Quote:

Quote:
You did, indeed. This also appears to be where this thread is heading.

I find this peculiar, given that the original controversy was over ACOUSTIC MODIFICATIONS to the room, and the claims attached to the device address ACOUSTIC MODIFICATIONS.

I do as well. Peculiar indeed.

If these devices modify the sound/room itself it will be measurable - as Mr. Denny originally claimed.

For $3,000.00 - the price of a LOT of conventional treatments - the differences should be large and easily measurable.

Why all of the smoke and mirrors?

The Synergistic's website speaks of "tuning" the listening room through "The acumination of these scientific principals."

There is nothing about manipulating listener perception independently from the physical sound waves.

Elk, your posts are ranging from to

Quote:
Anything other than attacks?

Just responding to your harrassment. Unfortunately, you don't know when to quit.

Take some time off , it'll do the rest of us some good.

Quote:

Quote:

The original Helmholtz resonators were actually brass.

Please be a bit more helpful here.... what you show are fully enclosed spheres (ie. they are not inclined to ring) and they are of a much heavier gauge... which is also not inclined to ring.

Their construction is completely different from the devices we are talking about

And historically the ORIGINAL Helmholtz resonators were made of clay and date from the greek/roman times

The brass resonators, which were Helmholtz's own, were not entirely enclosed since each one included a nozzle that was open to the surrounding air (see photo), the dimensions (length, area) of which, along with the volume, determine the resonant frequency.

The brass resonators, like any Helmholz type resonator, actually do ring, like you know, Bass Traps or Room Lenses. That's why a certain amount of "stuffing" is frequency required, even if the primary material is not metal, in order to damp the ringing.

"They are of a much heavier gauge." You can tell what gauge the brass resonators are? Interesting.

The biggest Helmholtz resonator I ever built was a 15-foot low frequency, folded ''S" resonator.

Thanks for the lecture, anyway.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
You did, indeed. This also appears to be where this thread is heading.

I find this peculiar, given that the original controversy was over ACOUSTIC MODIFICATIONS to the room, and the claims attached to the device address ACOUSTIC MODIFICATIONS.

I do as well. Peculiar indeed.

If these devices modify the sound/room itself it will be measurable - as Mr. Denny originally claimed.

For $3,000.00 - the price of a LOT of conventional treatments - the differences should be large and easily measurable.

Why all of the smoke and mirrors?

The Synergistic's website speaks of "tuning" the listening room through "The acumination of these scientific principals."

There is nothing about manipulating listener perception independently from the physical sound waves.

Lets not forget David was the one bringing this thread back to life asking how the testing was going (and rightly so as it had high interest), so IMO that is really the important aspect of the recent discussions; specifically testing/investigating the various plausible hypothesis proposed along with measurement and possibly modelling (although probably too advanced a process) testing.
From this we get the facts worth discussing and their implications (including marketing if you feel like it).

Thanks
orb

Quote:

Quote:
I do seem to recall that Ethan said as much long ago about them being way to small to do anything.

He believed aything smaller and less obtrusive than (a few dozen of) his refrigerator doors would be incapable of doing anything. Stereophile's staff was in disagreement with that sentiment back in 2009; http://stereophile.com/roomtreatments/nucore_cathedral_sound_room_treatments/

As have been many others; http://www.ultrasystem.com/usfeaturedPanelsMoreInfo.html

I do recall the Cathedral Panels were also attacked by "a competitor" on these very forum pages. Then that same competitor turned his attention to Ted's devices and declared "WAR!!!".

Not right on Cathedral Panels. Really not right on the ART devices. A track record of 0 for 2. Yep! that's who I want to believe.

Quote:
... how does anyone learn by not asking questions?

Oh, good question! Ok, now we'll all pretend we don't have a ready answer for that question and we'll all close our eyes real tight and we'll all act like we're thinking real, real, real hard about this for a moment to help D'Ethan learn how to learn ...

OK, very simple really, you could try ...

Research. That's always good for a start. You would have to try this on your own, though, not wait for it to be handed to you. Maybe you and Elk together could both try researching the topic and between the two of you you might come up with something kind of half a ... Well, maybe you two could try working together on this.

Next, what's next? Oh, yes, one of my favorites.

Experience. Very important in audio, you can do a lot with experience and research and some thinking along the way.

Of course, you would have to get up out of your Bark-O-Lounger to do that.

And, very important one here ...

Keeping your mouth shut when you don't know what you're talking about. Well, that kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it? You might want to push that one up to #1 in your case.

Those are a few ways those of us who have enjoyed the experience of learning have gone about it.

You know, I mean those are just off the top of my head and all, didn't have think hard about it at all, you know.

Or, ... maybe you don't.

I'm guessing none of those ever crossed your mind.

This will be my very last response to Jan Vigne since he doesn't take his own advice about " Keeping your mouth shut when you don't know what you're talking about. Well, that kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it? You might want to push that one up to #1 in your case."
You know Vigne, you're just a plain old asshole and that's the facts. Nothing you post lately is contributing to the discussion. You are one hate and spite filled person and I feel sorry for not only you but anyone that has to come into contact you you from day to day. I asked honest reasonable questions and you offer nothing but shit pure and simple. Why you feel obliged to be this way is beyond anyone's resoning here/ Just ask anyone who posts on this board about your conduct. Lets see what Stephen sent me.....

"I understand and respect your points. I expect people here to behave like adults, and I expect them to govern themselves like adults, and I expect them to be able to communicate effectively without resorting to abusive and rude language. If Jan, or anyone, continues to offend, please try to remain above the insults, rather than add fuel to the fire."

Even after his other rebuke of your conduct on here , you continue to sulk, rant, insult and act like a little boy. How about learning to offer help instead of hate? That's what I ask of you but of course your next post will just be more of the same. How sad. Are you just trying to divert the discussion from my asking of the tests that are going to be done? How can I research about the test if no one has offered to say what they will be?

Good luck with your life Jan, I honestly hope you find peace and love of some sort someday.Then your actions will reflect what's in your heart.

Quote:
Just responding to your harrassment.

It is harassment to ask you to stop personal attacks and to post on topic? Pretty tough stuff. How do you possibly endure it?

I even have given you an easy out, asking you to provide your reference to Mr. Denny's statements changing his approach to defining what the Acoustic ART products accomplish and your analysis. On topic and potentially interesting.

Suggestion: I have no objection to a "Let's mindlessly bash Elk" thread. Go ahead and start one. Post the nastiest things you would like. The only caveat is that you must put all attacks there and keep posts in other threads on topic.

This will let you continue your insults while keeping the the remainder of the threads on topic.

Put your attacks in one place and start contributing everywhere else. How about it?

Quote:
The brass resonators, like any Helmholz type resonator, actually do ring, like you know, Bass Traps or Room Lenses. That's why a certain amount of "stuffing" is frequency required, even if the primary material is not metal, in order to damp the ringing.

Resonators do ring or resonate. This is how they work.

However, these bass traps work as narrow band resonators. These are good for only a few frequencies and must be tuned to the specific room modes that are a problem in a given situation. The specific frequency is a function of size and material thickness. (A coke bottle is a Helmholtz resonator with a frequency that varies with the amount of soda left in the bottle.)

The ART products specifically state that they are broadband however, "the full spectrum of sound."

This is more the province of acoustic damping/absorption panels. Even these however do not claim (and cannot) respond to all frequencies.

Yet the ART products claim to positively impact all frequencies, even though they are small.

Quote:

Quote:
The brass resonators, like any Helmholz type resonator, actually do ring, like you know, Bass Traps or Room Lenses. That's why a certain amount of "stuffing" is frequency required, even if the primary material is not metal, in order to damp the ringing.

Resonators do ring or resonate. This is how they work.

However, these bass traps work as narrow band resonators. These are good for only a few frequencies and must be tuned to the specific room modes that are a problem in a given situation. The specific frequency is a function of size and material thickness. (A coke bottle is a Helmholtz resonator with a frequency that varies with the amount of soda left in the bottle.)

The ART products specifically state that they are broadband however, "the full spectrum of sound."

This is more the province of acoustic damping/absorption panels. Even these however do not claim (and cannot) respond to all frequencies.

Yet the ART products claim to positively impact all frequencies, even though they are small.

Canna go along with you on your narrowband hypothesis. You are talking about ASC Tube Traps, right? Please refer to the technical page for ASC Tube Traps to see just how *wideband* they actually are.

ASC Tube Traps Technical Details

Thanks for bringing up the Coke bottle thing. I've suspected for a quite some time that's one reason the sound is so bad at CES -- all those empties lying around, tuned to the wrong frequency. Buddha's room at CES would be what, some sort of Pipe Organ thing going on?

Quote:

Quote:
Just responding to your harrassment.

It is harassment to ask you to stop personal attacks and to post on topic? Pretty tough stuff. How do you possibly endure it?

I even have given you an easy out, asking you to provide your reference to Mr. Denny's statements changing his approach to defining what the Acoustic ART products accomplish and your analysis. On topic and potentially interesting.

Suggestion: I have no objection to a "Let's mindlessly bash Elk" thread. Go ahead and start one. Post the nastiest things you would like. The only caveat is that you must put all attacks there and keep posts in other threads on topic.

This will let you continue your insults while keeping the the remainder of the threads on topic.

Put your attacks in one place and start contributing everywhere else. How about it?

Now THAT should win post of the week

But I doubt Jan could restrain herself to bashing on 1 thread only

Quote:
Canna go along with you on your narrowband hypothesis.

So high Q Helmholtz resonators are wideband, you say?

Quote:

You are talking about ASC Tube Traps, right?

Tube traps are Helmholtz radiators, you say? I don't THINK so.

While it's predictable that you would whinge back and forth between contexts in your endless attempt to derail real discussion, this is a bit much.

Your photograph is Helmholtz resonators. They use AIR as a medium, are generally quite high-Q and do not have the actual metal vibrating at all.

Tube traps, by and large, are very-low-Q, using some membrane to turn some amount of pressure in room edges into velocity so it can be absorbed by the rest of the trap. They are not Helmholtz resonators.

What are the little bowls? I have no idea. Until we see REAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE ACOUSTIC SPACE to support THE CLAIM THAT THEY AFFECT THE SOUNDFIELD AT LOW FREQUENCIES, we will have no idea at all what they really do. Supposedly, or so I MAY have gathered, since real information is far between and hard to come by, the metal in them does vibrate, but I frankly have no idea, since the amount of power intersecting the teensy little bowls at bass frequencies is going to be, putting it kindly, miniscule.

So bring on the measurements.

Quote:

Quote:
Canna go along with you on your narrowband hypothesis.

So high Q Helmholtz resonators are wideband, you say?

Quote:

You are talking about ASC Tube Traps, right?

Tube traps are Helmholtz radiators, you say? I don't THINK so.

While it's predictable that you would whinge back and forth between contexts in your endless attempt to derail real discussion, this is a bit much.

Your photograph is Helmholtz resonators. They use AIR as a medium, are generally quite high-Q and do not have the actual metal vibrating at all.

Tube traps, by and large, are very-low-Q, using some membrane to turn some amount of pressure in room edges into velocity so it can be absorbed by the rest of the trap. They are not Helmholtz resonators.

What are the little bowls? I have no idea. Until we see REAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE ACOUSTIC SPACE to support THE CLAIM THAT THEY AFFECT THE SOUNDFIELD AT LOW FREQUENCIES, we will have no idea at all what they really do. Supposedly, or so I MAY have gathered, since real information is far between and hard to come by, the metal in them does vibrate, but I frankly have no idea, since the amount of power intersecting the teensy little bowls at bass frequencies is going to be, putting it kindly, miniscule.

So bring on the measurements.

The measurements have already been provided for the tiny little bowls. Courtesy Franck Tchang's Preliminary Test results. You know, real data. Did you miss them?

Noone has said the tiny bowls *have* to intersect with bass frequencies, as you put it. I think that's what is referred to as a Strawman Argument, no? I know what yer thinking, those little bastards are disobeying some laws of physics. Right?

In any event, ain't controversial tweaks cool?

Quote:
The measurements have already been provided for the tiny little bowls. Courtesy Franck Tchang's Preliminary Test results. You know, real data. Did you miss them?

Right.

Now show me the measurements.

How come, then, everyone is waiting for evidence?

Dance, dance, dance...

Geoff! Such a bitch you are being!

Maybe if you shot some of Machina Dynamica's immense wealth on travel, you could judge for yourself.

Good, NFS must seem threatening to you.

You know the really odd part? I've sat in on many a Machina Dynamica "demo" and have never encountered one session where anybody heard the difference. Damning with faint praise would be step up, dude. Maybe all the marketing cash goes to buying testimonials? Or are all those generated in house?

Ouch, man.

Quote:
Geoff! Such a bitch you are being!

You know the really odd part? I've sat in on many a Machina Dynamica "demo" and have never encountered one session where anybody heard the difference. Damning with faint praise would be step up, dude. Maybe all the marketing cash goes to buying testimonials? Or are all those generated in house?

Ouch, man.

:crazy

Actually, the really odd part is I'm quite sure you're lying. Besides, I don't accept testimony from known troll sources. Especially tipsy ones.

Quote:
Good, NFS must seem threatening to you.

Uh, more like threatening to your liver.

Quote:

Quote:
The measurements have already been provided for the tiny little bowls. Courtesy Franck Tchang's Preliminary Test results. You know, real data. Did you miss them?

Right.

Now show me the measurements.

How come, then, everyone is waiting for evidence?

Dance, dance, dance...

That's OK, j_j, they also serve who only sit and wait.

The great Clever Clock debacle must have upset you.

You know the guy who tried it.

Not a single noted improvement reported.

Double ouch.

Quote:
The great Clever Clock debacle must have upset you.

You know the guy who tried it.

Not a single noted improvement reported.

Double ouch.

Geez, you act as if it's my fault.

Quote:
Canna go along with you on your narrowband hypothesis. You are talking about ASC Tube Traps, right?

Good question/point.

I wasn't thinking of ASC tube traps or anything this sophisticated. I was referring only to a simple panel resonator or a basic Helmholtz resonator. These are narrowband traps.

You are right that ASC tube traps and similar design have a much broader frequency spectrum. Very different design. Thanks for clarifying.

Quote:
Thanks for bringing up the Coke bottle thing. I've suspected for a quite some time that's one reason the sound is so bad at CES -- all those empties lying around, tuned to the wrong frequency.

Good one!

Think of the frequency mess. And it randomly changes with each sip and addition of a new bottle, cup or other container. <shudder>

(quote) "I've not seen this as a definition of perception. Where is this from? "Intuition" is a surprising word in the context of a dictionary definition of perception." (/quote)

The definition of perception is from my copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary !!
"Perception :-
Act, faculty, of perceiving; intuitive recognition."

If you had (at all) read my 1986 paper entitled "Challenging the Conventional" you would surely have seen where I go on to describe the numerous experiments we had carried out with small (one and half inches), steel mesh discs attached to various sizes of crocodile clips (so that the 'treated' metal mesh discs could be applied to all manner of different things in our listening environment). This was over 25 years ago and because of the results of such experiments I, personally, can view the reported effects of such things as the ART devices, the Tchang bowls and such as the Schumann Resonance device as 'most likely' having an 'effect within the room' but not having an effect on the room acoustics !!!!!!!!!

I was therefore pleasantly surprised, two years ago, when I saw the reply from Joseph Cohen in Tweakers Asylum :-

Quote from Joseph Cohen (22/03/08 on Tweakers Asylum)
Joseph Cohen is from the Lotus Group which imports Acoustic Revive (Schumann Resonance) devices.

(quote) "(There is a larger context to this discussion which has to do with the experiment we are conducting on ourselves by living in a sea of electronica (microwaves, cell phones, computer screens, etc) and toxic substances that directly affect our well being. If in fact we need a device to correct the devices that detract from our well being, then perhaps it's time to rethink the whole thing.)" <<<

>>> "I have been saying for years that the interactions between all of the devices, traces, chassis material, circuit board material and wiring in a circuit are practically incalculable, that the interactions between all of the materials in the construction of a single cable are way more numerous than can be acounted for by LCR alone, that the interactions of all of the individual components, wires, materials that make up the room and building are probably infinite. This is not original thinking but purely derivitive of what I have learned from others and what I have observed. Everything vibrates. Everything has an electrical charge. Each material is in relationship with the materials around it. This is why there is no such thing as a vacuum, even in a vacuum. There is only continuum and ever shifting relationship." <<<

>>> "Acklowledging that the RR-77 works on the system/room/individual without being directly connected or even touching points to another source of interference which I would postulate is the sum total of interactions of any given system. This new understanding can be seen as a watershed moment. It may enable us to continue working on solutions that will be more universally applicable." (/quote)

Your reply to me Elk :-
"This is a great summary of your position; clear and easy to understand. Mr. Atkinson's hypothesis regarding microwave radiation is along these lines."

So, Elk, in the face of all that had been going on over these past decades in audio, it is hardly surprising that John A should have started along the hypothesis path regarding microwave radiation in an attempt to explain the effect of the ART devices !!!!! John A has been considering the 2.4GHz area. Whereas the Schumann Resonance device considers the 7.83Hz area. More and more people now looking at 'what is going on in the listening environment'.

Quote by you, Elk :-
"There is nothing on the Synergistic's website about manipulating listener perception independently from the physical sound waves."

Maybe so, but why should THAT stop people discussing other possibilities ????????? Surely THAT is what scientists do ?????????

We don't need measurements before we can 'think'
We don't need DB Trials before we can 'think'
We already have different people's descriptions of what they have experienced as clues to guide us !!
There are enough clues already to cause us to 'think' !!
Any measurements can only ADD to those clues and expand the 'thinking' further..
Results of any DB Trials can only ADD to those clues and expand the 'thinking' further.
But we don't need to wait around until......... !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
Noone has said the tiny bowls *have* to intersect with bass frequencies, as you put it.

Synergistics does.

Synergistics claims the ART products affect all frequencies: "We worked to modify Helmholtz resonator principles to incorporate the full spectrum of sound."

Specifically, the "bass station" is a little bowl placed on three wood blocks. Synergistics states: "The third utilizes a unique dispersion baffle to precisely control how the Bass Station resonator affects a rooms

Quote:

Quote:
Noone has said the tiny bowls *have* to intersect with bass frequencies, as you put it.

Synergistics does.

Synergistics claims the ART products affect all frequencies: "We worked to modify Helmholtz resonator principles to incorporate the full spectrum of sound."

Specifically, the "bass station" is a little bowl placed on three wood blocks. Synergistics states: "The third utilizes a unique dispersion baffle to precisely control how the Bass Station resonator affects a rooms

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Noone has said the tiny bowls *have* to intersect with bass frequencies, as you put it.

Synergistics does.

Synergistics claims the ART products affect all frequencies: "We worked to modify Helmholtz resonator principles to incorporate the full spectrum of sound."

Specifically, the "bass station" is a little bowl placed on three wood blocks. Synergistics states: "The third utilizes a unique dispersion baffle to precisely control how the Bass Station resonator affects a rooms

Quote:
That's OK, j_j, they also serve who only sit and wait.

Exactly who do you assert is "sitting and waiting"?

Quote:
As I told j-j it is a logical fallacy (i.e., strawman argument) to conclude that the tiny bowls must intersect with low frequencies to produce changes to low frequencies.

Your statement is false, and multiply so.

Quote by J J

>>> "since the amount of power intersecting the teensy little bowls at bass frequencies is going to be, putting it kindly, miniscule." <<<

To which you, Geoff, replied :-

I know what yer thinking, those little bastards are disobeying some laws of physics. Right?

J J appears to want the energy of the device which is providing the (suggested) 'counter effect' to be identical to or the equivalent of the energy which the (suggested) adverse conditions are creating in the room - straight physics. But things are not always like that !! Therein lies the problem.

As an example.
J J can be walking across a room (his energy being used in walking forward) and I (or anyone else) can halt J J 'dead in his tracks' just by the use of the breath from my/our mouth !! We can even do this from behind J J !!!!!!!!
THIS would violate J J's requirement of equal energy from me/us against the energy created by him walking - in order to stop him !! To explain what I described, you have to 'think' !!!!!!!!!!!!! Because the answer is not in the Physics textbooks.

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
Quote by J J

>>> "since the amount of power intersecting the teensy little bowls at bass frequencies is going to be, putting it kindly, miniscule." <<<

To which you, Geoff, replied :-

I know what yer thinking, those little bastards are disobeying some laws of physics. Right?

J J appears to want the energy of the device which is providing the (suggested) 'counter effect' to be identical to or the equivalent of the energy which the (suggested) adverse conditions are creating in the room - straight physics. But things are not always like that !! Therein lies the problem.

As an example.
J J can be walking across a room (his energy being used in walking forward) and I (or anyone else) can halt J J 'dead in his tracks' just by the use of the breath from my/our mouth !! We can even do this from behind J J !!!!!!!!
THIS would violate J J's requirement of equal energy from me/us against the energy created by him walking - in order to stop him !! To explain what I described, you have to 'think' !!!!!!!!!!!!! Because the answer is not in the Physics textbooks.

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

I hear ya, May.

I guess using the breath from my mouth, I can also cause other measurable acoustic effects, too.

"Hey, honey! Would you turn it up?"

Quote:
(quote) "I've not seen this as a definition of perception. Where is this from? "Intuition" is a surprising word in the context of a dictionary definition of perception." (/quote)

Hang in there. Your getting closer still!

May, you now have everything correct in your above cited quote except those are parenthesis ( ) you are using, not brackets [ ].

Again, the word 'quote' at the beginning of the text and the word '/quote' must be encassed in brackets [...] not parenthesis (...).

Like this, but NO capital letters.

In a world where you see people with psychic abilities, people with complete memory, "rain men", dogs that can sniff (or sense) cancer in people, UFO's etc etc...

Why not start to acknowledge that we do not know, and will not know everything, ever?

A pin in a concert hall will for certain change the sound properties for that specific concert hall, but will anyone be able to hear it? We don't know (even though it's a far out example)

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/854440/autistic_man_can_remember_everything/

Quote:
As an example.
J J can be walking across a room (his energy being used in walking forward) and I (or anyone else) can halt J J 'dead in his tracks' just by the use of the breath from my/our mouth !! We can even do this from behind J J !!!!!!!!
THIS would violate J J's requirement of equal energy from me/us against the energy created by him walking - in order to stop him !!

The above is a ridiculous, completely inappropriate, and utterly meaningless comment.

For it to be germane in the context of this thread, it would have to require intellectual and emotional response, not only on the part of the person, but also on the part of the physical propagation of sound. To date, there is no suggestion or evidence whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form, that sound propagation itself has cognative ability of any sort.

For this, I await the falsifiable, testable, verifiable evidence.

Quote:
In a world where you see people with psychic abilities, people with complete memory, "rain men", dogs that can sniff (or sense) cancer in people, UFO's etc etc...

No, you mean "in a world where the above are ARGUED TO EXIST by some individuals".

There is no testable evidence of psychic ability, for instance. Ditto UFO's.

Do we also allow a place in our world for large orbiting satellites made of green cheese because someone has imagined same?

Quote:

Quote:
As an example.
J J can be walking across a room (his energy being used in walking forward) and I (or anyone else) can halt J J 'dead in his tracks' just by the use of the breath from my/our mouth !! We can even do this from behind J J !!!!!!!!
THIS would violate J J's requirement of equal energy from me/us against the energy created by him walking - in order to stop him !!

The above is a ridiculous, completely inappropriate, and utterly meaningless comment.

For it to be germane in the context of this thread, it would have to require intellectual and emotional response, not only on the part of the person, but also on the part of the physical propagation of sound. To date, there is no suggestion or evidence whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form, that sound propagation itself has cognative ability of any sort.

For this, I await the falsifiable, testable, verifiable evidence.

Semantic joke, J_J.

Similar to May saying she could make you come merely by wiggling her finger in a certain way for only two seconds.

Same with the power of affecting you by using just her breath and some upper airway muscle contortions.

Sounds erotic, but it just means she could tell you something and you would respond. You would be "affected" by her mere will and a few breath/mouth maneuvers!

Cheers, man.

Quote:

Quote:
In a world where you see people with psychic abilities, people with complete memory, "rain men", dogs that can sniff (or sense) cancer in people, UFO's etc etc...

No, you mean "in a world where the above are ARGUED TO EXIST by some individuals".

There is no testable evidence of psychic ability, for instance.

I knew you were going to say that!

Quote:
Ditto UFOs.

As for UFOs, not all of them are swamp gas, high altitude balloons or some toy flying saucer on a string, ya know. Some of them really are Unidentified Flying Objects.

I am trying - I really am !!!

Now I have found yet more things on the keys on the keyboard !!!

1. { }

2. [ ]

I will try No. 2 next time and see what happens.

Thanks.

May Belt,
P.W.B.Electronics.

Quote:

Quote:
Ditto UFOs.

As for UFOs, not all of them are swamp gas, high altitude balloons or some toy flying saucer on a string, ya know. Some of them really are Unidentified Flying Objects.

Oooohhhh. Realllyyy. ALEEENS?

Come on, Geoff, "unidentified" doesn't mean anything mysterious.

Oh, yeah, and how about them Crop Circles!??? Look out, M. SChmalyian or however you spell his name.

And the sign said
You got to have a membership card
To get inside
UGH!

Post deleted by sasaudio

Quote:
Where did he say "Aleeens"? Could easily have been military/defense which is at least 20 years ahead of our knowledge according to friends who have secret clearances. And it sure beats the "swamp gas traveling hundreds of miles per hour in different directions" theories the ignorant skeptics have actually put forth in times past.

Swamp Gas was the explanation put out by the Air Force for a rash of sightings in 1966.

There were numerous sightings during the Michigan wave of 1966. The case itself is very memorable for another important event that occurred. Project Blue Book sent Dr. J. Allen Hynek to investigate the sighting reports. At first, Hynek agreed that there was something going on in the Michigan skies. But after consulting with the Blue Book headquarters, he changed his mind, and said that the sightings were nothing more than "swamp gas."

Hynek Changes Mind:

Hynek would later change his attitude about UFOs, and ultimately, become one of the foremost and well-known UFO proponents ever. He would be credited with coining the phrase, "close encounters of the third kind," and was a consultant on the movie by the same name. He also had a cameo role in the film.

Quote:
Hynek would later change his attitude about UFOs, and ultimately, become one of the foremost and well-known UFO proponents ever. He would be credited with coining the phrase, "close encounters of the third kind," and was a consultant on the movie by the same name. He also had a cameo role in the film.

But nobody has ever successfully shown evidence of such a thing that is testable. UFO's are in the same garden as crop circles.

Quote:

Quote:
Hynek would later change his attitude about UFOs, and ultimately, become one of the foremost and well-known UFO proponents ever. He would be credited with coining the phrase, "close encounters of the third kind," and was a consultant on the movie by the same name. He also had a cameo role in the film.

But nobody has ever successfully shown evidence of such a thing that is testable. UFO's are in the same garden as crop circles.

True but regarding alien life, there are many astro/theoritical physicists who strongly feel alien life does exist.
Just look at Stephen Hawkings opinions on alien life forms and whether it is wise to send welcoming messages into space.

That said, there is not much in the way of actual evidence apart from the anecdotal from military pilots/some police/etc for actual UFOs.
And honestly most real or credible UFO sightings are probably military planes/drones, where they are flown and tested usually in secret for up to 10 years before being made public knowledge (Lockheed SR-71 a classic example and still beautiful IMO).
It is interesting how many sightings of a triangular UFO there are, which would tie in with the very latest military delta wing planes.
On top of that is the interesting google satellite picture showing a very specific vapor trail starting close to a closed off to public US research military base that heads over the Atlantic and calculated that it was made by a plane/object if I remember travelling around mach 8 (this is seperate to the latest NASA scramjets that are tested for around 10 to 30 secs - a colleague of mine used to work for Rolls Royce and has some fun old stories working on such technology).

Crop circles are nothing in comparison and further down on the list, made by bored students. Very bored students who should be studying and not screwing around

Cheers
Orb

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Hynek would later change his attitude about UFOs, and ultimately, become one of the foremost and well-known UFO proponents ever. He would be credited with coining the phrase, "close encounters of the third kind," and was a consultant on the movie by the same name. He also had a cameo role in the film.

But nobody has ever successfully shown evidence of such a thing that is testable. UFO's are in the same garden as crop circles.

True but regarding alien life, there are many astro/theoritical physicists who strongly feel alien life does exist.
Just look at Stephen Hawkings opinions on alien life forms and whether it is wise to send welcoming messages into space.

That said, there is not much in the way of actual evidence apart from the anecdotal from military pilots/some police/etc for actual UFOs.
And honestly most real or credible UFO sightings are probably military planes/drones, where they are flown and tested usually in secret for up to 10 years before being made public knowledge (Lockheed SR-71 a classic example and still beautiful IMO).

It is interesting how many sightings of a triangular UFO there are, which would tie in with the very latest military delta wing planes.

On top of that is the interesting google satellite picture showing a very specific vapor trail starting close to a closed off to public US research military base that heads over the Atlantic and calculated that it was made by a plane/object if I remember travelling around mach 8 (this is seperate to the latest NASA scramjets that are tested for around 10 to 30 secs - a colleague of mine used to work for Rolls Royce and has some fun old stories working on such technology).

Crop circles are nothing in comparison and further down on the list, made by bored students. Very bored students who should be studying and not screwing around

Cheers
Orb

Project Blue Book investigated 12618 UFO sightings between 1947 and 1969 and 701 of those sightings remained unidentified. The Air Force closed Project Blue Book in December 1969.

The National UFO Reporting Center received 4840 reports of UFOs in 2008.

Quote:
That said, there is not much in the way of actual evidence apart from the anecdotal from military pilots/some police/etc for actual UFOs.
And honestly most real or credible UFO sightings are probably military planes/drones, where they are flown and tested usually in secret for up to 10 years before being made public knowledge (Lockheed SR-71 a classic example and still beautiful IMO).

It is interesting how many sightings of a triangular UFO there are, which would tie in with the very latest military delta wing planes.

On top of that is the interesting google satellite picture showing a very specific vapor trail starting close to a closed off to public US research military base that heads over the Atlantic and calculated that it was made by a plane/object if I remember travelling around mach 8 (this is seperate to the latest NASA scramjets that are tested for around 10 to 30 secs - a colleague of mine used to work for Rolls Royce and has some fun old stories working on such technology).

Don't vapor trails indicate air breathing propulsion systems (which would obviously not work terribly well interplanetary-wise)? Of course, it's conceivable the craft, if extraterrestrial, employ two propulsion systems - an air-breathing one and one for interplanetary travel.

We have the additional problem related to the extremely rapid, high-speed changes in direction frequently described in UFO reports.

The operational altitude of the SR-71 might preclude it from being an ideal UFO candidate.

UFO's, crop circles I guess we "talked out"everything there is to discuss about the magic bowls Seriously if aliens were flying around wouldn't some of the thousands of amateur astronomers that gaze upon the night sky every night see some of these? Not seen any reports lately. Seriously there has to be alien life out among all the billions and billions of stars out there BUT is interstellar travel possible or is everyone stuck with the speed of light as a limit? I see it as one of several things as to why we haven't had any spaceships landing on the White House lawn. (Sorry but conspiracy theories NOT allowed) space travel limited by speed of light,civilizations may not arise around the same time as another close by one so they miss each other by 1 billion years, space travel not possible due to micro particles that would damage any object traveling at high speed, etc....Crop circles are pretty but man made.

Now then, no answers from JA yet about types of tests to be done on Ted's magic bowls You don't know? Don't care? Tired of the subject and wish you had never agreed to have them tested?

The speed of light limitation can be overcome by other theories (if any are ever proven and adjusted if required when we have the technology, such as the extended Heim/Drocher/Hauser theory that won the award from American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics for a gravitational propulsion system involving other dimensions).
Theoretical science but some aspects of it has come out correct or being the most accurate in terms of scientific measurements for particle masses.

Cheers
Orb

My point is that probably around 98 to 99% (a poor assumption but a figure I have seen mentioned in the past) of credible UFO sightings are actually military research orientated objects.
The other minor % that may be valid are unfortunately reliant upon anecdotal evidence as I said from military and commercial pilots/police/etc.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
The definition of perception is from my copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary !!
"Perception :-
Act, faculty, of perceiving; intuitive recognition."

Thanks! I found the following on the on-line Oxford: "

Quote:
Pretty sure you have some sort of reading comprehension disability, as there is a distinction between having an effect on low frequencies and intersecting with low frequencies.

Please explain than what "intersect" means in this context and why this distinction furthers the discussion.

Synergistics asserts: "The third utilizes a unique dispersion baffle to precisely control how the Bass Station resonator affects a rooms

Quote:
Just look at Stephen Hawkings opinions on alien life forms and whether it is wise to send welcoming messages into space.

I'm with Stephen.

Hasn't the SETI people ever seen a science fiction movie? How many times are the aliens friendly? Don't go in the basement and DON'T call the aliens in.

Now I'm scared: are the Acoustic ART products alien technology?!

30+ pages and the only theory of operation is from JA - absorption of microwave radiation impacting the listener - an explanation contrary to Synergistics'.

"Intelligent Acoustics" anyone?

There was a recent UFO sighting in Cali.
But it turned out it was just Ted throwing one of his bowls out the window after reading this thread.

Quote:
My point is that probably around 98 to 99% (a poor assumption but a figure I have seen mentioned in the past) of credible UFO sightings are actually military research orientated objects.
The other minor % that may be valid are unfortunately reliant upon anecdotal evidence as I said from military and commercial pilots/police/etc.

Cheers
Orb

Military and Commercial pilots and police seem like pretty reliable sources, generally speaking, as far as testimony is concerned; It's not exactly just some guy under a bridge. As I intimated earlier, I think a big problem for the naysayers is explaining the high speed 90 deg. changes of direction or stopping on a dime that have been frequently reported.

Quote:
The speed of light limitation can be overcome by other theories (if any are ever proven and adjusted if required when we have the technology, such as the extended Heim/Drocher/Hauser theory that won the award from American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics for a gravitational propulsion system involving other dimensions).
Theoretical science but some aspects of it has come out correct or being the most accurate in terms of scientific measurements for particle masses.

Cheers
Orb

As undergraduate I was selected to present my paper - Prelim. Design of Low-Thrust Engine for Interplanetary Space Travel - to the National Conference of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. For interstellar travel we have to look to more exotic means, such as the mechanism employed in the movie Contact - a worm hole, provided to Carl Sagan for his book Contact by Kip Thorne of Caltech after Thorne pointed out to Sagan his original idea for Ellie's trip, a black hole, was infeasible. As Thorne points out in his book, Black Holes and Time Warps, there is a little bit of a problem with worm holes for space travel. That is the worm holes close off almost immediately after they open up. Oh, well, guess we'll have to stick with extra sensory perception.

Quote:
"Of course, Synergistics could be wrong and has simply stumbled on a method of changing the listener as happy accident."

Or UNHAPPY accident as the one which started us on a tangental path !!

And, how many other discoveries have been made in science which can be attributed to an initial Unhappy accident ??

And, how many discoveries have been made in science which can (certainly in the early stages) be attributed to a "happy accident" ???

I can name one extremely important one - Louis Pasteur's observations when making his own wine !!

Regarding the definition of Perception :-

Quote:
"Thanks! I found the following on the on-line Oxford: "