Bybee Quantum Purifiers

[bhobba]

You've already had one Physics PhD scoff at the claims through the short course of this thread. What would it take for you to question your own position?

 

Posting over on Physics forums and having it dismissed over there.

 

Are you up to it?

 

Thanks

Bill

[davewantsmoore]

Of course, Bybee purifiers work on the Quantum mechanical level in physics, so if attempting to analyze the design, one would first need to have a fundamental understanding of Quantum physics.

 

I think for one to analyse the design, one would need to have an unambiguous description of the design....

 

Quantum mechanics is not somewhere we can easily just examine something and 'work out' what it is doing.    This would be a needle in a haystack.    It would be akin to someone saying "I am thinking of a number, can you guess what it is?!"

[sir sanders zingmore]

Why do you think he is lying - that's a petty stong accusation?

 

But if you are GENUINELY interested in the scientific basis of the claim, I have given the link to an appropriate forum to discuss it.

 

Thanks

Bill

 

 

Bybee makes the following scientific claims about the Bybees on his website

 

http://bybeetech.com/?page_id=11

 

Bybee Quantum Purifiers operate on the quantum mechanical level to regulate the flow of electrons that make up the signal (picture a metering light regulating freeway traffic flow). Current flow within the Quantum Purifier is unimpeded and ideal (think of the unencumbered flow of traffic on a lightly traveled expressway). During transit through the Quantum Purifier, quantum noise energy is stripped off the electrons, streamlining their flow through ensuing conductors.

 

The benefits of this process extend beyond the physical length of the Quantum Purifier. As electrons speed through the purifier, a “slipstream†effect is formed which facilitates current flow in the surrounding conductors of the playback system. Introducing Bybee Quantum Purification into the electron path reduces quantum noise and increases signal velocity, resulting in performance improvement beyond what is attainable by any cable alone, no matter how well designed.

 

Bybee's claims are base in science, which means that they must be supportable by scientific evidence. If there is no scientific evidence, his words are simply flowery prose. Simple and factual.

 

There should be no subjective interpretation of his statements.

 

 

lex parsimoniae

[Guest fordgtlover]

Didn't they debunk it pretty quickly when you raised it there some time ago Bill?

 

 

Posting over on Physics forums and having it dismissed over there.

 

Are you up to it?

 

Thanks

Bill

 

Is that so?

[bhobba]

Didn't they debunk it pretty quickly when you raised it there some time ago Bill?

 

Don't believe I ever did.

 

Its highly unlikely I would because I think it likely true.

 

But feel feel free to post there yourself.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited March 22, 2014 by bhobba

[davewantsmoore]

If your fellow DIY'ers were as smart as they claim they would not be spending money, but making money off thier brilliant inventions.

 

Would they really?!    You seem to be confusing a DIY audio person, with an inventor, with a marketing person, with a business person.    They are not all the same people, nor do they necessarily want to be.

[bhobba]

Is that so?

 

Yes it is so - do you have the guts?

 

Like I said before I know those guys and they are deadly serious - you would have to actually THINK and put a rational argument forward.

 

Thanks

Bill

[Telecine]

Don't believe I ever did.

 

Its highly unlikely I would because I think it likely true.

 

But feel fee fee to post there yourself.

 

Thanks

Bill

I have seen the photos and heard them in action. I don"t feel the need to spend any further effort on them. They are not for me.

[sir sanders zingmore]

 Of course, Bybee purifiers work on the Quantum mechanical level in physics, 

 do they?

[Phantom]

I have a somewhat different view to many here in that I have heard these devices in a non rigid, non complex, but still effective blind test scenario.

 

My personal opinion was that there was some difference in the sound between fitted and removed,with a small but noticeable improvement with the devices fitted.

 

My problem with these came when I was told of the cost and I was lucky to be sitting down when told. if these were $300 for a set, I would probably buy some, but the asking price is a fantasy of wasteful delusion. As a totally subjective but nevertheless effective yardstick for my own purposes, I felt they made a similar level of improvement as my recent purchase of the Isotek power strip which Tivoli hi fi recently offered to SNA members.

 

It's price was $399.

 

Bybees should be a similar price.

 

My 02

 

YMMV.

[Sir Triode]

How is this cheeby being used?

Do you place them between the positive and negative terminals of your speakers?

 

LOL - you're lucky this post isn't on an Sg forum.

[Steve M]

Bill, I am amazed at your confidence in presenting a question of validity about the Bybees to a group of experts/physicists??

In my own area of work we have a saying 'don't go asking questions for which you might not like the answer to'.

Steve.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Steve M

[Guest fordgtlover]

In order to be defammatory the burden of proof might lie with Bybee to stand up in court and present some evidence of what his black beads do? I am fairly confident he would have a hard time substantiating his claims of a proven sonic effect. Has a patent ever been lodged for the purifiers? This is a fairly good sign that something unique has really been invented and then documented for all the world to see.

 

This is the only patent application I can find for Bybee (under the name John William Bybee). Sadly, no claims about quantum purification.

 

http://www.lens.org/lens/patent/WO_2008_046081_A2

[Phantom]

In my own area of work which is at times political and legalistic, we have a saying 'don't go asking questions for which you might not like the answer to'.

Steve.

 

That is the quintessential lawyer's question

[firefly0071]

This thread must be a candidate for the most useless audio thread of 2014 on SNA.

[bhobba]

My problem with these came when I was told of the cost and I was lucky to be sitting down when told. if these were $300 for a set, I would probably buy some, but the asking price is a fantasy of wasteful delusion.

 

Yes that is indeed an issue with them.

 

But the price is more reasonable if you get it in OEM products.

 

Even then are they worth the price?

 

I forked out the dosh but that's just me - plenty of people say I am mad that way.

 

Thanks

Bill

[Phantom]

This thread must be a candidate for the most useless audio thread of 2014 on SNA.

 

It's a first world forum, where first world people, talk about first world pursuits.

 

What is the problem exactly?

[bhobba]

Bill, I am amazed at your confidence in presenting a question of validity about the Bybees to a group of experts/physicists??

 

Then Steve I will have egg on my face.

 

BTW have a look on that forum.  You will see I am a science advisor over there, so maybe I have a little knowledge of the subject and feel confident its not total hooey - just a thought.

 

Like I said - its obviously hooey isn't it that an absence of electrons can act like a particle  - or maybe things are not as simple as it seems on the surface.  Just a thought.

 

BTW I have zero idea of the technical detail of Jack Bybees claims - but know enough about QM to not dismiss such out of hand as others in this thread do. 

 

Thanks

Bill

[Guest fordgtlover]

Yes it is so - do you have the guts?

 

Like I said before I know those guys and they are deadly serious - you would have to actually THINK and put a rational argument forward.

 

Thanks

Bill

But, I'm not arguing for it...?

 

The question is simply whether the scientific claims made by Bybee have any scientific basis.

 

In post 67 of this very thread zipstartcanoe's partner - with a PhD in Physics - said it is definitely not as described.

 

How many PhDs do you need to say the same thing?

 

I am perfectly happy accepting Mr Canoe's partner's off the cuff comment. Clearly you aren't satisfied with the response of only one PhD, which means that you are the one who needs to mount some sort of rational argument.

[rocky500]

BTW I have zero idea of the technical detail of Jack Bybees claims - but know enough about QM to not dismiss such out of hand as others in this thread do. 

 

Thanks

Bill

 

Sorry to pick on you too Bill but I think the problem I am having, is there actually any QM going on in his design?

There seems to be no proof. The pic someone posted does not give me much confidence either. We only have the word of the person profiting from them.

 

ADDED: There must be some independent person or agency he could go to, to verify some of his claims. They could sign all the legal documents etc to keep his design secret.

Edited March 22, 2014 by rocky500

[davewantsmoore]

Truth is the ultimate defence against defamation - but the burden of proof is on the person making the claims they are lying, being deceptive or whatever.

 

You have the 'burden' backwards.    The burden is to prove the claim was both false and damaging.   (You are innocent until proven guilty)

 

There would need to be proof shown that the claims were false... and we would then need to examine the 'worthiness' of the person of who made the claim, so see if an ordinary person would place weight on it .... when deciding what damages should be awarded.

 

 

Are we talking about claims which are  "they don't work", and "they are just a resistor"  (or did I miss something else) ... it seems they would be easy enough to "prove" as true  (ie. "true in substance or not materially different from the truth")

 

 

This isn't necessarily me saying that there's not more in there than a simple resistor ... or that I wouldn't be able to hear them.....     But if at the court house, we plugged one in and I said, nup - can't hear anything, and then cut it open, and it looked like a resistor .... then?!

Edited March 22, 2014 by davewantsmoore

[Steve M]

Then Steve I will have egg on my face.

BTW have a look on that forum. You will see I am a science advisor over there, so maybe I have a little knowledge of the subject and feel confident its not total hooey - just a thought.

Like I said - its obviously hooey isn't it that an absence of electrons can act like a particle - or maybe things are not as simple as it seems on the surface. Just a thought.

BTW I have zero idea of the technical detail of Jack Bybees claims - but know enough about QM to not dismiss such out of hand as others in this thread do.

Thanks

Bill

Thanks for that explanation Bill. I guess it takes a certain belief and hearing it to accept the claims for the Bybee.

All of this is relatively easily resolved. It would be possible for a materials testing laboratory to cut the Pacific 1711 resistor open and analyse its construction to determine whether it just comprises of copper/tin/silica like every other resistor or not?

Steve.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Steve M

[davewantsmoore]

when I was told of the cost

 

How much is a bybee?

[bhobba]

Sorry to pick on you too Bill but I think the problem I am having, is there actually any QM going on in his design? There seems to be no proof. The pic someone posted does not give me much confidence either. We only have the word of the person profiting from them.

 

So absence of proof means he must be wrong?  That's a pretty silly standard.

 

Maybe he doesn't feel the need to have it independently verified or he has some arrangement with the military not to disclose more than general details.

 

The issue I have is we have all these people heaping crap on this guy who have no desire to actually listen to it - simply heap crap on the guy.  That's the purpose of these threads that I have participated far too often in.

 

Thanks

Bill

[bhobba]

You have the 'burden' backwards.    The burden is to prove the claim was both false and damaging.   (You are innocent until proven guilty)

 

Sorry Dave - if you make defamatory statements about someone and they decide to take you to task about it the burden of proof is on those making the defamatory statements.

 

Thanks

Bill