Bybee were to put

serengetiplains · « **Reply #80 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 01:14 am »

Quote from: Steve on 31 Mar 2007, 12:15 am

Is there anything else, physically, besides the resistance, inductance, and capacitance inside the device? Any other materials, or just the resistor. If just the resistor, I would agree with you; something appears wrong. If there is more, I would suggest to do an analysis of those materials.

Steve, see my description above, which you seem not to have read. The Bybee is just a resistor (and, if you're counting non-essentials, a few end caps and some ERS paper and some non-conductive ceramic and some rubber).

Steve · « **Reply #81 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 01:20 am »

Yes, I read it earlier. Has the "ceramic" been investigated? Does there appear to be anything mixed in? Where is it situated? Just asking.

Daryl · « **Reply #82 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 01:20 am »

What everyone so far has failed to see is the very simple truth that it is all but impossible for this device to function as advertised.

Let me explain...

In the quest for more accurate signal reproduction you could build a better pre amp, cd player, wire or loudspeaker.

The Bybee is none of these so how could you get a better signal?

Further explaination...

Once an error is introduced to a signal there is absolutely no way of knowing what that error is and therefore correcting it unless the correction device also is connected to the source before the error is introduced so that it has reference it can use to synthesise a correction signal to feed into the chain.

The Bybee connects to the signal chain at a single location so it has no way of knowing what errors might have been introduced to the signal and no possibility of correcting them.

The only way that it could possibly work is just as advertised.

What they say is that the Bybee can effect the entire system on an atomic level through the connecting wires causing electrons to flow more smoothly with less noise.

Can anybody now see how difficult it would be for this device to actually work?

It is quite simple to verify it's operation though.

Just connect it to the output of a pre-amp and measure the output with a spectrum anylizer.

Use a 1khz sinusoid and measure the noise floor and spectral contamination with and without the Bybee.

serengetiplains · « **Reply #83 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 01:22 am »

How do I insert an image?

Daryl · « **Reply #84 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 01:31 am »

Quote from: serengetiplains on 31 Mar 2007, 01:22 am

How do I insert an image?

Put the cursor where you want your image inserted into your message.

Click the insert image button above the message box directly under the Italicized button.

Two sets of brackets appear with 'img' in them.

Place the curser between them if it isn't already there and paste your image url.

Now finish your message.

Steve · « **Reply #85 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 01:36 am »

The problem with that scenario, Daryl, is that according to the description (link was provided earlier in this string), it was used by the military in Sonar systems of subs.

I am not saying this is exactly the same device, but it seems to me the crux of the matter is if the statement about being used in sonar systems is true or a fabrication (assuming the same device was used in sonar systems).

Afterall, if that statement is a fabrication, it does not look good for the Bybee. If true, then maybe a little more exporation is needed, such as examining the other materials in the Bybee.

Just a thought.

Daryl · « **Reply #86 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 01:40 am »

My measurement system has the capability of doing a measurement sweep from 10hz to 100khz with an impedance range of 4mohm to 4kohm if anyone is interested in a closer look at it's transfer function.

Here is a measurement of the speaker wire in the post above.

Note that the scale is milliohms and not ohms as the scale on the left shows.

Daryl · « **Reply #87 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 01:55 am »

Quote from: Steve on 31 Mar 2007, 01:36 am

The problem with that scenario, Daryl, is that according to the description (link was provided earlier in this string), it was used by the military in Sonar systems of subs.

I am not saying this is exactly the same device, but it seems to me the crux of the matter is if the statement about being used in sonar systems is true or an outright lie (assuming the same device was used in sonar systems).

Afterall, if that statement is an outright lie, it does not look good for the Bybee. If true, then maybe a little more exporation is needed, such as examining the ceramic used.

Just a thought.

Hi Steve,

I don't believe your point is at odds with mine.

Mine is just a quick overview of some basic signal reproduction priciples to illistrate just how difficult what Bybee is suggesting would be to actually achieve.

Regarding your point though,

We would want to know not only did the government actually use these devices but also DID THEY WORK.

Someone convinced the government to spend millions reasearching whether the aurora borealis (northern lights) could be used as a power source.

Whether the goverment used them or not, and even if we don't find out exactly what materials were used in their construction, whether or not they work is easy to verify as I detailed in my post above.

So really theres not much mystery to be solved.

serengetiplains · « **Reply #88 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 02:05 am »

Ok, it's more than just a resistor. The exterior of the ceramic tube is coated with a white, conductive element itself apparently coated with non-conductive black paint. Anyone care to post a picture for me?

Daryl · « **Reply #89 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 02:07 am »

Here's Serengetiplains' Bybee pictures...

Use the scrollbar on the right side of the screen to position the images on your screen vertically.
Then click on the individual images and use the right/left cursor control keys to position the images horizontally.

serengetiplains · « **Reply #90 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 02:30 am »

Two other pictures of a non-destroyed Bybee on their way! Thanks, Daryl!

I tested a shard of the ceramic from the destroyed Bybee. The conductive surface indeed continues beneath the black paint. Alas, Bybees look legit.

andy_c · « **Reply #91 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 02:32 am »

Quote from: Daryl on 31 Mar 2007, 01:55 am

We would want to know not only did the government actually use these devices but also DID THEY WORK.

This brings up a couple of interesting points. I worked on and off for defense contractors for about 20 years in weapon systems (mostly radar). With the exception of some one-off projects, the U.S. government doesn't actually build the hardware. Rather, it's designed and built by defense contractors according to the technical requirements set forth in the contract. For the designer, a big part of the design process consists of formal preparation for and presentation of design reviews. There may be multiple design reviews during the evolution of the design. Depending on what phase the design is in, the government customer may be present. Normally, many viewgraphs are presented, including schematics, test data, possibly of multiple configurations, and so on. What happens is that people dissect the engineer's design from the bottom up, asking many questions about justification of design decisions. Basically, every component and topology decision gets second-guessed by large numbers of often not-so-friendly audience members. People hate finding out that custom components are required. In such cases, the development of such a component must be justified and approved in advance. The justification and approval process is all about providing facts and data to support the claim of a need for such a component or part.

In such an environment, engaging in obfuscation or hand waving is a recipe for the design engineer to be seriously spanked, the worst case being not by the company they work for, but the military people who oversee the contracts. That can be a huge embarassment and black eye for the company. For this reason, the people doing this kind of work end up being "take no prisoners", "kick *** and take names" kind of people - to a fault. If the design engineer doesn't have facts and data to support their assertions, they end up getting smacked down big time in this environment.

I hope you see now how this scenario fits (or does not fit, as the case may be) the situation we're discussing.

serengetiplains · « **Reply #92 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 03:50 am »

serengetiplains · « **Reply #93 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 03:51 am »

Scotty · « **Reply #94 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 05:10 am »

The paper used in the Bybee does not appear to be ERS paper. The paper seems to missing the nickel coated strands of carbon fiber which is the key component in ERS paper. For what it is worth a 6in. long 0.5in wide strip of ERS paper can be wound around unshielded IC's and speaker cables with a noticeable,although subtle positive effect. Yeah,I know, the effect of ERS paper on the transfer function of a signal through an unshielded wire probably cannot be easily measured either. Single blind testing of ERS paper within context of my own stereo system has yielded consistent 100% positive identification results.
Scotty

Dan Banquer · « **Reply #95 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 11:51 am »

I want to thank Daryl and Serengetiplains for posting the photos.
As far as I am concerned this is nothing more than a power resistor, and until I know what other measurements I can do to prove otherwise, I am going to leave it at that.
My thanks to all for participating in this thread, I am going to consider this a true Lab Forum Classic.
d.b.

Dan Banquer · « **Reply #96 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 01:07 pm »

Quote from: Scotty on 31 Mar 2007, 05:10 am

The paper used in the Bybee does not appear to be ERS paper. The paper seems to missing the nickel coated strands of carbon fiber which is the key component in ERS paper. For what it is worth a 6in. long 0.5in wide strip of ERS paper can be wound around unshielded IC's and speaker cables with a noticeable,although subtle positive effect. Yeah,I know, the effect of ERS paper on the transfer function of a signal through an unshielded wire probably cannot be easily measured either. Single blind testing of ERS paper within context of my own stereo system has yielded consistent 100% positive identification results.
Scotty

Have you checked for the possibility of added capacitance or inductance?
d.b.

serengetiplains · « **Reply #97 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 02:27 pm »

Dan, the white, somewhat shiny substance you can see on the exterior of the Bybee, which coats the ceramic and to which the copper end plate is soldered, is conductive. This conductive layer continues beneath the black paint. What the properties are of this layer I'm uncertain. It's at least resistive.

michaelv · « **Reply #98 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 02:58 pm »

One of my friends has a pair of bybee which he puts at the amp. I has listened to it with and without bybee. With bybee on the chain, the sound is very very clear . IT is especially good for acoustic music. However, it is not my taste , too much detail for me. Believe it or not, the bybee works , but i can't find a reason to justify the cost. I find a pair of bybee used around $300 - $400 on A'gon occasionally.

I heard about Hammond 193L choke can reduce RF noise. If this works, it might be the one i need . And it costs only $40.

captain · « **Reply #99 on:** 31 Mar 2007, 06:44 pm »

Some body does not seem too happy with the findings of this thread? http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/tweaks/messages/143104.html