Edited first paragraph of my last main post, to prevent others being set on the wrong foot. (added blue text)
Hence there is NO "crux of it".
Equivalency of Roxul vs. Auralex
Originally posted at johnlsayers.com, topic 8584.
Great, now we're getting somewhere! In the past you said I was completely full of shit. Now you seem to be saying I'm only partially full of shit. This is a big step forward! :) I agree that the increase in exposed surface is not the entire story. My FAQ has made that clear for at least two or three years:Edited first paragraph of my last main post And this is also not, and never was about exposed edges, but your frequency independent linear relationship with the edge surface of these edges, wich is the core of your published stuff. The edge effect relates to edges even in cases with lacking exposed edge surface
So now it's down to how much of the increase is due to diffraction and how much is due to the simply having more exposed edge surface. I say its 5 to 1 in favor of the exposed surface. If you have a better answer, and an explanation that makes sense (or hard evidence), let's hear it. Otherwise I think we can put this puppy to bed! --Ethaneven when the edges are included in the total surface area, values greater than 1.0 are still possible due to diffraction effects at the material's corners. When the corners are rounded, this effect is reduced.
Can you please stop this .......... I NEVER SAID SOMETHING ELSE. And when I speak about science I always say the same. What I tell here you can also find in the related past threads. FOR YEARS already. Read and listen to what I write.. And don't start quoting things out of context as usual. I edited that 1 simple paragraph 9 times hoping to make sure you couldn't find a word allowing yet another diversion. And your related page and stuff on your site site is still as wrong. With your super innocent face, and your pseudo truths you do nothing else than provoking. Metaphorical: Please People, Moderators and Ro, please confirm how innocent and lovely I am, and how bad the others. Solve it yourself. And study things BEFORE you publish about them, at the expense of others.[Great, now we're getting somewhere! In the past you said I was completely full of shit. Now you seem to be saying I'm only partially full of shit. This is a big step forward! :)
Well, I guess that settles it then. No better answer, just "you're wrong" yet again. Which proves to tells me I've been right all along but Eric won't admit it. Speaking of who's right and who's wrong, besides the growing list I maintain of all the things Eric has been wrong about over the years, I have a similar list of my own gaffs and errors. One of these days I'll proudly list them all. I say proudly because I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. Here's one as a teaser, since it relates to another poster in this thread: Years ago I thought that when absorption data is given in octave bands, the data was the average for the entire octave. Andre Vare set me straight and explained that it's still third octave data, but only every third value is given. --EthanIf you have a better answer, and an explanation that makes sense (or hard evidence), let's hear it. Otherwise I think we can put this puppy to bed!Can you please stop this ... And your related page and stuff on your site site is still as wrong.
A typical sick misquote. Linking two unlinked things. The first part I asked you to stop lying. The second part is a plain physical fact. The base for that fact is spread over numerous posts already + ALL related literature and/or articles also partly linked or referred in several threads here and other groups you know, even in this very thread. And as traditional you shift your personal responsibility as an author towards others. The complete non related suggestive reference to that list with my alleged errors you collected, shows the real you. You used that pathetic list on several occasions in groups as substitute for arguments. Without whatever success because it told people about you not me. I leave the Forum here for a while. It's not good for my health here. I really consider writing about my net experiences of which you are significant part. But, don't worry, I promise you the respect you deserve.Can you please stop this ... And your related page and stuff on your site site is still as wrong.
Guys, I had hoped you would prove me/us wrong...
look what happens :(
External image, not preserved — original: http://www.wesecure.com/combination-lock.jpg
I leave the Forum here for a while. It's not good for my health here.
My experiences have been written for years. Just waiting for the right time to publish them. :) Eric, at this point the entire acoustics community views you as a buffoon. A few people still respect your knowledge (including me), but you've lost all credibility personally because of your obsession to try to harm me. There is nothing you can say or write that will influence anyone. Outside of your small circle of friends, nobody knows of you and nobody cares what you have to say about me or acoustics or anything else. The more hostile you behave, the sillier you look. And now that your pals are trying to compete with my acoustic treatment company you look even sillier, like a shill for their commercial interests. --EthanI really consider writing about my net experiences of which you are significant part. But, don't worry, I promise you the respect you deserve.