In Reply to: bad science as.... posted by NonA. on March 30, 2005 at 12:40:36:
"Anybody can claim to have carried out a test. we dont even see one SEM pic of the surface which is shown to come from the chip itself. plus the origin of the test is anonymous."You're absolutely right NonA and I think it's interesting that no proponent of the chip brought that up. I seriously doubt they would have been so silent if the scan had revealed nothing but aluminum foil, but now that they know there's (oooohhhh) niobium in it, suddenly my anonymous test has validity. Quite the scientific method eh? You're completely justified in questiong the scan, hell, I wouldn't believe it either...unless of course it showed nothing but aluminum foil:-) But it's real, and you could easily verify the results from an independent lab of your choice if you're so inclined. I can suggest a company if you need one, but they'll charge you 150 bucks an hour for the SEM. The machine used for this analysis was an AMR1000 and there's no pictures because we didn't make any. All the data was simply displayed on a crt as a graph with the appropriate spikes (actually off the charts for the Ni and Cu) with a tag displayed identifying the element. Keep in mind that this was done as a favor, and I simply asked for the composition of the disc and nothing more. The relative quantities of Nb to Ni suggests that it's just an alloying element and a scan of the sides apparently did not show any more that the two layers. IOW, there's no meat in the sandwich, just bread:-) Oh, and sorry for calling the disc a dot, that must have been confusing.
The effort in doing all this was simply to establish the content of the disc and I was fully aware that we weren't going to find any quantum material with the scan. I was surprised that there was more than the drop from a punch press making holes in shim stock though. I'm sure if I were honest about it, I was secretly hoping to see Alcoa written acoss them...heh heh...but the bottom line of course, in relation to the uhhhh, discussion about the chip, is whether or not there's a quantum dot somewhere in the whole mess. It's pretty rediculous to run around arguing about quantum theory when the most funadamental question hasn't been, and can't be, answered by those hawking the chip. No one on this board who's selling, shilling, or honestly supporting the thing, can even tell us what the disc is made of, let alone tell us whether there actually IS A QUANTUM DOT in it to begin with.
I'm not a scientist, I don't have any degrees, I only know what I know about quantum dots and quantum theory from Google, and I think most audiophiles are nuckin' futs:-) But it really doesn't take a physicist to realize that until you know there IS A QUANTUM DOT in the chip, any speculation about how quantum mechanics may affect your cds is pointless...unless you just sell them, I guess. I don't know about you, but if I wanted to sell QD's and sell them honestly, I'd expect the usual miles of certs and paper trails that would naturally accompany products at this level of technology. Who in their right mind would order a bunch of quantum dots in a Ni/Cu sandwhich without proof that the QD was in there? I mean, it's not like you can tell from looking at them:-)
Anyway NonA, glad to see some common sense about my anonymous test. It wasn't meant to debunk anything btw, I was genuinely curious about it. I had listened to treated cds and heard no differences and I cross paths routinely with people that have access to and make a living at metals testing at all levels. It was a natural opportunity.
Best,
AllanPS - I'm going to go ahead have some further testing done; it's been offered, so I think I'll take them up on it. Highly informal, but no less accurate, and I'll even get some pictures for you guys:-)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: bad science as.... - Allan 22:19:29 03/30/05 (46)
- Re: bad science as.... - NonA. 06:22:02 03/31/05 (0)
- Re: bad science as.... - john curl 23:18:03 03/30/05 (44)
- Re: bad science as.... - Allan 06:03:36 03/31/05 (12)
- Re: bad science as.... - Jim Willis 09:05:27 03/31/05 (1)
- ROTFLMAO!!! (nt) - Joe II-V 00:05:56 04/01/05 (0)
- Re: bad science as.... - john curl 08:47:53 03/31/05 (9)
- Re: bad science as.... - Jim Willis 09:07:05 03/31/05 (8)
- Mr. Curl has stated that Geoff Kait, Clark Johnsen and himself... - Wellfed 19:22:15 03/31/05 (7)
- Re: So far... - Jim Willis 19:46:01 03/31/05 (6)
- I believe you missed my point... - Wellfed 22:27:41 03/31/05 (1)
- Re: And I believe you missed mine... - Jim Willis 04:16:02 04/01/05 (0)
- Re: So far... - john curl 22:03:08 03/31/05 (3)
- Re: So far... - a dainty man 07:27:07 04/01/05 (1)
- Re: So far... - john curl 16:00:57 04/04/05 (0)
- Re: So far... - Joe II-V 00:11:34 04/01/05 (0)
- May be you "old guys" should retire. - Tony Montana 05:17:12 03/31/05 (30)
- god help us if the "old guys" retire - sunnysal 14:46:59 04/03/05 (1)
- Re: god help us if the "old guys" retire - john curl 14:47:56 04/05/05 (0)
- Re: May be you "old guys" should retire. - john curl 08:51:17 03/31/05 (26)
- What a load - Ken Perkins 12:06:06 03/31/05 (3)
- Re: What a load - john curl 12:58:37 03/31/05 (2)
- Re: What a load - Steve Eddy 23:28:24 03/31/05 (0)
- Re: What a load - Ken Perkins 13:08:36 03/31/05 (0)
- "We, old guys, are consultants, who tell others what to do. We don't take tech's opinions very seriously."... - NonA. 09:43:25 03/31/05 (21)
- Re: "We, old guys, are consultants, who tell others what to do. We don't take tech's opinions very seriously."... - john curl 10:27:20 03/31/05 (20)
- Re: "We, old guys, are consultants, who tell others what to do. We don't take tech's opinions very seriously."... - Dan Banquer 11:14:44 03/31/05 (19)
- Re: The pot calling the kettle black? Leaving one black and blue? - Guy 01:32:14 04/01/05 (0)
- Let's see: on one hand we have someone who knows the theories and has built things and on the other neither. How to pick - Norm 11:38:19 03/31/05 (17)
- Re: Let's see: on one hand we have someone who knows the theories and has built things and on the other neither. How to - john curl 13:45:56 03/31/05 (7)
- Re: Let's see: on one hand we have someone who knows the theories and has built things and on the other neither. How to - a dainty man 14:44:08 03/31/05 (6)
- Re: Let's see: on one hand we have someone who knows the theories and has built things and on the other neither. How to - john curl 15:33:15 03/31/05 (5)
- Something more reliable. - a dainty man 19:22:08 03/31/05 (1)
- Re: Something more reliable. - john curl 22:04:59 03/31/05 (0)
- Re: Let's see: on one hand we have someone who knows the theories and has built things and on the other neither. How to - morricab 15:41:32 03/31/05 (2)
- The placebo effect is one alternative hypothesis - Norm 16:43:04 03/31/05 (0)
- Re: Let's see: on one hand we have someone who knows the theories and has built things and on the other neither. How to - john curl 16:13:47 03/31/05 (0)
- .How about the Basics? - Dan Banquer 12:09:10 03/31/05 (8)
- Not technical innovation, just psychology - Norm 14:32:27 03/31/05 (7)
- Re: Not technical innovation, just psychology - Dan Banquer 15:48:48 03/31/05 (6)
- I am glad you understand. nt - Norm 16:44:30 03/31/05 (5)
- Re: I am glad you understand. nt - Dan Banquer 17:39:35 03/31/05 (4)
- You are asking me to believe you that I am delusional as were the 7 others in the room - Norm 18:27:25 03/31/05 (3)
- I wasn't the one asking... - Steve Eddy 23:56:09 03/31/05 (2)
- Re: I wasn't the one asking...Steve...if you hadN'T amplified... - Guy 01:26:10 04/01/05 (1)
- Try waving a chip over your monitor (nt) - pburant 06:36:05 04/01/05 (0)
- hehehe good one...nt - NonA. 06:23:26 03/31/05 (0)