http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp

"Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
affects the water molecules structure"

Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...

--
Rich

On Jun 27, 11:51 pm, RichD > wrote:
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"

Physicists call it a microwave. Why would you want to heat up your
wine?

>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...

Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_
working technology.

>
> --
> Rich

> Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_ working
> technology.

LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers" diss real
science, but of course they have nothing of their own to show.

"Ethan Winer" wrote ...
>> Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_ working
>> technology.
>
> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers" diss real
> science, but of course they have nothing of their own to show.

On the other hand we have a rich history of "real science"
that seemed just as valid in its time, but in retrospect is
embarassing at best. And I wouldn't bet my life that 100%
of everything we think of as "real science" today will stand
the test of time and further research.

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> "Ethan Winer" wrote ...
>>> Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_
>>> working technology.
>>
>> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers" diss real
>> science, but of course they have nothing of their own to show.
>
> On the other hand we have a rich history of "real science"
> that seemed just as valid in its time, but in retrospect is
> embarassing at best. And I wouldn't bet my life that 100%
> of everything we think of as "real science" today will stand
> the test of time and further research.
>


Agreed, and I think the biggest mistake made is to think that Science deals
with "facts". It does not, it merely puts forward hypotheses that fit
certain observations. A particularly good hypothesis (theory) will also
predict certain outcomes that may later be observed to be as predicted.
These theories are only designed to be "true" until an observation
condtradicts it, or it is updated by a better version, they are absolutely
NOT describing things that are actually true or are known facts. There are
no known facts at all. (except perhaps in Mathematics, which precisely
defines the facts it is proving)



Gareth.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:05:54 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
> wrote:

>
>"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
>> "Ethan Winer" wrote ...
>>>> Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_
>>>> working technology.
>>>
>>> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers" diss real
>>> science, but of course they have nothing of their own to show.
>>
>> On the other hand we have a rich history of "real science"
>> that seemed just as valid in its time, but in retrospect is
>> embarassing at best. And I wouldn't bet my life that 100%
>> of everything we think of as "real science" today will stand
>> the test of time and further research.
>>
>
>
>Agreed, and I think the biggest mistake made is to think that Science deals
>with "facts". It does not, it merely puts forward hypotheses that fit
>certain observations. A particularly good hypothesis (theory) will also
>predict certain outcomes that may later be observed to be as predicted.
>These theories are only designed to be "true" until an observation
>condtradicts it, or it is updated by a better version, they are absolutely
>NOT describing things that are actually true or are known facts. There are
>no known facts at all. (except perhaps in Mathematics, which precisely
>defines the facts it is proving)
>

Even maths doesn't deal in facts. All proofs rest on axioms - which
are pretty good assumptions about how the world works, but they are
just assumptions. So a proof will really read "Such and such is
proven, assuming that...".

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Jun 28, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
> > Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers,
> >and produce _zero_ working technology.
>
> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers"
> diss real science, but of course they have nothing of
> their own to show.

Dudes, it pains me to be the bearer of bad news,
but you are thick witted *******s.

No offense intended.

--
Rich

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:59:50 -0700, RichD >
wrote:

>On Jun 28, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
>> > Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers,
>> >and produce _zero_ working technology.
>>
>> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers"
>> diss real science, but of course they have nothing of
>> their own to show.
>
>Dudes, it pains me to be the bearer of bad news,
>but you are thick witted *******s.
>
>No offense intended.

Brilliant reasoning - I've never seen such an astute application of
logic. Can you tell me how long it took you to work through it and
arrive at this line of reasoning? Did you have help?

Sorry, - you don't possess sufficient wit to cause offence to anybody.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Rich,

> Dudes, it pains me to be the bearer of bad news,
> but you are thick witted *******s.

This is typical. If you had something - anything! - of substance that
supports your position you'd have stated it. But since you don't, all that's
left is insults.

I'll humor you for the moment. That page claims the product can improve the
taste of wine basically via osmosis, right through the glass bottle without
contacting the wine itself. To wit, "The resonance occurs right through the
glass." I'd love to hear you explain how this can happen. Please be
specific! Extra points if you can explain what "resonance" has to do with
the process.

--Ethan

On 6/29/07 9:03 AM, in article
, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com> wrote:

> Rich,
>
>> Dudes, it pains me to be the bearer of bad news,
>> but you are thick witted *******s.
>
> This is typical. If you had something - anything! - of substance that
> supports your position you'd have stated it. But since you don't, all that's
> left is insults.
>
> I'll humor you for the moment. That page claims the product can improve the
> taste of wine basically via osmosis, right through the glass bottle without
> contacting the wine itself. To wit, "The resonance occurs right through the
> glass." I'd love to hear you explain how this can happen. Please be
> specific! Extra points if you can explain what "resonance" has to do with
> the process.
>
> --Ethan
>

Show a little sympathy. He is probably unemployed from the Consumer Sales
industry where he sold monster cables until they became totally debunked.

I enjoy good wines, the industry of which already has it's share of quacks,
and I think one more shouldn't hurt too much. It ranks with teaching that
the wine glass should be held by two fingers on the rim of the base and then
held up as though it were a dirty diaper.

Don

On Jun 29, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
> I'll humor you for the moment. That page
> claims the product can improve the taste of
> wine basically via osmosis, right through the glass
> bottle without contacting the wine itself.

oh then I guess light can't heat a bottle of liquid,
right through the glass!


> I'd love to hear you explain how this can happen.

You scientists, such skeptics!
Drink some grape, open your mind!

> Extra points if you can explain what "resonance" has to
> do with the process.

waves resonate...light, sound... do you
know what resonate means?

--
Rich

RichD wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
> > > Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers,
> > >and produce _zero_ working technology.
> >
> > LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers"
> > diss real science, but of course they have nothing of
> > their own to show.
>
> Dudes, it pains me to be the bearer of bad news,
> but you are thick witted *******s.
>
> No offense intended.


Anyone who has to use "Dudes" in a rebuttal has zero credibility.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

I. Care wrote:
>
> I think the OP needs to buy some shakti stones to enhance his audio
> system while he drinks his treated wine. Then he will feel physically
> lighter with an empty wallet.

You beat me to it! I was about to say that this sounds VERY much like
the nonsense audiophiles spend thousands on to (allegedly) hear every
last nuance out of their systems.

They need to make these wine treaters in larger models so you can sit
a speaker cabinet in it! I'm sure for a mere $20 grand a piece of so,
I'd be able to hear things in my favorite recordings I never heard
before! :-)

But it's all a little advanced for a person an my level. I'm still
trying to afford the special cables that have to always be installed
one way and come in different models according to the type of music
you play.

Benj wrote:

> < ...snip... >
>
> But it's all a little advanced for a person an my level. I'm still
> trying to afford the special cables that have to always be installed
> one way and come in different models according to the type of music
> you play.

Gee, I thought the really good cables could be retrained. ;-)


Later...

Ron Capik <<< cynic in training >>>
--

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:28:22 -0700, Benj wrote:

> I. Care wrote:
>>
>> I think the OP needs to buy some shakti stones to enhance his audio
>> system while he drinks his treated wine. Then he will feel physically
>> lighter with an empty wallet.
>
> You beat me to it! I was about to say that this sounds VERY much like
> the nonsense audiophiles spend thousands on to (allegedly) hear every
> last nuance out of their systems.
>
> They need to make these wine treaters in larger models so you can sit
> a speaker cabinet in it! I'm sure for a mere $20 grand a piece of so,
> I'd be able to hear things in my favorite recordings I never heard
> before! :-)
>
> But it's all a little advanced for a person an my level. I'm still
> trying to afford the special cables that have to always be installed
> one way and come in different models according to the type of music
> you play.

Don't forget the $295 hand-turned rosewood volume control knob and the
little stands that hold your speaker cables off the floor, so the signal
won't leak out. No kidding. Feed "audiophoolery" to your favorite search
engine for some laughs.

Stephen wrote on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:00:17 -0500:

??>> I. Care wrote:
??>>>
??>>> I think the OP needs to buy some shakti stones to enhance
??>>> his audio system while he drinks his treated wine. Then
??>>> he will feel physically lighter with an empty wallet.
??>>
??>> But it's all a little advanced for a person an my level.
??>> I'm still trying to afford the special cables that have to
??>> always be installed one way and come in different models
??>> according to the type of music you play.

Cables do leak if you believe Comcast. A little while ago, I
came home to find some repairmen digging away in front of my
house. They said that the FAA had detected signal leakage from
their cable and they had to replace it!

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

> Cables do leak if you believe Comcast. A little while ago, I came home to find some repairmen digging away in front of my house. They said that the FAA had detected signal leakage from their cable and they had to replace it!

Yes, cables will leak RF if they are defective. RF is such a high
frequency that capacitance becomes important. Speaker cables only carry
audio.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"RichD" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"
>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...
>
> --
> Rich
>

LOL..

"It is composed of a combination of organic (epoxy) and non-organic
non-magnetic metals (copper and others) placed in a matrix with various
crystals (12) also known for their specific vibrational frequencies. "

Which begs the question .... Are there any organic magnetic metals? or is
this "organic" in the sense that pesticides _were_ used to grow the copper?

On 2007-06-28, CWatters > wrote:
>
> "RichD" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>>
>> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
>> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
>> affects the water molecules structure"
>>
>> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...
>>
>
> "It is composed of a combination of organic (epoxy) and non-organic
> non-magnetic metals (copper and others) placed in a matrix with various
> crystals (12) also known for their specific vibrational frequencies. "

sounds like a computer circuit, epoxy and copper PCB. abd quartz
crystals known to oscillate at certain frequencies (frequencies that are
typically printed on the case) only problem is I think the case is
zinc plated steel,

> Which begs the question .... Are there any organic magnetic metals? or is
> this "organic" in the sense that pesticides _were_ used to grow the copper?

copper is a funguicide...


--

Bye.
Jasen

RichD wrote:
>
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"
>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/crap.htm

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

In article .com>,
RichD > wrote:

> wine-accessories-supplies-how.asp

BS, BS, BS, BS

"RichD" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"
>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...
>
> --
> Rich
>



It also proves that whoever wrote that web page has no idea about grammar,
spelling or punctuation.



Gareth.

On Jun 28, 3:51 am, RichD > wrote:
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"
>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...
>
> --
> Rich

You're ****ed in the head. Get the hell out of here...

RichD wrote:
> http://www.wineexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxs-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"
>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...
>
> --
> Rich
>
Their trade secret describes a magnetron oven!!!???

"RichD" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"
>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...

Science answers utilitarian questions, not religious ones.

On Jun 28, 3:51 am, RichD > wrote:
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"
>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...
>
> --
> Rich

I find that after drinking the first glass, the wine all by itself
becomes smoother and brighter with longer finish and less burn,
astringency, and chalky feeling on tongue.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:29:03 -0700, z wrote:

> On Jun 28, 3:51 am, RichD > wrote:
>> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>>
>> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
>> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
>> affects the water molecules structure"
>>
>> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>
> I find that after drinking the first glass, the wine all by itself
> becomes smoother and brighter with longer finish and less burn,
> astringency, and chalky feeling on tongue.

And it usually gets even better with the next bottle. It would be really
interesting to transfer some outrageously expensive wine into screw-top
bottles and serve it to a party of wine snobs. Have there ever been any
double-blind tests?

"Stephen J. Rush" > wrote in message
...
> And it usually gets even better with the next bottle. It would be really
> interesting to transfer some outrageously expensive wine into screw-top
> bottles and serve it to a party of wine snobs. Have there ever been any
> double-blind tests?

In fact most, if not all, wine judging is at least single blind, and usually
double blind.
And wine judges spit it out to prevent the wine tasting better the drunker
they get.
But it's still only a collection of opinions!

MrT.

On Jul 11, 4:35 am, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> "Stephen J. Rush" > wrote in ...
>
> > And it usually gets even better with the next bottle. It would be really
> > interesting to transfer some outrageously expensive wine into screw-top
> > bottles and serve it to a party of wine snobs. Have there ever been any
> > double-blind tests?
>
> In fact most, if not all, wine judging is at least single blind, and usually
> double blind.
> And wine judges spit it out to prevent the wine tasting better the drunker
> they get.
> But it's still only a collection of opinions!
>
> MrT.

>From what I read, wine tasting is surprisingly repeatable, both with
one taster doing repeated tests, and between different tasters. Highly
UNLIKE audio testing.

"z" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >From what I read, wine tasting is surprisingly repeatable, both with
> one taster doing repeated tests, and between different tasters.

With the same group of tasters, yes. Between a different group of tasters,
not so much.

>Highly UNLIKE audio testing.

Not so different really. Neither group likes to admit their personal
shortcomings.

MrT.

Stephen J. Rush wrote:

>
> And it usually gets even better with the next bottle. It would be really
> interesting to transfer some outrageously expensive wine into screw-top
> bottles and serve it to a party of wine snobs. Have there ever been any
> double-blind tests?

All the time. Almost all serious judging of wine is done under single-
or double-blind conditions. And, yes, there are some surprises, such as
Two Buck Chuck Chardonnay recently winning a prestigious California wine
competition, but far more often than not "the usual suspects" do very
well in single- and double-blind conditions. It's (usually) not without
reason that famous wines become famous, though one of the fascinating
things about wine is that each year is a different story. And why do
you think that you can't get good wine in a screwcapped bottle? Some
very fine wines are bottled under screwcap, and many winegeeks applaud
the move.

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

Mike Tommasi wrote, early in the thread "New Age wine enhancement":

> Do not reply, please...


Mike, I don't know if that did much good, but thanks.

On the other hand, a recent conversation with someone who had something to
do with the history of newsgroups illuminated another angle that I thought
I'd mention. My informant described an experiment years ago. A popular
newsgroup (with serious subject matter, but attracting a lot of dross) was
converted to moderated form. Keep in mind that with newsgroups, just like
mailing lists, moderation is pre-facto -- you send the posting to the
moderator, who screens it. (Unlike the later, HTTP-based forum tools now
popular, which have central content control of course, therefore allow
after-the-fact edits.)

An effort was made to keep all irrelevant chat out of the new moderated
newsgroup. But the organizers found that a certain proportion of chat is
necessary to sustain interest. Even people who'd supported moderation would
drift away, otherwise. Other experience supported this observation.

Just food for thought. -- Max

I expanded this distribution to more of the groups that saw the original.

"Mike Tommasi" in ...
> Max Hauser wrote:
>> ...
>> On the other hand, a recent conversation with someone who
>> had something to do with the history of newsgroups illuminated
>> another angle that I thought I'd mention. My informant
>> described an experiment years ago. A popular newsgroup ... was converted
>> to moderated form. ...
>> An effort was made to keep all irrelevant chat out of the new
>> moderated newsgroup. But the organizers found that a certain
>> proportion of chat is necessary to sustain interest. Even people
>> who'd supported moderation would drift away, otherwise. Just food for
>> thought. -- Max
>
> Yes, I enjoyed the exchange between Mark and Don. ;-)
>
> The difference between audio geeks and wine geeks is that wine geeks do
> not believe the hocus pocus stuff, audio geeks do. ...
>
> Mike (former member of the Audio Engineering Society)


Sorry to tell you, Mike, but we _all_ harbor some notions contrary to fact.
It seems part of how the mind works. (Various wise people have marveled
less at how much they do or don't know, than at the things they do know that
aren't so.)

I see hocus-pocus among some wine geeks, just like some audio geeks. For
instance, mythologies on wine-writing history. Not to mention all that
business about magnets (prompting a section in alt.food.wine's FAQ file).

I used to post on audio technologies -- just technical questions, in areas I
knew something about. Example from 1991-- this one was popular -- posted
after some people were furious and another claimed they'd be damned if
something was true (it was):

http://tinyurl.com/2ska8m

(If that European archive fails, find others by searching word combo
oversampling+curious+furious+damned .)

Also no matter how clear-cut the subject matter, hecklers can be relied on,
as the night follows the day, to attack any information they don't happen to
like. (Again, how the mind works.) I've seen it with postings on consumer
technologies, language history, internet history, absinthe, truffles, the
AxR-1 vine rootstock debacle, wine literature, even the simple math of
multiplying by -1. These hecklers don't always give the impression they are
used to dealing much with things like sources and evidence and facts
unaffected by what you think. But they don't let such limitations restrain
them!


Max (longtime member of Audio Engineering Society)

"Mike Tommasi" > wrote in message
...
> You are right of course... but wine geeks who believe in pyramids and
> magnets tends to be on the fringe and so their problem can be seen as a
> superstition on a par with astrology, while it seems to me that audio
> exotica enjoys a higher status more akin to religion. ;-)

Not IMO. I would place audio superstition on the same level as astrology,
numerology, feng shui, etc etc.
Religion is far more widespread and far more insidious.

MrT.

"Mr.T" wrote

>> You are right of course... but wine geeks who believe in pyramids
>> and
>> magnets tends to be on the fringe and so their problem can be seen
>> as a
>> superstition on a par with astrology, while it seems to me that
>> audio
>> exotica enjoys a higher status more akin to religion. ;-)
>
> Not IMO. I would place audio superstition on the same level as
> astrology,
> numerology, feng shui, etc etc.
> Religion is far more widespread and far more insidious.

More like alchemy. No specific methodology. Groping in the half-light,
hoping to stir up a new science.

A religion is a group of people defending the boundaries of received
wisdom. Science becomes religion when it stops making progress.

Denying the possibility of progress in audio electronics is the
stock-in-trade of the defenders of the reproductionist faith. Now
accuracy of reproduction is commonplace their agenda is complete:
there's nothing left to discuss.

That's why the audio forums are dead. They are populated by geeks with
nothing left to say, save to chat about other things and defend
themselves against the New Scientists of the Golden Age.

cheers, Ian

Audiophool.

"Ian Iveson" > wrote in message
...
> Denying the possibility of progress in audio electronics is the
> stock-in-trade of the defenders of the reproductionist faith. Now
> accuracy of reproduction is commonplace their agenda is complete:
> there's nothing left to discuss.

Well if you think speakers are now perfect, recording techniques beyond
reproach, and even room acoustics now universally faultless, then I guess
you would imagine "accuracy of reproduction is commonplace".
The discussion of course would be by the many millions who disagree with
that.

MrT.

"Mike Tommasi" in :
> ...
> You are right of course... but wine geeks who believe in pyramids and
> magnets tends to be on the fringe ... their problem can be seen as a
> superstition on a par with astrology, while it seems to me that audio
> exotica enjoys a higher status ...

(Among the population of audiophiles, I take that to mean.)

> I will not go through all the details, but there are people that seriously
> believe that weighing down a CD will bring less wow and flutter... and
> there are those who claim to hear the difference that an 8 ohm
> transmission line makes... and the latest, someone here in France has come
> up with a filter for those evil AC outlets that brings about a complete
> transformation of the sound output of CD players and amps, it sells for
> €27,000........................................
>
> Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France

The gadgets with absurd rationalizations and €27,000 price tags are
legitimate gripes. (I could give you more real cases I collected. For an
invited talk about this at a big technical conference. I reported only
examples abject even on their own terms. Like a $10,000 or so preamplifier
that, inside, had only a commonplace audibly dubious amplifier chip selling
for a few cents.)

But the flip side to this is underappreciated in the technical world IMO.
Some of these consumer technologies are rather complex, and skilled
technical people not specifically expert may not perceive or understand
their subtleties. Years of training to model reality with mathematical
abstractions chosen partly for their tractability exacerbates this problem.
You find engineers and scientists arguing from a textbook model for a
reality it doesn't fit.

The original audio newsgroup years (net.audio from 1982, called rec.audio
after late 1986) were a showplace for these behaviors (and audiophile myths
and ideologies). Dick Pierce parodied some behaviors skillfully (from years
working on practical audio) in his classic "Audio anecdote" posting series
that many people enjoyed.

Skin effect in speaker wires is an example. (Tendency of current to flow
near the surface as frequency increases.) Not every engineer knows offhand
that this effect can be electrically important even at audio frequencies,
especially with long runs driving an often complex speaker impedance.
Quantifying skin depth is an undergraduate EM homework problem (links
below). But discussions online (and in my experience, offline too) were
full of offhand technical assertions that skin depth equated to EM
wavelength of the signal, or even to air acoustic wavelength. It's neither,
but people would argue "technically" from either assumption.

An even purer example is multiplying by -1 (known identically in the signal
world as "180-degree phase shift"). In 1991 someone asked online how to do
180-degree phase shift on a sampled audio signal. A few people answered
accurately at once, but were submerged and/or attacked by opinionated,
mutually hostile technical assertions whose sole commonality was to be
unfailingly wrong. (Did you hear the line about a little learning being a
dangerous thing?)

-- Max

Online audio skin-depth note from 20 years ago:
http://tinyurl.com/2m6mas

Arithmetic erratum:
http://tinyurl.com/3yxurt