
YOUR model. YOU made it that way, thus it's up to YOU to prove its
efficiacy for the use YOU are claiming.

To date, you have not provided a single shred of measured data that
supports your claim.



That right, I don't have any measured data. Perhaps you could grab
some cable from your junk box, and grace us with some measurements.



Yes, you are right, it's in every RF text book.

Why isn't it in every electrical engineering text book that does NOT
deal with RF?


The Smith Chart is for solving transmission line problems. Only RF and
video people deal with transmission lines on a regular basis. So, why
would other areas of electrical engineering care about Smith Charts?


Mr. Stanton, your dishonest misrepresentations are showing again.
Please do not lie about what I said. Here is EXACTLY what I said:

"Until such time as you check those answers against the real
physical behavior in a way that is clear, unambiguous,
consistent and predictive, your models are worthless."


Dick, you also said: "It shows you have a model of a physical
phenomenon that gives an answer that satisfies you." (You forgot that
part.)

I interpeted your words to mean you doubted the accuracy of the model
I used (the Smith Chart). But, now that we both agree the Smith Chart
is accurate, let us go on.

Now, Mr. Stanton, that's very different tha what you're implying,
isn't it. Since YOU haven't shown us ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE to show that YOUR use of a Smith chart is appropriate for
an application for which it was not design, YOUR use stands completely
unsubstantiated and, until YOU come up with the supporting evidence,
it's no more useful than any other model which has NO supporting
evidence.

:-)I get a kick out of some of your comments. :-) Now calm down boy,
calm down! Relax, take a deep breath and count to ten.

So far, all I have done is propose a theory. I have referred to some
well known facts about transmission lines, and I have drawn some
conclusions from those facts. Anyone in this group is free to show
where I might be wrong. When I'm wrong I sometimes even admit it.
(rarely)

You are becoming well known in your own right of using models without
ever taking ANY effort of seeing whether they work or not.


I do model a lot of stuff. No, I don't run tests to see whether my
models work. (I'll leave that up to you Dick.) Since I have almost
100% comfidence in my models, why should I test them?


Mr. Stanton, who uses 100 foot long speaker cables in their home?

Bill Gates?

What sort of idiotic nonsense is that?

Actually, many PA applications require long runs to the speakers. PA
people are also concerned with power loss in cables.


I don't think anyone disagrees
that there are significant transmission line effects at 10 Hz with
speaker cables stretched from here to the moon. But so what?


I disagree. A transmission line that long would have so much resistive
loss, that it wouldn't in any way function as a "well behaved"
transmission line. It is a common misconception that a long, long,
speaker line would have "transmission line" characteristics, at audio
frequencies.


Your model fails on several fronts: you have utterly failed to show
that your models predict actual physical behavior better than other
models, you have selected a completely unrealistic, pathological case
that, by your own admission "barely fits" the model.

Oh really! Please show me mathematically where my theory fails. Thank
you in advance.


Bob Stanton

Per Stromgren wrote in message . ..
On 10 Nov 2003 17:21:37 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:



Well, being in "every RF text book" tells us something, does it not?

Yes.

Radio frequency techniques can not automatically be applied to the
snail pace of audio frequencies.

Yes.

If you still think that the
transmission line model can be applied to AF, please show us some
reference that supports you. Because all sources I (and I suppose many
others here) have seen indicates the opposite to what you say.


Your agrument is called: appeal to authority. Sometimes, if someone
has no logical way of proving his point, he cites an authortiy. What
you should do is, tell us *why* the authority you cited said what he
said.


For someone with a hammer, everything looks like nails!


(I prefer a screw gun myself.) :-)

Just because someone argues only one side of an issue, does not
automatically mean he is unobjective.

Bob Stanton

Per Stromgren wrote in message . ..
On 10 Nov 2003 17:21:37 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:



Well, being in "every RF text book" tells us something, does it not?

Yes.

Radio frequency techniques can not automatically be applied to the
snail pace of audio frequencies.

Yes.

If you still think that the
transmission line model can be applied to AF, please show us some
reference that supports you. Because all sources I (and I suppose many
others here) have seen indicates the opposite to what you say.


Your agrument is called: appeal to authority. Sometimes, if someone
has no logical way of proving his point, he cites an authortiy. What
you should do is, tell us *why* the authority you cited said what he
said.


For someone with a hammer, everything looks like nails!


(I prefer a screw gun myself.) :-)

Just because someone argues only one side of an issue, does not
automatically mean he is unobjective.

Bob Stanton

On 12 Nov 2003 03:22:13 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:


Well, being in "every RF text book" tells us something, does it not?

Yes.

And what does it tell you? It tells me that the Smith Chart may be a
clever way to solve a computational *RF* problem, at least when we had
no better alternatives than slide rules and log books. Perhaps there
are better ways nowadays, who knows?


Radio frequency techniques can not automatically be applied to the
snail pace of audio frequencies.

Yes.

Right. So why do you suggest we do use this method, then? Because you
say so?


If you still think that the
transmission line model can be applied to AF, please show us some
reference that supports you. Because all sources I (and I suppose many
others here) have seen indicates the opposite to what you say.


Your agrument is called: appeal to authority. Sometimes, if someone
has no logical way of proving his point, he cites an authortiy. What
you should do is, tell us *why* the authority you cited said what he
said.

OK. What do you want me to do in order to convince you? Citing sources
won't do, abvoiusly. Is there any experiment result that would show
you that you are wrong?

As you know, our dialog is classical. You say A. I say: A is not what
a lot ofther people say. You say: prove that the others are right. Why
should I? Isn't you the one who ought to prove "the others" wrong?

Your turn. (I think I know the next step.)

Just because someone argues only one side of an issue, does not
automatically mean he is unobjective.

Sure.


Bob Stanton

Per.

On 12 Nov 2003 03:22:13 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:


Well, being in "every RF text book" tells us something, does it not?

Yes.

And what does it tell you? It tells me that the Smith Chart may be a
clever way to solve a computational *RF* problem, at least when we had
no better alternatives than slide rules and log books. Perhaps there
are better ways nowadays, who knows?


Radio frequency techniques can not automatically be applied to the
snail pace of audio frequencies.

Yes.

Right. So why do you suggest we do use this method, then? Because you
say so?


If you still think that the
transmission line model can be applied to AF, please show us some
reference that supports you. Because all sources I (and I suppose many
others here) have seen indicates the opposite to what you say.


Your agrument is called: appeal to authority. Sometimes, if someone
has no logical way of proving his point, he cites an authortiy. What
you should do is, tell us *why* the authority you cited said what he
said.

OK. What do you want me to do in order to convince you? Citing sources
won't do, abvoiusly. Is there any experiment result that would show
you that you are wrong?

As you know, our dialog is classical. You say A. I say: A is not what
a lot ofther people say. You say: prove that the others are right. Why
should I? Isn't you the one who ought to prove "the others" wrong?

Your turn. (I think I know the next step.)

Just because someone argues only one side of an issue, does not
automatically mean he is unobjective.

Sure.


Bob Stanton

Per.

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Dick Pierce) wrote in message

No, YOU are the one, Mr. Stanton, who is championing it's use
in an application for which it was not designed. It is therefore
YOUR model. YOU made it that way, thus it's up to YOU to prove its
efficiacy for the use YOU are claiming.

To date, you have not provided a single shred of measured data that
supports your claim.

That right, I don't have any measured data. Perhaps you could grab
some cable from your junk box, and grace us with some measurements.

Mr. STanton, it's not my job or anyone else's to do YOUR work
for you. YOU are the one making the claim, YOU are the one who
has utterly failed to to provide ANY evidence for your claim.

Yes, you are right, it's in every RF text book.

Why isn't it in every electrical engineering text book that does NOT
deal with RF?

The Smith Chart is for solving transmission line problems. Only RF and
video people deal with transmission lines on a regular basis. So, why
would other areas of electrical engineering care about Smith Charts?

Because, by your own admission, they don't apply.

Mr. Stanton, your dishonest misrepresentations are showing again.
Please do not lie about what I said. Here is EXACTLY what I said:

"Until such time as you check those answers against the real
physical behavior in a way that is clear, unambiguous,
consistent and predictive, your models are worthless."


Dick, you also said: "It shows you have a model of a physical
phenomenon that gives an answer that satisfies you." (You forgot that
part.)
I interpeted your words to mean you doubted the accuracy of the model
I used (the Smith Chart).

Your interpretation is either wrong or dishonest.

But, now that we both agree the Smith Chart is accurate, let us go on.

No, once again, you are being out and out dishonest. I never
agreed with anything at all. And, until YOU provide evidence
supporting your claim, YOU are unable to go on.

I do model a lot of stuff. No, I don't run tests to see whether my
models work. (I'll leave that up to you Dick.)

Wrong, it's up to YOU.

Since I have almost 100% comfidence in my models, why should
I test them?

Since the Roman Catholic Church had 100% confidence in their
model of the universe with the earth at the center and all else
moving around it in harmonic spheres, why should HEY test them?

Mr. Stanton, who uses 100 foot long speaker cables in their home?

Bill Gates?

Wow, talk about itotic appeal to authority!

I don't think anyone disagrees
that there are significant transmission line effects at 10 Hz with
speaker cables stretched from here to the moon. But so what?

I disagree. A transmission line that long would have so much resistive
loss, that it wouldn't in any way function as a "well behaved"
transmission line. It is a common misconception that a long, long,
speaker line would have "transmission line" characteristics, at audio
frequencies.

So, let's summarize your extraordinary claims, which seem to
have gelled into two major points:

1. Very short speaker wires, like 10 feet, MUCH shorter than a
wavelength, DO behave like tyransmission lines

2. Very long speaker wires MUCH longer than a wavelength, DO NOT
behave like transmission lines.

Your model fails on several fronts: you have utterly failed to show
that your models predict actual physical behavior better than other
models, you have selected a completely unrealistic, pathological case
that, by your own admission "barely fits" the model.

Oh really! Please show me mathematically where my theory fails. Thank
you in advance.

As you, thus far, have completely failed to show where your theory
DOES work, there's no work for ANYONE else top do.

You have admitted that at 100 feet, your theory "barely" works.

You have admitted you have NO evidence to support your theory.

You have admitted that you have total confidence in your theory
irrespective of your complete lack of supporting data.

Gee, golly, Mr. Stnton, it seems you have left NOTHING left for
anyone else to do on your theory.

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
(Dick Pierce) wrote in message

No, YOU are the one, Mr. Stanton, who is championing it's use
in an application for which it was not designed. It is therefore
YOUR model. YOU made it that way, thus it's up to YOU to prove its
efficiacy for the use YOU are claiming.

To date, you have not provided a single shred of measured data that
supports your claim.

That right, I don't have any measured data. Perhaps you could grab
some cable from your junk box, and grace us with some measurements.

Mr. STanton, it's not my job or anyone else's to do YOUR work
for you. YOU are the one making the claim, YOU are the one who
has utterly failed to to provide ANY evidence for your claim.

Yes, you are right, it's in every RF text book.

Why isn't it in every electrical engineering text book that does NOT
deal with RF?

The Smith Chart is for solving transmission line problems. Only RF and
video people deal with transmission lines on a regular basis. So, why
would other areas of electrical engineering care about Smith Charts?

Because, by your own admission, they don't apply.

Mr. Stanton, your dishonest misrepresentations are showing again.
Please do not lie about what I said. Here is EXACTLY what I said:

"Until such time as you check those answers against the real
physical behavior in a way that is clear, unambiguous,
consistent and predictive, your models are worthless."


Dick, you also said: "It shows you have a model of a physical
phenomenon that gives an answer that satisfies you." (You forgot that
part.)
I interpeted your words to mean you doubted the accuracy of the model
I used (the Smith Chart).

Your interpretation is either wrong or dishonest.

But, now that we both agree the Smith Chart is accurate, let us go on.

No, once again, you are being out and out dishonest. I never
agreed with anything at all. And, until YOU provide evidence
supporting your claim, YOU are unable to go on.

I do model a lot of stuff. No, I don't run tests to see whether my
models work. (I'll leave that up to you Dick.)

Wrong, it's up to YOU.

Since I have almost 100% comfidence in my models, why should
I test them?

Since the Roman Catholic Church had 100% confidence in their
model of the universe with the earth at the center and all else
moving around it in harmonic spheres, why should HEY test them?

Mr. Stanton, who uses 100 foot long speaker cables in their home?

Bill Gates?

Wow, talk about itotic appeal to authority!

I don't think anyone disagrees
that there are significant transmission line effects at 10 Hz with
speaker cables stretched from here to the moon. But so what?

I disagree. A transmission line that long would have so much resistive
loss, that it wouldn't in any way function as a "well behaved"
transmission line. It is a common misconception that a long, long,
speaker line would have "transmission line" characteristics, at audio
frequencies.

So, let's summarize your extraordinary claims, which seem to
have gelled into two major points:

1. Very short speaker wires, like 10 feet, MUCH shorter than a
wavelength, DO behave like tyransmission lines

2. Very long speaker wires MUCH longer than a wavelength, DO NOT
behave like transmission lines.

Your model fails on several fronts: you have utterly failed to show
that your models predict actual physical behavior better than other
models, you have selected a completely unrealistic, pathological case
that, by your own admission "barely fits" the model.

Oh really! Please show me mathematically where my theory fails. Thank
you in advance.

As you, thus far, have completely failed to show where your theory
DOES work, there's no work for ANYONE else top do.

You have admitted that at 100 feet, your theory "barely" works.

You have admitted you have NO evidence to support your theory.

You have admitted that you have total confidence in your theory
irrespective of your complete lack of supporting data.

Gee, golly, Mr. Stnton, it seems you have left NOTHING left for
anyone else to do on your theory.

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
Per Stromgren wrote in message . ..
If you still think that the
transmission line model can be applied to AF, please show us some
reference that supports you. Because all sources I (and I suppose many
others here) have seen indicates the opposite to what you say.

Your agrument is called: appeal to authority. Sometimes, if someone
has no logical way of proving his point, he cites an authortiy.

It should be noted that it was Mr. Stanton who cited "Bill Gates" as
supporting evidence of his 100 foot speaker cable assertion.

It should be noted that Mr. Stanton who stated that the Smith chart is
found in every RF book.

It should be noted that Mr. Stanton, who just now suggested that
Mr. Stromgren is using appeal to authority as an argument has used
this very same appeal to authority as one of the underpinnings of
his premise, but has yet to, in fact, show that his "authority" is
applicable.

It should ALSO be noted that someone who could be considered something
of a real authority, Winfield Hill, in essence told Mr. Stanton his
premise was invalid.

What you should do is, tell us *why* the authority you cited said what he
said.

No, Mr. Stanton, this is what YOU should do.

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
Per Stromgren wrote in message . ..
If you still think that the
transmission line model can be applied to AF, please show us some
reference that supports you. Because all sources I (and I suppose many
others here) have seen indicates the opposite to what you say.

Your agrument is called: appeal to authority. Sometimes, if someone
has no logical way of proving his point, he cites an authortiy.

It should be noted that it was Mr. Stanton who cited "Bill Gates" as
supporting evidence of his 100 foot speaker cable assertion.

It should be noted that Mr. Stanton who stated that the Smith chart is
found in every RF book.

It should be noted that Mr. Stanton, who just now suggested that
Mr. Stromgren is using appeal to authority as an argument has used
this very same appeal to authority as one of the underpinnings of
his premise, but has yet to, in fact, show that his "authority" is
applicable.

It should ALSO be noted that someone who could be considered something
of a real authority, Winfield Hill, in essence told Mr. Stanton his
premise was invalid.

What you should do is, tell us *why* the authority you cited said what he
said.

No, Mr. Stanton, this is what YOU should do.

"Ian" wrote in message ...
"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
m...

snip
Bob Stanton

Oh dear, lots of heat, not much light ;-)

Did you want light (enlightment)? You are the first person who has
asked. :-)


The Smith Chart was introduced as a convenient visual method to
avoid some tedious math. It is the equivalent of a slide rule.


Of course the Smith Chart is not as accurate as doing the math. I
actually did do the math, but that would be too tedious and hard to
explain on this forum. So I thought, I'll use the Smith Chart! It's a
relativly simple, graphical way to show how a transmission line works.

The original question was "How to measure speaker cable inductance
and capacitance?"

Get hold of an LCR meter. Short (connect together live and ground at
the far end of the cable), select "Inductance" on the LCR meter, and
measure the inductance (to be picky, try and use an LCR meter that
does the test in the audio range - ISTR the Wayne Kerr boxes used
something like 1571Hz (extra credit if you can work out why ;-)).


My guess is: "1571" was Waynes' lucky number?


Select "Resistance"on the meter. Measure DC resistance.

Open circuit the far end of the speaker cable, select "Capacitance"
on the LCR meter, measure capacitance.

Now, work out the loss at 20kHz from a low impedance source
of the (lumped element) network you have measured into an 8/4 ohm
(whatever) load.


OK lets do it! I did a Google search and found Belden, and BRTB
Canada, specified loss for 100 ft of 12 gage speaker cable. Belden
specs stated 11% or 0.5 dB loss for 140 ft of Brillance cable. That
seems a little too low. BRTB Canada gave 12.21% loss, with a 4 Ohm
load, for 100 ft, 12 gage, premium speaker cable. I'll use the lossier
BRTB specification:
12.21% = 0.6 dB loss.

The Inductance of 12 gage is 0.2uH/ft or 20 uH for 100 ft.
BRTB spec for capacitance was 27.4 pF/ft (2740 pF for 100 ft).
R= 0.002 Ohms/ft

Now lets make a discrete component model:

--------20 uH ------0.2 Ohms------------
| | |
Source 2740 pf 4 Ohms
| | |
-----------------------------------------

What did you get for loss, at 20 Khz? I got -1.77 dB.




Pretty low, huh? That says the "lumped" approximation is just fine.


No. I'd say not low enough. BRTB specs said 0.6 dB loss.


Now lets do a (crude) transmission line model:


----- 0.2 Ohms-------| 100ft, 86 Ohm, t-line |---
| |
Source 4 Ohms
| |
-------------------------------------------------

I got -0.7 dB.

The transmission line model's results are quite a bit closer to the
manufactures specification. Not only did the lumped element model not
work very accurately, but the transmission line model (which some say
doesn't work at 20 KHz) gave close results.



Incidentally, this is sometimes used by _very_ reputable RF cable
manufacturers to check the characteristic impedances of their cables
(the extra measurement needed is with a ruler).


RF cable manufactures use either a return loss bridge, or a network
analyzer to measure RF cable impedance (return loss).

Regards,

Bob Stanton

"Ian" wrote in message ...
"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
m...

snip
Bob Stanton

Oh dear, lots of heat, not much light ;-)

Did you want light (enlightment)? You are the first person who has
asked. :-)


The Smith Chart was introduced as a convenient visual method to
avoid some tedious math. It is the equivalent of a slide rule.


Of course the Smith Chart is not as accurate as doing the math. I
actually did do the math, but that would be too tedious and hard to
explain on this forum. So I thought, I'll use the Smith Chart! It's a
relativly simple, graphical way to show how a transmission line works.

The original question was "How to measure speaker cable inductance
and capacitance?"

Get hold of an LCR meter. Short (connect together live and ground at
the far end of the cable), select "Inductance" on the LCR meter, and
measure the inductance (to be picky, try and use an LCR meter that
does the test in the audio range - ISTR the Wayne Kerr boxes used
something like 1571Hz (extra credit if you can work out why ;-)).


My guess is: "1571" was Waynes' lucky number?


Select "Resistance"on the meter. Measure DC resistance.

Open circuit the far end of the speaker cable, select "Capacitance"
on the LCR meter, measure capacitance.

Now, work out the loss at 20kHz from a low impedance source
of the (lumped element) network you have measured into an 8/4 ohm
(whatever) load.


OK lets do it! I did a Google search and found Belden, and BRTB
Canada, specified loss for 100 ft of 12 gage speaker cable. Belden
specs stated 11% or 0.5 dB loss for 140 ft of Brillance cable. That
seems a little too low. BRTB Canada gave 12.21% loss, with a 4 Ohm
load, for 100 ft, 12 gage, premium speaker cable. I'll use the lossier
BRTB specification:
12.21% = 0.6 dB loss.

The Inductance of 12 gage is 0.2uH/ft or 20 uH for 100 ft.
BRTB spec for capacitance was 27.4 pF/ft (2740 pF for 100 ft).
R= 0.002 Ohms/ft

Now lets make a discrete component model:

--------20 uH ------0.2 Ohms------------
| | |
Source 2740 pf 4 Ohms
| | |
-----------------------------------------

What did you get for loss, at 20 Khz? I got -1.77 dB.




Pretty low, huh? That says the "lumped" approximation is just fine.


No. I'd say not low enough. BRTB specs said 0.6 dB loss.


Now lets do a (crude) transmission line model:


----- 0.2 Ohms-------| 100ft, 86 Ohm, t-line |---
| |
Source 4 Ohms
| |
-------------------------------------------------

I got -0.7 dB.

The transmission line model's results are quite a bit closer to the
manufactures specification. Not only did the lumped element model not
work very accurately, but the transmission line model (which some say
doesn't work at 20 KHz) gave close results.



Incidentally, this is sometimes used by _very_ reputable RF cable
manufacturers to check the characteristic impedances of their cables
(the extra measurement needed is with a ruler).


RF cable manufactures use either a return loss bridge, or a network
analyzer to measure RF cable impedance (return loss).

Regards,

Bob Stanton

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
"Ian" wrote in message ...
"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
m...

snip
Bob Stanton

Oh dear, lots of heat, not much light ;-)

Did you want light (enlightment)? You are the first person who has
asked. :-)

In your view, at any rate. Since when have you introduced any'light to
the argument in the apparently unheard of form of supporting
measurements?

does the test in the audio range - ISTR the Wayne Kerr boxes used
something like 1571Hz (extra credit if you can work out why ;-)).

My guess is: "1571" was Waynes' lucky number?

Yes, that's a guess, and it would be wrong.

Hint, divide 1571 by 2 pi and see what it gives you.

Try to figure out why one would do that with a frequency.

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...
"Ian" wrote in message ...
"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
m...

snip
Bob Stanton

Oh dear, lots of heat, not much light ;-)

Did you want light (enlightment)? You are the first person who has
asked. :-)

In your view, at any rate. Since when have you introduced any'light to
the argument in the apparently unheard of form of supporting
measurements?

does the test in the audio range - ISTR the Wayne Kerr boxes used
something like 1571Hz (extra credit if you can work out why ;-)).

My guess is: "1571" was Waynes' lucky number?

Yes, that's a guess, and it would be wrong.

Hint, divide 1571 by 2 pi and see what it gives you.

Try to figure out why one would do that with a frequency.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message
. com...
"Ian" wrote in message
...
"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
m...

snip
Bob Stanton

snip

does the test in the audio range - ISTR the Wayne Kerr boxes used
something like 1571Hz (extra credit if you can work out why ;-)).

My guess is: "1571" was Waynes' lucky number?

Yes, that's a guess, and it would be wrong.

Hint, divide 1571 by 2 pi and see what it gives you.

Try to figure out why one would do that with a frequency.

Now, why am I not surprised at these two answers?

Regards
Ian

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message
. com...
"Ian" wrote in message
...
"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
m...

snip
Bob Stanton

snip

does the test in the audio range - ISTR the Wayne Kerr boxes used
something like 1571Hz (extra credit if you can work out why ;-)).

My guess is: "1571" was Waynes' lucky number?

Yes, that's a guess, and it would be wrong.

Hint, divide 1571 by 2 pi and see what it gives you.

Try to figure out why one would do that with a frequency.

Now, why am I not surprised at these two answers?

Regards
Ian

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message


Mr. STanton, it's not my job or anyone else's to do YOUR work
for you. YOU are the one making the claim, YOU are the one who
has utterly failed to to provide ANY evidence for your claim.


I thought, if you were interested in the subject, you might make the
effort.



Because, by your own admission, they don't apply.


I think they *do* apply, but I won't be dogmatic about it without
supporting physical evidence.


But, now that we both agree the Smith Chart is accurate, let us go on.

No, once again, you are being out and out dishonest. I never
agreed with anything at all. And, until YOU provide evidence
supporting your claim, YOU are unable to go on.


Well, do you agree or don't you?


I do model a lot of stuff. No, I don't run tests to see whether my
models work. (I'll leave that up to you Dick.)

Wrong, it's up to YOU.


*You* made the assertion that certain models don't work. The burden
of proof is on you.



Since I have almost 100% comfidence in my models, why should
I test them?

Since the Roman Catholic Church had 100% confidence in their
model of the universe with the earth at the center and all else
moving around it in harmonic spheres, why should THEY test them?


I agree with them.


Mr. Stanton, who uses 100 foot long speaker cables in their home?

Bill Gates?

Wow, talk about itotic appeal to authority!


No, I just figured that Bill Gates would have a very, very, large
living room. :-)




I don't think anyone disagrees
that there are significant transmission line effects at 10 Hz with
speaker cables stretched from here to the moon. But so what?

I disagree. A transmission line that long would have so much resistive
loss, that it wouldn't in any way function as a "well behaved"
transmission line. It is a common misconception that a long, long,
speaker line would have "transmission line" characteristics, at audio
frequencies.

So, let's summarize your extraordinary claims, which seem to
have gelled into two major points:

1. Very short speaker wires, like 10 feet, MUCH shorter than a
wavelength, DO behave like tyransmission lines




Let me try to explain this again.

Any two wire line will be a "transmission line" if the resistance/ft
is much lower than the XL/ft. You suggested (wrongly) that a long
line, at 10 Hz, would be a transmission line. The XL(inductive
reactance) of 12 gage cable is only 0.00001 Ohms/ft at 10 Hz. That XL
is much lower than the resistance/ft. The line will not be a
transmission line, at 10 Hz, no matter what it's length.



2. Very long speaker wires MUCH longer than a wavelength, DO NOT
behave like transmission lines.


That right, if the resistance/ft is too high, it will be only a
"line".



As you, thus far, have completely failed to show where your theory
DOES work,....


You thus far, have completely failed to show much comprehension. If
you are going to disagree with someone, you should at least know what
you are talking about.


You have admitted that at 100 feet, your theory "barely" works.


I didn't say a 100 ft line "barely" works. I said basically, that 20
KHz is probably the lower frequency limit for "transmission line"
behavior.



You have admitted you have NO evidence to support your theory.


I have presented well known transmission line formulas. Don't you
accept them as "evidence"? Do you understand them?


You have admitted that you have total confidence in your theory ....


I guess I just a *comfident* guy!


Gee, golly, Mr. Stnton, it seems you have left NOTHING left for
anyone else to do on your theory.

Thre is one thing left. You might try disproving it, if you are able.


Bob Stanton

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message


Mr. STanton, it's not my job or anyone else's to do YOUR work
for you. YOU are the one making the claim, YOU are the one who
has utterly failed to to provide ANY evidence for your claim.


I thought, if you were interested in the subject, you might make the
effort.



Because, by your own admission, they don't apply.


I think they *do* apply, but I won't be dogmatic about it without
supporting physical evidence.


But, now that we both agree the Smith Chart is accurate, let us go on.

No, once again, you are being out and out dishonest. I never
agreed with anything at all. And, until YOU provide evidence
supporting your claim, YOU are unable to go on.


Well, do you agree or don't you?


I do model a lot of stuff. No, I don't run tests to see whether my
models work. (I'll leave that up to you Dick.)

Wrong, it's up to YOU.


*You* made the assertion that certain models don't work. The burden
of proof is on you.



Since I have almost 100% comfidence in my models, why should
I test them?

Since the Roman Catholic Church had 100% confidence in their
model of the universe with the earth at the center and all else
moving around it in harmonic spheres, why should THEY test them?


I agree with them.


Mr. Stanton, who uses 100 foot long speaker cables in their home?

Bill Gates?

Wow, talk about itotic appeal to authority!


No, I just figured that Bill Gates would have a very, very, large
living room. :-)




I don't think anyone disagrees
that there are significant transmission line effects at 10 Hz with
speaker cables stretched from here to the moon. But so what?

I disagree. A transmission line that long would have so much resistive
loss, that it wouldn't in any way function as a "well behaved"
transmission line. It is a common misconception that a long, long,
speaker line would have "transmission line" characteristics, at audio
frequencies.

So, let's summarize your extraordinary claims, which seem to
have gelled into two major points:

1. Very short speaker wires, like 10 feet, MUCH shorter than a
wavelength, DO behave like tyransmission lines




Let me try to explain this again.

Any two wire line will be a "transmission line" if the resistance/ft
is much lower than the XL/ft. You suggested (wrongly) that a long
line, at 10 Hz, would be a transmission line. The XL(inductive
reactance) of 12 gage cable is only 0.00001 Ohms/ft at 10 Hz. That XL
is much lower than the resistance/ft. The line will not be a
transmission line, at 10 Hz, no matter what it's length.



2. Very long speaker wires MUCH longer than a wavelength, DO NOT
behave like transmission lines.


That right, if the resistance/ft is too high, it will be only a
"line".



As you, thus far, have completely failed to show where your theory
DOES work,....


You thus far, have completely failed to show much comprehension. If
you are going to disagree with someone, you should at least know what
you are talking about.


You have admitted that at 100 feet, your theory "barely" works.


I didn't say a 100 ft line "barely" works. I said basically, that 20
KHz is probably the lower frequency limit for "transmission line"
behavior.



You have admitted you have NO evidence to support your theory.


I have presented well known transmission line formulas. Don't you
accept them as "evidence"? Do you understand them?


You have admitted that you have total confidence in your theory ....


I guess I just a *comfident* guy!


Gee, golly, Mr. Stnton, it seems you have left NOTHING left for
anyone else to do on your theory.

Thre is one thing left. You might try disproving it, if you are able.


Bob Stanton

Bob-Stanton wrote:

...snips..

Somehow you guys seem to keep poking sticks in each other's
cages. I don't see that any of this hand waving will get you out of
this poking match.

First I'd like to pose the question: with the thousands of components
and feet of wire that audio goes through between the recorded source
and the playback system (including room acoustic effects) why are
people so passionate about the few feet of speaker cable?


Let me try to explain this again.

Any two wire line will be a "transmission line" if the resistance/ft
is much lower than the XL/ft. You suggested (wrongly) that a long
line, at 10 Hz, would be a transmission line. The XL(inductive
reactance) of 12 gage cable is only 0.00001 Ohms/ft at 10 Hz. That XL
is much lower than the resistance/ft. The line will not be a
transmission line, at 10 Hz, no matter what it's length.


Ummm, why? What's the magic about the reactance to resistance ratio
that makes "any two wire line" a transmission line? Seems to me you only
made a statement rather than an explanation.


2. Very long speaker wires MUCH longer than a wavelength, DO NOT
behave like transmission lines.


That right, if the resistance/ft is too high, it will be only a
"line".


[ see "Ummm" above... ]


You have admitted that at 100 feet, your theory "barely" works.


I didn't say a 100 ft line "barely" works. I said basically, that 20
KHz is probably the lower frequency limit for "transmission line"
behavior.

And we're still only talking about fractions of a dB difference ...at high
frequencies. Heck, opening the curtains or another person in the room
likely has more impact on the sound...

How does anyone know what may have been heard when recording
and mixing the sound...

[ returning to lurking mode ]

Ron Capik
--

Bob-Stanton wrote:

...snips..

Somehow you guys seem to keep poking sticks in each other's
cages. I don't see that any of this hand waving will get you out of
this poking match.

First I'd like to pose the question: with the thousands of components
and feet of wire that audio goes through between the recorded source
and the playback system (including room acoustic effects) why are
people so passionate about the few feet of speaker cable?


Let me try to explain this again.

Any two wire line will be a "transmission line" if the resistance/ft
is much lower than the XL/ft. You suggested (wrongly) that a long
line, at 10 Hz, would be a transmission line. The XL(inductive
reactance) of 12 gage cable is only 0.00001 Ohms/ft at 10 Hz. That XL
is much lower than the resistance/ft. The line will not be a
transmission line, at 10 Hz, no matter what it's length.


Ummm, why? What's the magic about the reactance to resistance ratio
that makes "any two wire line" a transmission line? Seems to me you only
made a statement rather than an explanation.


2. Very long speaker wires MUCH longer than a wavelength, DO NOT
behave like transmission lines.


That right, if the resistance/ft is too high, it will be only a
"line".


[ see "Ummm" above... ]


You have admitted that at 100 feet, your theory "barely" works.


I didn't say a 100 ft line "barely" works. I said basically, that 20
KHz is probably the lower frequency limit for "transmission line"
behavior.

And we're still only talking about fractions of a dB difference ...at high
frequencies. Heck, opening the curtains or another person in the room
likely has more impact on the sound...

How does anyone know what may have been heard when recording
and mixing the sound...

[ returning to lurking mode ]

Ron Capik
--

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:05:47 GMT, Ron Capik wrote:
Bob-Stanton wrote:

...snips..

Somehow you guys seem to keep poking sticks in each other's
cages. I don't see that any of this hand waving will get you out of
this poking match.

First I'd like to pose the question: with the thousands of components
and feet of wire that audio goes through between the recorded source
and the playback system (including room acoustic effects) why are
people so passionate about the few feet of speaker cable?

It is something that is visible. These are the same idiots who'll spend
$1000 on a 2' cable while ignoring all the other connections internal to
their equipment, or who'll spend $400 on a power cord to connect to
2 miles of plain power wiring.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:05:47 GMT, Ron Capik wrote:
Bob-Stanton wrote:

...snips..

Somehow you guys seem to keep poking sticks in each other's
cages. I don't see that any of this hand waving will get you out of
this poking match.

First I'd like to pose the question: with the thousands of components
and feet of wire that audio goes through between the recorded source
and the playback system (including room acoustic effects) why are
people so passionate about the few feet of speaker cable?

It is something that is visible. These are the same idiots who'll spend
$1000 on a 2' cable while ignoring all the other connections internal to
their equipment, or who'll spend $400 on a power cord to connect to
2 miles of plain power wiring.

Per Stromgren wrote in message

And what does it tell you? It tells me that the Smith Chart may be a
clever way to solve a computational *RF* problem, at least when we had
no better alternatives than slide rules and log books. Perhaps there
are better ways nowadays, who knows?


The Smith Chart is based on standard transmission line theory. Like a
sliderule it has limited accuracy. A sliderule may tell you that 2
times 3 is: 5.99, but we know it is based on sound priciples. The
Smith Chart is slightly inaccurate also. But, just like as the
sliderule, its fundamentals are valid.



Radio frequency techniques can not automatically be applied to the
snail pace of audio frequencies.

Yes.

Right. So why do you suggest we do use this method, then? Because you
say so?


I'm saying a transmission line model of a two-wire line, will give
slightly more accurate results than a discrete component model.



OK. What do you want me to do in order to convince you?

Well, runing a physical test would be nice. Or you could prove from
basic theory, that small wavelength lines don't "work".


Citing sources
won't do, abvoiusly. Is there any experiment result that would show
you that you are wrong?

As you know, our dialog is classical. You say A. I say: A is not what
a lot of their people say. You say: prove that the others are right. Why
should I? Isn't you the one who ought to prove "the others" wrong?


I don't think they are wrong, I think you may be misunderstanding what
they said. You may be confusing textbook statements about transmission
lines at *low frequencies*, with transmission lines that have *small
wavelenghts*. They are not the same thing at all!


Your turn. (I think I know the next step.)


I have presented a theory based on well known facts and formulas. What
more do I need to do?

Of course being a totally objective person, and being a totally honest
person, and being ever *so* humble as well, I don't insist that
everyone agree that I am right. (Even if I am.)

Have an nice day.

Bob Stanton