Do you say that the bell will ring all the time no matter the SPL ? You have a totally diffenent way to argue then me. I find it not particular instructive and teaching. Actually i can not follow in an easy digestible way. Leaving me so stupid I am not prepared yet to take a lesson from you.
Is the bell attached to a node in the breakup pattern?
Of course it won't. You have to put in enough energy to swing the clapper far enough to hit the sides of the bell.
Of course it won't. You have to put in enough energy to swing the clapper far enough to hit the sides of the bell.
There is nowhere to move on to. You have made a wrong turning into a dead end. For example, your statement above.
Question 1: You say the amplifier has less control at resonance because the high impedance at resonance results in less current flow. Correct?
Question 2: The "damping factor" of an amplifier has a significant effect on the behaviour of a driver. In other words, placing a short circuit (a high DF / low Z output, aka "voltage" amplifier) across the terminals of a driver affects its characteristics. Correct?
(Take a driver. Tap the cone. Listen to the resonance. Now short the VC terminals together. Tap the cone. Much less resonance.)
Question 3: How much damping will be applied by an amplifier with 0.1 ohm output impedance, to a driver with an impedance of 8 ohms "off resonance"?
Question 4: How much damping will be applied by an amplifier with 0.1 ohm output impedance, to a driver with an impedance of 80 ohms "at resonance"?
Your "simple math" should show you that although the current delivered by the amplifier reduces at resonance, the velocity damping effect of the amplifier's (low) output impedance increases by the same amount.
The net result is that the driver is no less controlled at resonance than it is off resonance.
As for your measured results, you simply have it wrong. It's been explained to you several times by people with the knowledge and the tools to replicate your experiment. You may believe what you will, I just wanted to add my considered opinion of the accuracy of your beliefs.
Sy, you read my mind. I tryed to make an example of a phenomenon that has a rather sudden change from "no audible sound" to "very audible sound". I did not say that the bell example is a comparison to the driver Q at Fs. As far as i can tell the measurements posted span quite a wide range of frequencies.
Sure !
Ever been a altar server ?
Those boys could ring the bells silent or loud - no?
It just takes to shake it differently impetuous - but only *not shaking at all* does not make any sound.
Easy - no?
The important conclusion to draw is :
there is no *threshold* as to where ringing comes up (quite in contrary to what was implied by your statement) - such "sonic patterns" do not depend on SPL to be any audible.
Michael
PS
Well - above holds true *ignoring* the clapper issue brought up by SY of course
Last edited:
I prefer to look at it as my "multi level personality" matching my "interdisciplinary angels of view"
😀Michael
Last edited:
But damping isn't control. Damping just acts to reduce the velocity, it doesn't control anything.
Last edited:
Just because the motion of the cone may be chaotic does not imply that its motion is not linear. Take the classic example of an array of point source masses all connected by linear springs. When you disturb one the disturbance ripples across the array. Reflections from the boundaries re-enter the array. The masses seem to be moving with no order yet the entire behavior is governed by linear dynamics.
You bell is just a high Q band pass filter. Like any bandpass filter it will response to any input, at any frequency and of any magnitude. The question is only about the amplitude of the response. The problem is complicated by the mechanism by which energy is transfered to the bell. That needs to be established to define the driving function for the bell.
I disagree regarding the very details.
In case of more precisely analyzing Q versus "bell ringing" we have to differentiate between the case of Q at Fs (piston operation assumed) and "bell ringing" due to cone brake up (standing waves).
First one is a mere "true resonance" latter one has pronounced CMP effects involved.
Michael
Yes *and* no - defininitely
🙂
No.
That something "appears" as to be chaotic does not imply that it actually is any chaotic - again you confuse here quality with quantity issues
Our ear brain system is way ahead in "measuring / analyzing" such systems - picking out just the information of desire / need
Michael
You possibly should not take any such pills - those are over-simplifications that do not hold at any closer look
- just there to lull the single minded
😀
A cone brake up (bending of the diaphragm) is "happening" all the way down in frequency - its just a matter of how close you look at it.
Again: CMP effects spread all over the place *if* present - no threshold involved neither in frequency domain nor in amplitude domain.
And as said before regarding distortion (actually having brought up all that misinterpretation of established laws from DT und fntn) - there *is* CMP distortion / CMP framing involved - its just that this kind of distortion is pretty unique and not easily to be capture with nowadays common distortion analysis techniques - simply because its not periodically with the signal but anchored the time domain.
Michael
Last edited:
There are lots and lots of "measurement data" I've presented - but you have to take the effort and expand a little on the common "frequency domain thinking" to get the additional facets involved with CMP in "time domain thinking".
Regarding math - no further math any needed for "in depth" understanding.
math - irremediable based on axioms - is always just kind a "shadow", needed to pin point quantity effects but only in rare cases is any helpful in comprehension of a certain quality IMO
CMP concept describes a systemic pattern that isn't any related to the signal fed
Michael
Regarding math - no further math any needed for "in depth" understanding.
math - irremediable based on axioms - is always just kind a "shadow", needed to pin point quantity effects but only in rare cases is any helpful in comprehension of a certain quality IMO
CMP concept describes a systemic pattern that isn't any related to the signal fed
Michael
Last edited:
Nor has he or anyone else cited any "established laws" that have been misinterpreted or broken. 🙄
Instead we seem to be bouncing from the CMP Propaganda Show to the Everything is Linear Propaganda Show with reality buried somewhere deep in the muck. I've never seen anything so ridiculous. People are challenging basic concepts of energy storage and the essential non linearities produced by resonance - it's as if I've walked into dreamland - anything goes. 😱
- Status
- Not open for further replies.