Beyond the Ariel

[soongsc]

Originally posted by john k...


Those were interesting simulations Michael. The problem I have is that if I set up an experiment to verify your idea I don't measure anything that looks like that. I think to show what is happening it is necessary to use realistic approximations. Make some measurements and look for HD and IM side bands. These things need to be quantified.

For electrical signals, that's how it's going to look. The problem with acoustic signals is that you can only measure somthing similar when both signals are same ideal wave source. Not many drivers can do that, and you have to pic the right frequencies such that the wave front is the same shape so that it's not dependent on mic location.

[gedlee]

Originally posted by mige0
I'm actually not interested what a somebody writes in *any* paper, telling me what I *can't* hear / detect. – and again Earl - I am asking you to drop that DampfWalzen habit.

Michael

I don't think that I'm the one being closed minded and obnoxious here!

The data is clear and it wasn't just one person, but about 30 who failed to detect any nonlinearity in a compression driver and some of those were audio engineers. Just because the data is not to your likeing is no reason to reject it and "kill the messanger".

When you have contrary data done in a comparable way then I'd love to see it, but for now rejecting all the data that there is simply because it doesn't fit your position is hardly scientific. Why do scienec at all if thats the way you are going to deal with it?

[mige0]

Originally posted by john k...


Before I comment further, can you provide a little detail of your sims? Specifically, the source for the VC voltage appears to be a pure sign wave, buy not being familiar with the software you are using would you please explain what the notation SFFM(0 1 2000 1 100) means?

John, the software used here is LT-SPICE / swCAD-III.

I could have used another simu software like ORCAD as well, but LT-SPICE is way good enough for that (and much more) *and* available from LT technologies as freeware.
So everybody easily can verify my simulation.

http://www.linear.com/designtools/so...witchercad.jsp


There are three voltage sources – seen on the pix from left to the right :

V2 is a simple sine set to 2kHz at 1V:






V1 is a so called "Time-dependent single frequency FM voltage" (syntax outlined in the help menu under "voltage sources") – nothing else than a FM modulated sine voltage source - set to 2kHz at 1V with a modulation at 100Hz :








V7 is same as V1 – set to be of opposite phase and frequency modulation to mimic the mirrored signal :







T1 is a delay line set to 4us to mimic the late arrival of the mirrored signal :







Well and last but not least – the transient command is set to calculate in the time domain at the time frame displayed, rather than in the more usual frequency domain :








Thats it
(half an hour to line up the simu / two more hours to set up everything else to have the posting ready).

John, if you like to have the file for a *very* quick start up - I'll email it to you if you send me a PM

Michael

[mige0]

Originally posted by gedlee


Why do scienec at all if thats the way you are going to deal with it?

You may have noticed that I don't do what I do for the sake of science but rather to get clarification about what *I'm* interested in (and maybe open a door for others as well *if* we are lucky).

As a side note :
remember that "science" was kind of invented by the clergy to support *their* point of view – way back in dark times of inquisition and before – and sometimes there still is a facet in "science" that reflects that "axiom and belief thing" - not saying "science" hasn't developed, mind you.


Michael

[Sheldon]

Originally posted by mige0
"science" was kind of invented by the clergy to support *their* point of view – way back in dark times of inquisition and before – and sometimes there still is a facet in "science" that reflects that "axiom and belief thing"

Adopted by some clergy, yes. Invented? Hardly. Regardless, it's immaterial. Science is not a thing or a collection of things (or facts). It's a process by which we can uncover the underlying rules that govern the physical relationships between things. The only article of faith that the process requires, as far as I can see, is that the physical rules of the universe we study are not whimsical. We expect them to be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday and today, though our knowledge of them will change.

Sheldon

[gedlee]

Speaking of Cosmology, we also assume that the laws are independent of location and many physicists agree that there is no reason to make this assumption. But the fact is that all data points to the laws being universal with no variation in time or space.

Are you guys aware that the latest thinking in cosmology is that the univese is digital? Yep, they now believe that time and space are not continous but are in fact discrete. How cool is that? Now we only need to sample at the "universal sample rate" - a Plank-time - and no one could ever argue that we aren't sampling high enough

[mige0]

Originally posted by gedlee

Are you guys aware that the latest thinking in cosmology is that the univese is digital? Yep, they now believe that time and space are not continous but are in fact discrete. How cool is that? Now we only need to sample at the "universal sample rate" - a Plank-time - and no one could ever argue that we aren't sampling high enough

Lets hope they use a jitter free clock for our universe

Originally posted by gedlee
But the fact is that all data points to the laws being universal with no variation in time or space.

*You* know ?!?

[mige0]

Originally posted by Sheldon


Adopted by some clergy, yes. Invented? Hardly. Regardless, it's immaterial. Science is not a thing or a collection of things (or facts). It's a process by which we can uncover the underlying rules that govern the physical relationships between things. The only article of faith that the process requires, as far as I can see, is that the physical rules of the universe we study are not whimsical. We expect them to be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday and today, though our knowledge of them will change.

Sheldon

There are people and there were times where this is / was perceived differently

Michael

[gedlee]

Originally posted by mige0


Lets hope they use a jitter free clock for that

There is actually a hypothesis that the clocks of each particle do have jitter or at least do not have the same time reference for zero. This would exaplain why we have to view all interactions between particles as random events, because the clocks are not synchronous. But a particle can react with itself in perfect synchronization and as such acts like a wave. In other words, the clock jitter would explain the particle/wave duality and the need for probabilities in Quantum Mechanics that has troubled so many physicists for so long.

[auplater]

maybe the mods should rename this thread "Way, Way, Way... beyond the Ariel... eh?"