Interesting Papers re temporal resolution Options

[ncdrawl]

http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/Acoustics-papers.htm

http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/papers/FAQs.pdf

[ultrasonic]

Nobody seems to be able to do it. Instead, all we get are these abstract tests like Kunchur's, involving some most definately non-musical waveforms with questionable relevance and inconclusive results.

I agree. Not a single positive result in a decade is simple but mortgageable evidence.

Does this count?:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.ph...mp;postcount=28

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

Nobody seems to be able to do it. Instead, all we get are these abstract tests like Kunchur's, involving some most definately non-musical waveforms with questionable relevance and inconclusive results.

I agree. Not a single positive result in a decade is simple but mortgageable evidence.

Does this count?:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.ph...mp;postcount=28

In the opinon of many, no.

[ultrasonic]

Nobody seems to be able to do it. Instead, all we get are these abstract tests like Kunchur's, involving some most definately non-musical waveforms with questionable relevance and inconclusive results.

I agree. Not a single positive result in a decade is simple but mortgageable evidence.

Does this count?:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.ph...mp;postcount=28

In the opinon of many, no.

Opinion isn't good enough. The paper is scientific and peer-reviewed. It may be flawed, but if so it needs to be debunked scientifically. Can you provide links to similarly peer-reviewed refutations of the paper?

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

Nobody seems to be able to do it. Instead, all we get are these abstract tests like Kunchur's, involving some most definately non-musical waveforms with questionable relevance and inconclusive results.

I agree. Not a single positive result in a decade is simple but mortgageable evidence.

Does this count?:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.ph...mp;postcount=28

In the opinon of many, no.

Opinion isn't good enough.

Then your opinion is also not good enough, and that should be the end of your contributions to this thread. Do you want to go there? ;-)

The paper is scientific and peer-reviewed.

That does not make it infallible.

It may be flawed, but if so it needs to be debunked scientifically.

That has been done. The paper has always been weak. It was shopped around as a conference paper in several places before a journal that was weak enough to publish it was found.

Can you provide links to similarly peer-reviewed refutations of the paper?

That's unecessary. The universe is full of of peer-reviewed papers that became false when other relevant information became known. That is the nature of science.