The reason that a full battery of measurements is so important to a designer with a novel design, is that it will at least give him a hint as to how the design operates. Only once the design flaws are pointed out to that designer, can he work on those weaknesses. This never happened.. Seems like a case of someone being in denial of the basic physical principals of a design, simply because he doesn't like the idea of those basic physical principals..
Last edited:
come on srten...5 years is not a long time
that in particular is a lame and weak argument
anyway, who cares if it works or not ....I don't
but if its gonna be sold, it better work
come on srten...5 years is not a long time that
in particular is a lame and weak argument
Hi,
Really ? How do you work that out ? 5 years is an eon for any
good idea that works but nothing for something that doesn't.
It quite clearly does not do what is claimed, and that is why
it will probably resurface here in another 5 years time.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Its pretty clear what the limitations of the thin towers are normally.
Hands would be severely bitten off for any alternative technology.
If it worked Planot would be a fairly rich man, but it doesn't.
Its like Geddes acoustic lever patent that claims 6dB extra
output for the same box size and bandwidth for a bandpass.
It would be jumped on if it worked, but it simply doesn't.
Car sound makers would be biting his hand off if it worked.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
copying proven 'designs' would ofcourse be faster
making something not yet done before, well I just guess it takes time
in any case, words and arguments is not enough, either way
It takes about an hour to set up and perform the relevant measurements, assuming one has a decent grasp of the concepts. I have to agree with sreten, five years and that's all there is? Remember, this is supposedly a technology offered for sale.
Until there are either well-described and competently performed measurements and/or public demos, this is vapor. My personal opinion is that you'd have to be incredibly gullible to lay out $5, much less $500, on the basis of what John has put on his site and said here. I'll be happy to take a listen and report if he actually follows through and demos a prototype in Chicago. But honestly, I'm not holding my breath.
Until there are either well-described and competently performed measurements and/or public demos, this is vapor. My personal opinion is that you'd have to be incredibly gullible to lay out $5, much less $500, on the basis of what John has put on his site and said here. I'll be happy to take a listen and report if he actually follows through and demos a prototype in Chicago. But honestly, I'm not holding my breath.
How on earth can this thing produce any sound at all without voice coil vibration interacting with the rod?
A voice coil without a cone, placed in a magnetic field, will still produce sounds......not much but sound never the less.
In the Planot's case, are we expected to believe that the tiny rotational movements of the rod are to produce volumes of sound without vibration coupling to the voice coil?
A voice coil without a cone, placed in a magnetic field, will still produce sounds......not much but sound never the less.
In the Planot's case, are we expected to believe that the tiny rotational movements of the rod are to produce volumes of sound without vibration coupling to the voice coil?
Hi,
Any good idea is immediately seized upon, like say ferrofluid.
Here your just being romantic, it simply doesn't work as
described, and the arrow of time will never change that.
There is no argument, just very poor pseudotechnobabble.
Real physics say it is nonsense, and that will never change.
(It can also very accurately predict what it actually does,
or could do, which is not very interesting I presume.)
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
just like that, always ?
only with a woman
I wonder how many scientsts have had good ideas put down like that
as said, I dont know if it works, and I dont care, and Im certainly not buying either
but what is there to be so angry about
hey, maybe its a practical joke
Hi,
No good scientist proposes something contrary to the laws of
physics without saying so and offering evidence to back it up.
Here it is contradicting schoolboy stuff and clearly very wrong.
Its a non-argument, a good scientific argument cannot be put
down, and the scientific approach is to answer all objections.
Pure nonsense can be dismissed and if you have a problem with
that then I suggest you have no idea what a scientist actually is.
I don't care what other people "think" about Planots musings
in the same way I don't care about what people "think" about
tuning car suspensions if they have no idea about the subject.
rgds, sreten.
Hi,
Whilst a triangular cross section clearly doesn't work as described,
I'm completely lost as to how you think a rotating tube or cylinder
can produce any sound at all, and how you surmise any advance
in horizontal radiation pattern and frequency response is possible,
and why this involves a small decrease in efficiency ... boggled ...
rgds, sreten.
I agree with sreten.
The laws of physics will just render this design useless.
Just 1 example and the main one, it's supposed to lightly rotate. Ok.
But You see, a rotating movement has a positive side and a negative side next to in.
That will bring You acoustical canceling and thus no real sound pressure to make it interesting in any way.
It's like placing 2 elements (cones or ribbons) next to each other and connect the other one out of faze.
The basic idea in this design would be to have a flat surface with the axle in the middle making it flap. But this would make the outer corners of each side of the wings be a bit unstable. Thus he needs it to be triangular. But it will NOT change the laws of acoustical physics as described.
The laws of physics will just render this design useless.
Just 1 example and the main one, it's supposed to lightly rotate. Ok.
But You see, a rotating movement has a positive side and a negative side next to in.
That will bring You acoustical canceling and thus no real sound pressure to make it interesting in any way.
It's like placing 2 elements (cones or ribbons) next to each other and connect the other one out of faze.
The basic idea in this design would be to have a flat surface with the axle in the middle making it flap. But this would make the outer corners of each side of the wings be a bit unstable. Thus he needs it to be triangular. But it will NOT change the laws of acoustical physics as described.
What frequency the hard drive head motor can move? If the average access time of a fast hard disk is 10 ms, it converts to 100 Hz. This comes from the laws of physics, I think.
Also, if this design is a three-dimensional diaphragm, it should work on the "breathing sphere"-like principle. Rotating will not cause any net volume displacement, especially not at low frequencies. Those laws of physics, again...
Also, if this design is a three-dimensional diaphragm, it should work on the "breathing sphere"-like principle. Rotating will not cause any net volume displacement, especially not at low frequencies. Those laws of physics, again...
The head/arm can move as fast as the mass allows it to.
It has nothing at ALL do do with DATA access time. Hehehe
In any case, what would that weight be on the rod? The weight/mass will be its low pass filter and the size and design will be its high pass filter.
You do the math. The result is not very good at all.
It has nothing at ALL do do with DATA access time. Hehehe
In any case, what would that weight be on the rod? The weight/mass will be its low pass filter and the size and design will be its high pass filter.
You do the math. The result is not very good at all.
just to give my two cents... it seems there is a misunderstanding about DML/BMR and bending waves... NXT and some other licencees are using the first group of drivers, i. e. exciting most or hopefully ALL of the modes of a membrane, whereas "bending waves" like in the Walsh's driver (please have a look to Ohm speakers) use the "critical frequency" of materials to produce sound...
Though there are several drawbacks to this design the major being the low-pass filtering of this principle since it'll be difficult to spin in both directions at 20kHz, remember that all vibration of a material will induce the vibration of the surrounding fluid... Here the air!
Though there are several drawbacks to this design the major being the low-pass filtering of this principle since it'll be difficult to spin in both directions at 20kHz, remember that all vibration of a material will induce the vibration of the surrounding fluid... Here the air!
No Sir... This is not what I wrote... And if "we" have some sound coming from the material itself, than we may have bending waves instead provided the critical frequency of the material is reached...
Remember that under Fc we have subsonic waves than no emission... Sound will be noticed above Fc for the supersonic range, i. e. when the velocity of sound in the material will be higher than in air...
Remember that under Fc we have subsonic waves than no emission... Sound will be noticed above Fc for the supersonic range, i. e. when the velocity of sound in the material will be higher than in air...
Last edited:
Ok......understood.
However, those voice coils in a strong magnetic field will be vibrating in sympathy to the signal. These vibrations and voice coils are directly connected to the motor assembly : bearing, shaft and the rod as ALL are connected to each other. The rod will surely be ''excited''by these vibrations (no sexual pun intended)and will produce sound.
As I have mentioned before, the rotation of the rod is only a byproduct of the way the voice coils twist left and right within the motor housing and bearing with a signal applied.
However, those voice coils in a strong magnetic field will be vibrating in sympathy to the signal. These vibrations and voice coils are directly connected to the motor assembly : bearing, shaft and the rod as ALL are connected to each other. The rod will surely be ''excited''by these vibrations (no sexual pun intended)and will produce sound.
As I have mentioned before, the rotation of the rod is only a byproduct of the way the voice coils twist left and right within the motor housing and bearing with a signal applied.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.