So you think wire conductors in cables are directional? Think again...

Something for the offensive and illiterate one at the top of this S-Show of a thread idea...to try and wrap his puny & purposely antagonizing troll based mind around.
But I doubt he will.

Everything that can be heard, can be measured...except tinnitus...and one's imagination...though tinnitus can interfere with a hearing test.

holy mother of god, you are a persistent idiot.

Everything that can be heard, can be measured...except tinnitus...and one's imagination...though tinnitus can interfere with a hearing test.

holy mother of god, you are a persistent idiot.

I’ll even say it twice.

You are going to break the damned Dunning-Kruger meter.

Stop it.

Physicist here, late to the party. For those of you married to the idea that cables are directional, please explain to me how a cable is manufactured to be directional. In other words, what does the manufacturer do to impart the directionality into the cable?

I’ll wait.

--Jerry

well, first a physicist would inquire about the ’observation’, and if after much thinking and much assessment..... that if the observation cannot be dismissed, then look into why a cable might be heard as being directional.

To go after the observation alone (if one decided to do so) as the equation (equation = the observation awaiting an answer) does not seem to have a easy answer.... is to have one’s physics pants on backward.

If you are indeed the physicist, then you figure it out.

If the physicist decides to delete the observation that has literally been heard a million times or more, well that would not be science. That would a mis-trained physicist. Someone not worthy of the degree. Or someone pretending to be one on a forum.

To ask us to prove a complex question/answer set... is to ask us to do the job that a physicist is possibly more well equipped to do. Or should be. If not (not properly trained or not doing this correctly).....possibly even attempting to move the equation out of the science realm...and subtly cast it as emotional-political, all while pretending to be science.

It’s ok, I’ll wait.

OK, changed my mind. I won't wait: 
A real and actual physicist would never have said what was in the post I quoted. not going to happen. If it did, then the physicist very likely needs to be reprimanded or stripped of their papers.

The thing with uber expensive cables is the marketing claims that are flat out outrageous at AUDIO FREQUENCIES. These things can be measured. Differences in measurements at AUDIO FREQUENCIES can be heard.

uh, sorry to inform you but intermixing harmonics and their result in how they are handled at the ear, deals with an expression in ultrahigh frequencies and down to the bottom. Basically dc to light speed kind of frequency response requirement, in audio cables. with zero problems in any area and zero preload (or load of the microsecond moment in play) interference in any slew up or slew down of any kind of complex load.

audio cables are easily seen and explained as the most complex signals that are dealt with in the world of electronics and signal transfer. easily. I’ll say it again. Easily.

When this was explained to a person who works at the peak of telecommunications industry and deals with the physics of various forms of transmission, they ended up agreeing. This is a person, btw..that basically has their masters in the physics of signal transmission.

Audio covers more octaves than ANY other kind of signal and it does it right from DC and on up. It is a hellaciously complex and wideband signal. It is the only one that has such extreme range, and it continually goes through the skin effect region in all of it’s complexities, overall. The interactions with the dynamic aspects of the impedance and the entire reactive and interactive aspects of the fundamental physics of a transmission line, are off the scale, compared to all other signals.

Audio is the ultimate stress test of an electrically based transmission line.

So, please, get a grip. Go talk to an expert if you can’t figure it out. Get educated.

Show me your evidence. Don’t tell me. I have friend that’s a PhD in physics. Experts in science require evidence. So far, you’ve provided none to the discussion.

It is already explicit to the data or points shared in the post you answered.
Their fundamental and published points in physics and the associated gleaned data in the academic texts says it all, quite clearly.

It is accepted, published and taught information at the basic levels of the physics of conductivity and how that works with transmission lines.

This illustrates that you don’t even know the nature of the questions you are asking, or know the practices, intelligence, capacities, or the integrity of the people and industries you are accusing of being in error.

I’m not saying that you can’t learn but you are headed down that road, in a fairly public fashion ---if you continue on the same path.

Wanna share your name? My name is Ken Hotte. It is a known name and a known face. How about sharing your own? Got something to hide? Or not?

Additionally the alloy (a similar one, ingredient wise) is used for advanced medical procedures - inside people’s bodies in specific ultrasonic transmission devices. tiny ultrasonic snips and in ultrasonic breakage of things like kidney stones.

It is used in that way... as... if the fluid cable breaks (snaked into the body-device and cable are one), it poses no harm to the body and the body eliminates it, it flushes out. 

it makes wonderful, wonderful transmission channel or path. it is between a gas and a solid, it is a fluid.

In the early-mid 90's the us government designed a balloon like antenna for use on tanks. they filled a oblong balloon with a particular chargeable gas and then ran their RF energies and frequencies through it.

the antenna ended up being entirely non directional, and not bandwidth limited and could handle any complex multiplexing load that could be described by the transmission hardware. that the antenna had no shape/bandwidth/frequency range limitation. that the two normal parameters ---did not correlate. 

those parameters are: antenna shape and size vs what the antenna can transmit or receive. these aspects have been worked out into solid functional math so the one can take a piece of wire then on paper perfectly predict how it works as an antenna.

with the charged gas antenna, all the rules went away. their principle desire was to be able to grow a new antenna if the old one was  shot off or broken off. with the gas bag antenna, all they had to do is inflate a new one out the hole where the old one was. Instant fix, and no limitations of any kind as a side effect. 

You'll find old reports about it and finding those reports about it were more common on the older web, lets say 12-15 years ago or more. It went black since then, no further data found. although the math, the physics  and the results are sound. this is all known stuff for charged gasses.

In the case of a fluid metal alloy for a 'transmission line' or 'antenna', we end up with a combination of the known aspects of the theory and the math at the same time, some of it is thrown out and we get to the results of the charged gas antenna, of 'no limits'.

wire has limits and screws up at all frequencies except one, and that is tied to it's psychical dimensions and the materials it is made of. A wire cable's complex LCR is a function of the solid lattice structure of the wire itself.

with the fluid metal cable, those limitations don't exist. and like the charged gas antenna, if it is made into an inductor coil, things get weird. really freaking weird. but the bandwidth, the transient response and the quality of wave that it can deal with and pass along, is off the charts as compared to wire. Totally different and pretty well superior to wire (scientifically indisputably so) in any way one wants to calculate or imagine. one of those weird cases where informing people of the science of it seems like commercial spam, even if it isn't.