Power Cords Snake Oil ??

Eldartford, I think there is a lot of correlation between the two points. Just because we understand some of how an amplifier works, doesn't mean we understand all the minute details. In that respect there are many similarities between cosmology, quantum physics, and amplifier design.

Zaikesman, the point was that there is a difference between fact and theory. If it is only a preponderance of evidence, the gap still exists. I am not denegrating theories. I am simply pointing out that theories do not have the preponderence of evidence that a fact does, so based on that they must be considered to less 'concrete' than fact.

All I'm trying to say is that what will all of these arguements that say "we can't measure the difference therefore there must not be a difference." will have to be reevaluated if/when someone brings the next advancement to the electrical sciences.

When the Catholic Church said the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe, those assertations did not change the facts. Exploration and science have not changed the universe, they have only verified it.

There is much more verification that can and will take place in regard to our knowledge of electricity.

Eldartford:
“...Hypothesis is tested by examination of data from tests that ought to be affected by the hypothesis. If most of data corresponds with what would be predicted by the hypothesis, it becomes a “Theory”.
The intention of the following statement is to promote the evolution of a point.
Many months ago you were constructing a power cable. We had a brief discussion about its design.
I suggested with an admitted lack of sensitivity: “That’s not the way it works”. Do you remember? Now you state: “I consider power cord effects to be a hypothesis”. When one has *NO* research to back up a design what other conclusion could you have? Before constructing your cable did you know or have an insight into the importance of:
1. Resonance signature of the conductors, both as a single “filament” and as a bundle?
2. Did you know the resonant characteristics of the dielectric used and its effect on the conductor bundle?
3. Did you know how this package would interface with the characteristics of the connectors used?
4. Did you know the field interaction between conductors or “filaments”?
5. Did you understand the field relationship between the conductors that were in polarity opposition?
6. Did you understand how this construction was going to interact with the attaching power supply?
If you did not have this knowledge, then I agree you were truly constructing a hypothesis. For a cable to be an effective tool with dramatic performance it must be a theory based on results not something founded on belief.

Nrchy: I agree with your statements about measureability not being the end-all in audio. I do believe that any difference which can be heard *could* be measured, if only an adequate test existed, and also the corollary that although measurement might not reveal any differences, differences might nonetheless still be audible. I am comfortable with viewing this inconvenience as being not at all contradictory to the scientific aspect of the art.

As for the supposed gap between the weight we might accord to 'facts' and 'theories', two things: 1) 'Facts' can be found to be incorrect or incomplete, same as theories, and 2) facts in isolation don't necessarily tell us very much about how the world works when taken outside of the conceptual 'big picture' provided by theories.

In any case, the demand for the preponderance of evidence falls to the party making the assertion for a new way of looking at the world before it falls to skeptics for possible refutation. Corona's claims can't be specifically refuted when they're not being specifically laid out in the first place, and this he knows very well. Merely stating there could be a lot we don't yet know about the world doesn't make his leaps of apparent illogic any more convincing, absent his presenting some sort of persuasive argument and evidence to support his claims.

If this is denied - as I fully expected and have found it to be - based on vague assertions of market propriety, then he still *could* perhaps deserve to be taken seriously *if* he were able to demonstrate that his product is clearly superior to those not possessing his secret alleged technology. But without a good faith attempt to educate us on why we might expect this to be so, it just goes with the territory that many potential customers won't feel he has earned that chance.

Oh, and BTW, exploration and science may not have changed the universe, only helped explain it, but they sure as hell have changed our world, for better or worse.

Zaikesman:
Are you expecting an endorsement from God?

Corona: I'm not sure exactly what you intend to imply by that 'question' (Maybe that nothing you could say would be good enough for me? Not true! - though you're correct if you assume I would still likely take exception with your underlying assertions about the applicability of String Theory), but the answer to your query is "no" regardless, since I don't believe in the existence of any deities. Beyond that, I think the criticisms of your story so far, as stated by myself and the others, have been laid out here cogently enough to be readily comprehended. But we can just agree to disagree: You'll miss out on a potential customer, and I'll miss out on what might be a decent, possibly even superlative, power cord. It's called freedom of choice, and I suspect we'll both live to fight again. Happy listening!