Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm talking about knowing why different factors act and interact with each other based on the thorough understanding of the subject, rather than "well it's worked fine for me this way so far". People that think "because it worked for me, that makes it right" harm any field in which they try to advise people. The mentality is "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

That is your statement every single time you try to argue science vs application, and it doesn't apply. Not in the slightest, even in your workout thread. The fact is, on paper we are shown that OFC wire to wire is better. So then you double a run of the CCA, come up cheaper with no performance loss...that is not "post hoc ergo propter hoc", that is actually a form of science called APPLICATION. Even the best scientific formulas have to be tested and applied, what good do they do on paper? If I switched from OFC to CCA and saved money but didn't drop a single volt or decibel from running OFC...how does your propter fit into that equation? Truth is, it doesn't. And ACTUALLY doing something has merits as well, you just would rather ignore it for something you see on paper but never do.

The claim was OFC wire is better. It was proven. Enough said. You like to argue but you've never been able to successfully debate any point i've made and always rely on personal experience.

Absolutely science has to be tested, and it is never accepted until tested. The difference is control, have a single person do something one way isn't considered adequate testing. It needs to be repeated through multiple groups.

I agree that testing is essential, but i have no idea what you mean by "ignore it for something you see on paper but never do." I have in fact used both CCA and OFC wire and currently run ONLY OFC.

Edited by Afficionado

If you have any questions relating to nutrition, lifting, or health in general, feel free to give me a PM and I will give you straight forward advice with no BS involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point, you disregard ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in favor of something on paper. We know one to one, OFC is better. Not once has that been debated. But when I used CCA I experienced no drop in performance electronically or spl.

You simply cannot disregard ACTUAL events simply because on paper it couldn't be. Actually doing something is a part of science too, why are you so focused on what you read instead of what you do? I'm not saying use both, I'm saying wire properly using OFC. Then wire the exact same setup properly using CCA. What difference will you see? Ignore what you see on paper, do it and then see what actually happens.

Tell me...does this smell like chloroform to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point, you disregard ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in favor of something on paper. We know one to one, OFC is better. Not once has that been debated. But when I used CCA I experienced no drop in performance electronically or spl.

You simply cannot disregard ACTUAL events simply because on paper it couldn't be. Actually doing something is a part of science too, why are you so focused on what you read instead of what you do? I'm not saying use both, I'm saying wire properly using OFC. Then wire the exact same setup properly using CCA. What difference will you see? Ignore what you see on paper, do it and then see what actually happens.

Devils Advocate. What if the power you lost did NOT result in a score difference? Is it possible that there is another factor in your car that limited your score to what it was?

  • Like (+1 Rep) 1

DAT 4125------>RE XXX comps active

Eclipse cd7000

I serve drunks for a living :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it is like this, I might be completely wrong but it makes sense to me. The big argument between ofc and CCA is the price compared to efficiency in the power they can carry. Electrical efficiency to me is exponential, just like decibels, we all know doubling power will not double your score, the same way doubling your runs will not double how efficiently the runs carry the power. After a point you will be adding 50 runs to only increase efficiency by a fraction of a percent. So after a certain point (like in alpines and HT build's with a large amount of runs) it will not matter if you run cca or ofc simply because the the gain you will see in these extreme cases will be minimal

2002 Honda CR-V
Alpine 9887

My Build

Rebuilding...

Second Skin Damp
4 DC XL 15's
2 DC 5ks
Singer 320 amp
6 cap banks
Sky High wire
2 VM-1's
OM-1

all under window line

Team DC Audio

Obama has a law he's trying to pass right now, trying to ban Leo for being a threat to children everywhere.



EDIT: Not in a JP kind of way.

I thought I was going to die from all the jizz filling my ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point, you disregard ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in favor of something on paper. We know one to one, OFC is better. Not once has that been debated. But when I used CCA I experienced no drop in performance electronically or spl.

You simply cannot disregard ACTUAL events simply because on paper it couldn't be. Actually doing something is a part of science too, why are you so focused on what you read instead of what you do? I'm not saying use both, I'm saying wire properly using OFC. Then wire the exact same setup properly using CCA. What difference will you see? Ignore what you see on paper, do it and then see what actually happens.

Devils Advocate. What if the power you lost did NOT result in a score difference? Is it possible that there is another factor in your car that limited your score to what it was?

But doesn't that further help the case for CCA? That the power lost did not result in a lower voltage or lower score...so does that mean any loss through CCA is negligible? That even though OFC is hands down a better conductor it doesn't matter much in the end of things?

What's better for someone is definitely going to vary. I'm hoping to look at this from all angles. Good job on being the advocate :good:

Tell me...does this smell like chloroform to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't get, and nobody has pointed out that I've seen, is he used 500 amps for the math on one 20ft. run. The resistance figures used wouldn't be the same at that level. The difference between ofc/cca at 250-300 amps for the 20' run would be much smaller than the example he made.

Doesn't resistance increase as current increases? If so, the values of 0.1 (ofc) and 0.17 (10% cca) were for how much current? Using these two factors, and *300* amps in the formula, I get .6v drop for ofc, and 1.02v drop for cca.

Edited by Jay L.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...