Jneutron, I see you still at it. [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Jneutron, I see you still at it.



Tony_Montana
11-20-2003, 11:55 AM
Thank you for carrying the torch in the name of logic. I believe you said it all when you wrote in your post about Jon's arguments:

"IMHO, you toss way to much garbage supposition into the post, so much so, that the real issues are tossed out with all the garbage..".

Very well said. I think Jon has met his match :)

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/84839.html

jneutron
11-20-2003, 01:01 PM
Thank you for carrying the torch in the name of logic. I believe you said it all when you wrote in your post about Jon's arguments:

"IMHO, you toss way to much garbage supposition into the post, so much so, that the real issues are tossed out with all the garbage..".

Very well said. I think Jon has met his match :)

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/84839.html

It is a shame that my opinions do not carry as much weight as those of some others.. The "others", when they diss me, are just expressing opinions...while opinions of mine are considered attacks..

I was truly amazed at what he wrote with respect to electrons and wires..and I stand by my asessment of his understanding of electron conduction, lattice interaction, e/m theory, and the such..I do not know him personally, so cannot ascribe to him which of the 5 cases he falls into.

I believe he has painted himself way too far into the corner, and finds the expense of acknowledging that is too big a check to write..

I am also finding that some others there do not even understand where I'm coming from.. I do not know if it is because of the filter they are viewing through, or the medium, or my inability to adequately explain..

Oh well..

Cheers, John

FLZapped
11-20-2003, 01:07 PM
It is a shame that my opinions do not carry as much weight as those of some others.. The "others", when they diss me, are just expressing opinions...while opinions of mine are considered attacks..

I was truly amazed at what he wrote with respect to electrons and wires..and I stand by my asessment of his understanding of electron conduction, lattice interaction, e/m theory, and the such..I do not know him personally, so cannot ascribe to him which of the 5 cases he falls into.

I believe he has painted himself way too far into the corner, and finds the expense of acknowledging that is too big a check to write..

I am also finding that some others there do not even understand where I'm coming from.. I do not know if it is because of the filter they are viewing through, or the medium, or my inability to adequately explain..

Oh well..

Cheers, John

Just wait until he just decides the best argument is to erase your posting.

-Bruce

Tony_Montana
11-20-2003, 02:24 PM
I believe Jneutron is right when said that Jon has painted himself way too far into the corner. He (Jon) have a reputation to keep and alot of yeasayers and even cable companies rely on him to defend their causes. Even if it mean book burning :)

jneutron
11-21-2003, 08:54 AM
Just wait until he just decides the best argument is to erase your posting.

-Bruce

Alas, that has happened...apparently, the honeymoon is over..

Guess nobody will ever see this again:

Jneutron to Jon Risch: ""You assume incorrectly that I did not wish discussion...as is evident from the ip address above, I was not at work, but, rather, at my friend's house..

I must first, apologize for my erroneous understanding of you..

I have assumed all along that you had an even rudimentary understanding of electron conduction theory, lattice dynamics and interactions, phonon dispersion, quantum mechanics, and e/m field theory.. And, that you were simply dummying the subject down so that the less technical readers would understand the conversation..

From your last post, I have had to adjust my thinking..Oh well, I learned..

Your views on the subject at hand is consistent with the understandings of a layman, one with absolutely no experience with the subject. I have assumed all along that since you claim to be an engineer, that you would have at least been exposed to the concepts, but that is clearly not evident.

There are five distinct possibilities..

1. You are a layman, with absolutely no schooling in either lattice dynamics and conduction theory, and are just making this stuff up as you go along..

2. You have schooled as a technician, and have by way of promotion, have been deemed an engineer by your employer...I note that there are many "promoted" engineers out there who are actually very good at what they do..unfortunately, their capabilities for thinking "outside the box" are severly restricted, as they do not have the educational background to do such thinking in a clear manner. I found that such was the case when it came to sub nanosecond circuitry design..the tech-promoted to engineer ones were horribly lost and unable to understand the concepts I was using to perform tests they did not know were possible.

3..You received a degree as an EE, took this stuff, and, either did not excel in it, or lost all the knowledge due to lack of use..and I note, there are very few engineering jobs in the world where this specific knowledge is used..I am lucky in that where I work, this stuff is a way of life..(certifying my geekness).

4. You have a degree as an EE, but never were required to take these subjects. If you are indeed a degreed engineer, I would think this the most likely scenario..In looking back on my education..I recall that lattice dynamics, electron conduction, e/m theory were all electives, not core courses in the engineering program..I think dummying down the core curricula in that fashion was necessary so that the civil and mechanical engineers would survive the core, in addition to the fact that they would never need the subjects in real life..It is unfortunate that some EE's also chose not to take these subjects, shying away from them because of the compexity of the topics (the body count in those courses was high).

5. You have a degree, you understand the subject, but yet you choose to provide hugely erroneous diatribes of garbage, knowing full well that the typical non technical person would be suitably impressed with your tremendous understanding and insights..this, of course, is the ugliest scenario, and I think that is the most likely impression people who know the topic come away with...that you are preying on the lack of knowledge of everyone else to forward your position. Your last post show me, at least, that you simply do not have a rudimentary understanding..but have not let that get in the way..

I fear that the only texts I can point you to are too high a level for you to understand..I will try to find some undergrad level books that you may have a chance with, but I have found that the library at work doesn't carry such rudimentary texts..they only purchase the stuff the scientists, physicists, engineers, and post docs request..and they all have the rudimentary level stuff from their prior education..

As for discussion of possibilities?? I am always open to those..but you must understand, that when you propose possibilities that are clearly preposterous, you must be open to a discussion where I bring in the reality of physics..So far, you seem to reject every known physics concept, choosing rather, to create your own concepts, based on "what if" scenarios that have absolutely nothing to do with reality.

If you wish, I will be happy to dissect your entire post, pointing out point by point, where your assertions are preposterous and entirely erroneous..but that is too much like shooting fish in a barrel, not a path I would prefer, as it is only a waste of time..I think the time would be better spent providing you references from which you can learn the concepts I have been providing all along..

And trust me...sitting back on a couch, rain outside, glasses of wine in hand, in front of the fireplace with my girlfriend, is far more preferable to answering ridiculously incorrect pseudo-science on a CRT.. You jumped the gun in your response..as you can see.

As for your "concepts"? It is a very romantic notion, to simply ignore all of known physics, and instead, think along the "what if" lines. This entire scenario would be better played out if you first understood the concepts...then, started thinking outside the box..

Cheers, John""

A very bad post, horribly personal... if you allow ego to be the sole driving thing in your life, and stake your reputation entirely on being right.....or, if there are money issues like cable vendor advertising dollars at stake.. Rod allows his site to run his way, and I understand that.. But, the moderation evidenced is not consistent with either their mission statement, or the rules..They do have a conundrum, they do..

Ted appears caught in the middle..I wish him well, and hope he figures out what it is he stands for..it must be very interesting, knowing engineering, but being forced by position into looking the other way while the discipline of physics is tossed in the ol' crapper..

Cheers, John

Swerd
11-21-2003, 11:55 AM
It's been a long time since I devoted so much attention to the subject of Jon Risch and his claims. Frankly, I find his writing (and thinking) so difficult to follow that any message he may have usually comes out too garbled for me to understand.

To add to your comments on his apparent lack of knowledge of the electronic fields that you describe, I add my own observation that his comments about blind test methods, experimental controls, and the interpretation of results display a complete lack of understanding of statistics. I am not trained as a statistician (I'm a biochemist), but I have learned the hard way how to avoid making mistakes in data analysis that leave you open to criticism of a statistical nature. It is clear that JR never has learned that same lesson. As far as I can tell, he is just making it up as he goes along.

In addition to standard scientific education, scientists continue to learn by communicationg with colleagues about their own ideas/work. It is often a rugged process. It can be hard just to get the attention of others, much less to get them to agree with you. I think someone like JR swims in non-scientist-populated waters to avoid being bitten.

FLZapped
11-21-2003, 04:43 PM
I guess I should mention that I did an experiment to see what it would take to "motor" some wires.....well, I used some finely stranded 20 AWG wire and 750 watts later, I was able to get them to move apart about a 1/4 inch.

-Bruce

FLZapped
11-21-2003, 04:47 PM
Hi John,

I went and looked and I think that everything is still intact, as far as I can tell, anyway. I did notice that it was moved to another venue, so as not to expose the wirenuts to reality.

That point that you replied to Jon to was the one where he made the remarks about THD measurements.....he likes to use the fact that averaging is used, but as if it is a bad thing.

Of course, you have to average if you are going to measure very small amounts of distortion accurately. Averaging improves the signal to noise ratio of this steady-state condition....DUH!

If you want to measure more random events, you have to use a different measurement methodology.

That reply was erased and the thread set such that I could not go back and repost my reply. That's okay, I put a commentary about it on my webpage.

I guess I need to complete the web layout for that wonderful nail bruising experiment, huh......

-Bruce

Jon Risch
11-22-2003, 10:26 AM
Alas, that has happened...apparently, the honeymoon is over..

Guess nobody will ever see this again:

Jneutron to Jon Risch: ""You assume incorrectly that I did not wish discussion...as is evident from the ip address above, I was not at work, but, rather, at my friend's house..

I must first, apologize for my erroneous understanding of you..

I have assumed all along that you had an even rudimentary understanding of electron conduction theory, lattice dynamics and interactions, phonon dispersion, quantum mechanics, and e/m field theory.. And, that you were simply dummying the subject down so that the less technical readers would understand the conversation..



I can't believe the vicious level of personal attack and dispicable inuendo in your post. Neither could Ted. It was bad enough to post it once, but to repeat it again deliberately here, I can only conclude that all that was ever intended, despite your fine words (later on I might add), your intent was all along that of defending the cable naysayers, and tearing me down.

Your being at work had nothing to do with this, nor did your state of available leisure. You could have waited to respond, when there was time to do so civilly. Instead, you chose to attack, and then attack again, rather than enter a discourse.

Your OPINION of my level of understanding of physics, etc, is just that, an opinion, as are YOUR theories regarding how much of your high energy physics experience can translate directly to audio signal issues.
You paint your theories as facts, you paint my theories as 'garbage science'. Your lack of precison in making statements regarding EMF issues could also be taken to task, nit-picked to death, but no one has bothered to do so, including me. You have no corner on the "truth", no special advantage in understanding cable issues, certainly none with regard to high performance audio aspects.

The totally one-sided, biased, assumption-laden way in which you have responded to posts I make, whether directed to you or not, has consistently been getting more and more contentious, more and more disrespectful, and certainly more deliberate in the inuendo and implications you draw from out of NO WHERE. I have noted in the past, that the very same issues you seem compelled to take me to task over, get left alone whe a naysayer posts the same kind of issue. I think that says it all.

I can only draw the conclusion that your's is now a concerted effort to denigrate me, at every opportunity, for no reason (or any trumped up reason), as this is what your posts with regard to me have become.

I think that Garbage Logic should apply to your posts in this regard.
Many folks have seen through the BS in your posts about me, and
are amazed and dissappointed that you would take this tack, but it has become so obvious and over the top, folks could hardly fail to notice.

Shame on you John, this was not called for, it was not necessary, not even well considered on your part. You are that much less, haven taken this tack.

I will no longer reply to your posts, my replies can only be twisted and spun. I will no longer make any attempt to discuss technical issues with you, it is clear that is not possible with the agenda that exists. Pretend you are performing scientific research with your incomplete cable models, it is certain you will never find the real truth that way.
Then join the naysayers in discouraging folks from listening to high performance audio cables, that will complete your transistion to the Dark Side.

Jon Risch

FLZapped
11-22-2003, 02:26 PM
I can't believe the vicious level of personal attack and dispicable inuendo in your post. Neither could Ted. It was bad enough to post it once, but to repeat it again deliberately here, I can only conclude that all that was ever intended, despite your fine words (later on I might add), your intent was all along that of defending the cable naysayers, and tearing me down.

Well, considering in your cowardice, you abuse your position as moderator and sneak around deleting posts, it is the only way to make sure anything will be seen. In the meantime, the world is still waiting Jon, still waiting for the first shred of proof from you.


Your being at work had nothing to do with this, nor did your state of available leisure. You could have waited to respond, when there was time to do so civilly. Instead, you chose to attack, and then attack again, rather than enter a discourse.

So then why did you make the statements you did? And you have room to complain about being attacked personally?


Your OPINION of my level of understanding of physics, etc, is just that, an opinion, as are YOUR theories regarding how much of your high energy physics experience can translate directly to audio signal issues.
You paint your theories as facts, you paint my theories as 'garbage science'. Your lack of precison in making statements regarding EMF issues could also be taken to task, nit-picked to death, but no one has bothered to do so, including me. You have no corner on the "truth", no special advantage in understanding cable issues, certainly none with regard to high performance audio aspects.

In the meantime, we'e still awaiting for you to prove the first of your claims. Still waiting.


The totally one-sided, biased, assumption-laden way in which you have responded to posts I make, whether directed to you or not, has consistently been getting more and more contentious, more and more disrespectful, and certainly more deliberate in the inuendo and implications you draw from out of NO WHERE. I have noted in the past, that the very same issues you seem compelled to take me to task over, get left alone whe a naysayer posts the same kind of issue. I think that says it all.

Assumption laden, well, that's probably all one can do since you offer so little in substantial theory to all the junk you spew as fact.


I can only draw the conclusion that your's is now a concerted effort to denigrate me, at every opportunity, for no reason (or any trumped up reason), as this is what your posts with regard to me have become.

Yeah, right, the king of ad hominem attack has a leg to stand on here.


I think that Garbage Logic should apply to your posts in this regard.
Many folks have seen through the BS in your posts about me, and
are amazed and dissappointed that you would take this tack, but it has become so obvious and over the top, folks could hardly fail to notice.

Yeah, right, and in the meantime, we're all still waiting Jon, still waiting.


I will no longer reply to your posts, my replies can only be twisted and spun.

Right. like you've never twisted anyones argument. Your long history of behavior proceeds you. Of course you won't reply, you'll just shamelessly abuse your authority as moderator and erase his postings like you did mine. Jon, you are nothing more than a lying hypocritical coward who hasn't the guts to stand toe-to-toe with anyone and defend your technobabble against real scientific scrutiney. Prove your theories or shut up.

-Bruce

skeptic
11-23-2003, 07:29 AM
4. You have a degree as an EE, but never were required to take these subjects. If you are indeed a degreed engineer, I would think this the most likely scenario..In looking back on my education..I recall that lattice dynamics, electron conduction, e/m theory were all electives, not core courses in the engineering program..I think dummying down the core curricula in that fashion was necessary so that the civil and mechanical engineers would survive the core, in addition to the fact that they would never need the subjects in real life..It is unfortunate that some EE's also chose not to take these subjects, shying away from them because of the compexity of the topics (the body count in those courses was high).

Even in ancient times (35 years ago, has it really been that long) since I went to school and my training was a BE (bachelor of engineering) with a major in EE, it was impossible to escape these courses. Electron conduction theory was approached again and again in sophomore physics, in material science, in freshman quantum chemestry, and again and again in EE courses dealing with everything from the theory of solid state devices to energy conversion phenomena. As for field theory, it was an elective that was manditory for an EE major and was taught by the head of the department personally. It was also presented in physics and ironically in calculus classes. In one EE elective, it was required to know from memory upwards of 200 to 200 e/m equations including all of Maxwell's laws in both the curl and divergence form. How did I ever do it? (I remember cramming for the final for weeks and after it was over, much of it was gone within a few hours.) NO, you don't get the degree without taking and passing those couses. Not in this lifetime.

jneutron
11-23-2003, 07:41 AM
I can't believe the vicious level of personal attack and dispicable inuendo in your post. Neither could Ted. It was bad enough to post it once, but to repeat it again deliberately here, I can only conclude that all that was ever intended, despite your fine words (later on I might add), your intent was all along that of defending the cable naysayers, and tearing me down.

Your being at work had nothing to do with this, nor did your state of available leisure. You could have waited to respond, when there was time to do so civilly. Instead, you chose to attack, and then attack again, rather than enter a discourse.

Your OPINION of my level of understanding of physics, etc, is just that, an opinion, as are YOUR theories regarding how much of your high energy physics experience can translate directly to audio signal issues.
You paint your theories as facts, you paint my theories as 'garbage science'. Your lack of precison in making statements regarding EMF issues could also be taken to task, nit-picked to death, but no one has bothered to do so, including me. You have no corner on the "truth", no special advantage in understanding cable issues, certainly none with regard to high performance audio aspects.

The totally one-sided, biased, assumption-laden way in which you have responded to posts I make, whether directed to you or not, has consistently been getting more and more contentious, more and more disrespectful, and certainly more deliberate in the inuendo and implications you draw from out of NO WHERE. I have noted in the past, that the very same issues you seem compelled to take me to task over, get left alone whe a naysayer posts the same kind of issue. I think that says it all.

I can only draw the conclusion that your's is now a concerted effort to denigrate me, at every opportunity, for no reason (or any trumped up reason), as this is what your posts with regard to me have become.

I think that Garbage Logic should apply to your posts in this regard.
Many folks have seen through the BS in your posts about me, and
are amazed and dissappointed that you would take this tack, but it has become so obvious and over the top, folks could hardly fail to notice.

Shame on you John, this was not called for, it was not necessary, not even well considered on your part. You are that much less, haven taken this tack.

I will no longer reply to your posts, my replies can only be twisted and spun. I will no longer make any attempt to discuss technical issues with you, it is clear that is not possible with the agenda that exists. Pretend you are performing scientific research with your incomplete cable models, it is certain you will never find the real truth that way.
Then join the naysayers in discouraging folks from listening to high performance audio cables, that will complete your transistion to the Dark Side.

Jon Risch

Lets see...vicious level of attack??? I stated the obvious...you really do not have a clue ((sound familiar, those words???)) as to electron conduction, lattice dynamics, quantum theory, or e/m theory...that is based on the really ridiculous crap you posted on cable..

I posted five possibilities as to why you choose to neglect over 200 years of physics and e/m theory.. For you to consider it vicious can only mean one of two things...You are either type 1, a layman, bent on using other's lack of understanding of the topic to further your goals, or type 5, understand it, but choose to ignore it to further your goals and still, use other's lack of knowledge.

2,3, and 4...very innocuous types, we are all one of those to some degree, in some subject..

The fact that you choose to delete posts that you do not like is a personal problem of yours, Ted's, and Rod's. As I have explained to both Ted and Rod..as others become more aware of your particular brand of fiction, and the methods you employ to stay there, they will become increasingly more aware of the liability you have become.

You are a liability in your forum, as more and more people are becoming aware of your agenda, and from your recent posts, the really really low level of your understanding...You really have no clothes there Jon..

I will admit, the way you gather up and use buzz words, the smooth way you inject suppositions, had me fooled for the better part of a year..I really did think you were a peer, that you did have a good understanding and were just trying to think outside the box..

Unfortunately, I find that you really don't have a clue..and, you will continue to use your position as moderator to maintain the shelter you have built over there at cables, to keep the unknowing within your particular flock..

I am amazed that I am now saying this. I spent the last year telling everybody that they had the wrong opinion of you..that they were only reacting from history, that some of what you say could be possible...But then, you go off the deep end with your illogical stuff, and start deleting my posts..while keeping your garbage on..

You live in an X file world, Jon..calling everybody who disagrees with you a naysayer...or an attacker..It is clear that the "naysayers" you speak of is in reality, a fictional group, composed of one "Arny" someone, and your vague statement of "others". You created this naysayer group to maintain your conspiracy theory. It ain't there, Jon..it's all you, it's all in your mind..As long as you are the moderator at cables, you will prop that one up..

Nobody has seen through my posts to you, Jon..you are living in a fictional world..

It's not a conspiracy, Jon..it's you...everybody is out to get you...all the physicists, scientists, GOOD engineers...everybody who learned the topic...they are all out to get YOU.. C'mon, Jon...you need to get back to reality...

You've been reading too much Ivor...

I would address all of your points, but you tend to rattle on way too much, and I get tired of shooting fish in a barrel..best to just pull in the bulldozer.

A good engineer would have been ashamed to show the world how little he (she) knew of physics, engineering, e/m theory..I am afraid that now, disillusioned as I now am of your expertise in the topic....I am unable to accuse you of being an engineer..

I am ashamed that I spent such a long time not understanding where you were coming from...

Cheers, John

jneutron
11-23-2003, 08:08 AM
Even in ancient times (35 years ago, has it really been that long) since I went to school and my training was a BE (bachelor of engineering) with a major in EE, it was impossible to escape these courses. Electron conduction theory was approached again and again in sophomore physics, in material science, in freshman quantum chemestry, and again and again in EE courses dealing with everything from the theory of solid state devices to energy conversion phenomena. As for field theory, it was an elective that was manditory for an EE major and was taught by the head of the department personally. It was also presented in physics and ironically in calculus classes. In one EE elective, it was required to know from memory upwards of 200 to 200 e/m equations including all of Maxwell's laws in both the curl and divergence form. How did I ever do it? (I remember cramming for the final for weeks and after it was over, much of it was gone within a few hours.) NO, you don't get the degree without taking and passing those couses. Not in this lifetime.

Alas, it's been so long..I forget what the core was..only that I took all this stuff..and didn't forget it..In some of my courses, the only thing we could bring in was F=M*A or maxwell's. All else had to be derived on paper for grading.

Geeze, I was trying to give Jon Risch a way out..I was being nice..

Obviously, to no avail.

Cheers, John

skeptic
11-23-2003, 10:06 AM
Geeze, I was trying to give Jon Risch a way out..I was being nice..

Obviously, to no avail.

Cheers, John

I have far less problem with Jon Risch's junk science, his convoluted off the wall deliberately obtuse reasoning and ignoring some well accepted and proven facts while insisting on unproven unlikely theories than I do with his being a willing participant in censorship which has only one ultimate goal IMO and that is to sell more expensive audiophile cables to unsuspecting neophytes by lending credence to the incredible.

If Jon Risch is truely a degreed engineer, he is a hypocrite and a betrayal to those who trained him because he enforces a policy which denies to others the right of the free exchange of ideas which made it possible for him to gain an education and all of the advantages in life that it brought him. That in my book makes him not a man but a cockroach. His denial to others of what was so generously granted to him is contemptable beyond words. It is the same view of life that Nazis, Communists, and other inhuman monstrosities use to bludgeon their victims.

FLZapped
11-23-2003, 03:48 PM
Geeze, I was trying to give Jon Risch a way out..I was being nice..


Which I guess you've sadly discovered that you cannot be so.

-Bruce

skeptic
11-24-2003, 09:43 AM
You've been reading too much Ivor...


These people feed on each other. The people who own and pay for that site have an agenda IMO which has nothing to do with any kind of open discussion of cables or in any way to objectively inform each other about them. PC Tower brought it to our attention some months ago when he quoted Rod's proposed "mission statement" which in effect would limit discussion of cables to only "positive experiences." Why? Because the true purpose of that site as far as I can glean is to promote the idea that audiophile cables are an integral part of any fine sound reproduction system. It is inherently biased in favor of those who make and sell them and since those are among the sponsors, this makes perfect sense to me. It is not a hard-sell for any one product or product line. Exactly the opposite, it is an excellent soft-sell technique which targets a market by trying to influence the mindset of a small but influential segment of it. This segment is those neophytes who advise others who have absolutely no knowledge or interest and look to them when they go to buy stereo equipment for the first time or upgrade an older sound system. It tries to give credibility to the value of these products even though after more than twenty years of marketing, none of the producers have shown any scientific evidence for it. Jon Risch is the perfect tool for this effort. He has some credibility with neophytes because he claims to be a degreed electrical engineer, talks the jargon, and has an ego so large as to see himself as a defender of his off-the-wall pseudo science which dovetails very nicely with the advertising propaganda the cable industry uses to bamboozle its prospective customers. I am quite certain he believes in what he is doing, enjoys it, and feels the attacks on him are entirely unjustified. His views are that distorted. Why anyone who has any real knowledge would waste their time posting there is beyond me.

FLZapped
11-24-2003, 10:28 AM
I added the infamous nail-bed-bruising tests to my webpage:

http://members.fortunecity.com/flzapped/

Look for the word "PAINFUL" for the link to it!!

-Bruce

Chris
11-24-2003, 10:52 AM
Alright guys. Let's stop focusing on how other people decide to run their website. Let's talk about audio here... not complain about the moderation or politics of other websites. I think this subject has gone on long enough. Please move on.