I too am grateful for both Ivan and Smitty's input on a wide variety of topics and I do not feel that i disrespected them. I suppose the 'real' problem here is that I dared to share an opinion, based on my own personal experience, that some others simply do not subscribe to.
This is a great resource, Man. Good people here too, yourself included. I myself try to spread a little joy here now and then...I try to be a Kool Kat...I try to help others out when I can - if I know something, I don't mind sharing, or if somebody needs a pickup or something I have here, I am happy to play it forward...like a lot of the rest of us here, but, I doubt I will ever conform to what some people believe is the accepted 'norms' for our modern online society here, or what constitutes good tone, the 'right' guitars, whether or not tone caps have any effect at '10' on the dial, but at the end of the day, Man...what does it matter??? I mean, you dig what you dig and everyone else digs something that maybe isn't quite the same. As long as my band-mates are happy with me, I'm good.
Certainly no disrespect felt from my end!
I certainly don't want you to feel as if you can't share your opinions and observations. I also feel I owe you an apology. In my earlier reply (Post #267) I simply began by stating, "Not true." I fear I put you on the defensive this way and came across as disagreeing with your experience. I do apologize. My purpose was not in calling your experience into question. It was a disagreement with a theoretical direction I felt things were going.
To backtrack, your statement, "The only thing is, I am running the tone control full-up, so the cap has little, if any influence...." is not, in itself, a false statement. It is true, depending on the value of the other components (including the internal resistance and inductance of the pickup, itself) at the tone pot's maximum setting (full resistance) it is conceivable that a tone capacitor may have very little perceivable effect on tone. So, I do concede. This statement, as written, is not wrong. So, again, I should not have begun my reply by simply stating, "Not true."
The reason I jumped on it (and I suspect Ivan did, as well) is that this statement potentially leads to other, actually erroneous statements which insist the capacitor, "Isn't in the circuit", or suggestions that the capacitor is somehow bypassed. I've witnessed this on other forums. Again, I know you didn't say this. So, I made the mistake of addressing a potential theoretical error, rather than your statement, itself.
However, when it comes to questions of electronics, these are things that can be evaluated mathematically. The formulas can get rather complex, and I don't pretend to have a mastery of it all. The only real question is whether we, with our senses, are able to detect differences which the math shows us. And honestly, sometimes the math shows the differences to be pretty small!
As for Lindy Fralin...who can question his obvious mastery of pickups! I certainly wouldn't. Nor would I say he is "dead wrong" when it comes to electronics. I don't believe he is. However, my attention is drawn to his statements in Ex. E. He states, "Turned all the way, the wiper is sending none of the signal through the tone cap." Then he concludes, "Guitar's Tone not effected [sic]."
To this point, using his phraseology, I would ask..."At what point does 'the wiper start to send signal through the tone cap?'" In other words, where in the wiper's cycle is the guitar's tone affected? At 9.5? 9? Certainly, we should detect a change at 8? So, what happens at 10 that suddenly makes the tone cap of none (not simply less) effect? Simply, unless you have a no-load pot, the cap is still in the circuit and still exposed to the signal, albeit it's influence is much less apparent at the pot's maximum setting.
My only real issue with the Fralin graphic you posted is that it makes a blanket statement that does not take into account different pot values and the varying results they will have. My assertion is that simply maxing out the tone pot does not remove the influence of the capacitor. The degree of influence at the max setting is a function of the value of the pot. The lower the pot value (250K vs. 500K, etc.) the more detectable will be the influence of the capacitor at the pot's max setting. I had exactly this experience myself months ago when I experimented with my Jackson and replaced the 500K tone pot with a 250K pot. The tone was too dark for my taste, even at the max setting, so I put the 500K pot back in to restore some brightness.
The converse is true, too. The higher the pot value, the less detectable influence the capacitor will have at the pot's maximum setting. My hangup is with the statement that "none of the signal" will get to the tone cap. Again, using his phraseology, I would say the amount of signal "that gets to the tone cap" is a function of the value of pot selected. I would have preferred the statement "less of the signal" or "little of the signal". I would even have been comfortable with a statement to the effect that at very high values, a tone pot at maximum setting effectively renders the capacitor of no usable impact to the tone. After all, when you disconnected the ground and noticed a difference, you effectively inserted a resistance of infinite value! - the air!
As for your observations regarding the .047 cap vs. the .015 cap, I don't disagree with you. You made a change and couldn't tell a difference. I have no reason to say you're wrong. This is what you observed.
And, yes. You are a Kool Kat!
