Are you now accusing me of lying and trolling? And making a fool out of me with that 3D print?
If I could I would take the post down.
Maybe if you took a closer look for a minute at the video and try to figure out what is happing here that would help. Maybe think of the word capacitance. Not my style to respond like this, but you keep coming with nonsense and extremely rude remarks.
If I could I would take the post down.
Maybe if you took a closer look for a minute at the video and try to figure out what is happing here that would help. Maybe think of the word capacitance. Not my style to respond like this, but you keep coming with nonsense and extremely rude remarks.
No one is accusing you of lying. You haven't provided enough information to lie. I would love to discuss the design with you and others, but you haven't provided enough basic information to have a discussion.
What makes you think my print isn't part of a speaker? I mean, jeez, look at it! Why don't you ask me about it? I might tell you something if you ask the right questions, but then again, I might not. You should know that I will maintain strict control of the discussion. Information will be provided to worthy supplicants at my, and only my, discretion.
What makes you think my print isn't part of a speaker? I mean, jeez, look at it! Why don't you ask me about it? I might tell you something if you ask the right questions, but then again, I might not. You should know that I will maintain strict control of the discussion. Information will be provided to worthy supplicants at my, and only my, discretion.
I'm showing myself out. No need for this as I am obviously not a worthy supplicant.
BTW the patent number is WO 2022/123512 A2, have fun with it.
BTW the patent number is WO 2022/123512 A2, have fun with it.
Last edited:
Just to be clear, this is a relatively new phenomenon. Older patents were often remarkably clear and detailed.
Being able to reproduce the device in question from the description used to be one of the criteria for patentability, since the whole idea was to eventually have useful designs get into the public domain. Intentionally writing things that obscure intentions and do nothing but block other's ability to function in the space is a newer "approach" to patents.
In case anyone is still here and still interested, here's a link to the patent.
As I read it, the "innovation" is to mold the stator wires into the support structure to provide better insulation against the bias voltage than paint or some other coating (normal wire insulation?) would provide. Oh, and to optimize the open area for a given speaker, and to drive it directly with a high voltage amplifier. Ooh! That's never been done before! (I'm being sarcastic)...
As I read it, the "innovation" is to mold the stator wires into the support structure to provide better insulation against the bias voltage than paint or some other coating (normal wire insulation?) would provide. Oh, and to optimize the open area for a given speaker, and to drive it directly with a high voltage amplifier. Ooh! That's never been done before! (I'm being sarcastic)...
Who wonders?
I did not further investigate if all other of Mr. Diego Barone's patents are as brillant and innovative as this one. I also admit that I stopped reading midway, thus skipping (meant: being annoyed, therefore avoiding) the MOSFET's part of it. Being fed up by the previous content. No need, no interest for further reading. Jan Didden et al. here on the forum certainly have posted way better, precise, out-from-the-real and thus relevant informations about directly driving ESL's.
Last edited:
Is there a problem with making a stator with maximum acoustic transparency?
But the electrode area = the efficiency of the emitter.
An electrostatic is already low-efficient.
But the electrode area = the efficiency of the emitter.
An electrostatic is already low-efficient.
Would not the transducer at question create "spiral" sound beam above certain frequency, making sweet spot even more elusive?
Much of it will go nowhere do to prior art or obviousness (a hard barrier to overcome). Also the QUAD ESL has a fabric screen to act as damping in the rear. With the more open construction that may be an issue to revise.
Making new stators with more effective area (more and smaller holes) is not a bad pursuit. The grid is also a compromise at higher frequencies. I saw a different patent using a resistive stator tuned to have a rolloff between the center and the edge. Not as sophisticated as the quad but still a good idea.
Making new stators with more effective area (more and smaller holes) is not a bad pursuit. The grid is also a compromise at higher frequencies. I saw a different patent using a resistive stator tuned to have a rolloff between the center and the edge. Not as sophisticated as the quad but still a good idea.
Minimizing the obstruction means decreasing the plate surface of the stator-membrane-stator capacitor assembly. This will decrease the polarizing charge of the capacitor, which finally leads to a lower sound pressure for the same electrical field. See Appendix IX on page 171 of Frank Verwaal's ESL tutorial (download this one as long as it is available if you are interested in deeper understanding of ESL's). Minimizing the obstruction therefore leads to a system with a lower sensitivity.
It might now be interesting to investigate on two basically similar systems.
- One with a standard approx. 50:50 ratio between holes and the stator concuctive aera.
- The other one with a bigger hole-to-conductor ratio, e.g. scaled to half of the capacitance of the standard 50:50 system, sacrificing 6dB of sensitivity.
Would these two systems differ both in terms of measurments and also sonically when driven to the same SPL?
It also would be interesting to measure the capacitance of the shown panel assembly in the 1st post and compare it to a standard ESL63 assembly. Grossly approximating 50/18.5 = 2.6 which would account for a drop of sensitivity between 6dB and 9dB for the shown panel?
A patent puts an invention into the public domain for anyone to copy. It doesn't keep anyone from building the device, so contacting the patent owner / inventor is not at all necessary to get permission to build for your own use. It might be interesting to see what can be learned from the inventor. A patent provides a means for the patent owner to legally block you or recover damages from selling and profiting from production of the patented device without licensing the right to do so.
The 3D printing allows for creating whatever profile is desired for the stator panel frames, so that's pretty good. I think there are likely many examples of people 3D printing stators by now, so I'm not sure where the novelty is in this. I imagine after printing a coating of conductive paint at the edges possibly followed up by plating metal onto the paint could make an interesting assembly. Inserting wire before the last layers are printed could certainly provide what ever thickness of insulation was desired.
In the audio world many patents are just a sales gimmick, attempting to glean some false credibility for a design with the word PATENTED in the ad copy for an "invention" that has no real benefit or may not even work or perform as described. In my experience the patent office is so overwhelmed with invention disclosures it seems that the many patents are granted for redundant, non-functional, incomplete descriptions ( impossible for a person skilled in the art to be able to reproduce the invention from the disclosure (MQA) ) or simply useless ideas. I think at least one of my patents falls into this category. Ha
The 3D printing allows for creating whatever profile is desired for the stator panel frames, so that's pretty good. I think there are likely many examples of people 3D printing stators by now, so I'm not sure where the novelty is in this. I imagine after printing a coating of conductive paint at the edges possibly followed up by plating metal onto the paint could make an interesting assembly. Inserting wire before the last layers are printed could certainly provide what ever thickness of insulation was desired.
In the audio world many patents are just a sales gimmick, attempting to glean some false credibility for a design with the word PATENTED in the ad copy for an "invention" that has no real benefit or may not even work or perform as described. In my experience the patent office is so overwhelmed with invention disclosures it seems that the many patents are granted for redundant, non-functional, incomplete descriptions ( impossible for a person skilled in the art to be able to reproduce the invention from the disclosure (MQA) ) or simply useless ideas. I think at least one of my patents falls into this category. Ha
It's a pity that the tread (hopefully only temporarly) has derailed.
Yes.
Can this thread still be saved into a more technical discussion? Because, basically, it might be an interesting subject's cloud to engage into. A discussion about trading openness vs. obstruction e.g. in terms of acoustic impedance, sensitivity, electrostatic losses, array stability, membrane resonance damping, electrical safety, overall need/benefit of trading obstruction vs. openness and the like? I beleive it could be an enriching argumentative playfield.
Either 100% conductive stator aera, nor 0% is a feasible approach. One has to choose a compromize in between. The most common 45% ... 55% will be set the aluminium sheet puncturer's preferences anyway ... it works fairly well, as we all know.
18.5% stator aera, as described in the first post, is an interesting, extreme value I never heard about. So why wouldn't we be a bit more curious about what happens at this ratio? Why not talk factually about it? And hopefully the tread starter might join again. He alone has the real-life data.
Yes.
Can this thread still be saved into a more technical discussion? Because, basically, it might be an interesting subject's cloud to engage into. A discussion about trading openness vs. obstruction e.g. in terms of acoustic impedance, sensitivity, electrostatic losses, array stability, membrane resonance damping, electrical safety, overall need/benefit of trading obstruction vs. openness and the like? I beleive it could be an enriching argumentative playfield.
Either 100% conductive stator aera, nor 0% is a feasible approach. One has to choose a compromize in between. The most common 45% ... 55% will be set the aluminium sheet puncturer's preferences anyway ... it works fairly well, as we all know.
18.5% stator aera, as described in the first post, is an interesting, extreme value I never heard about. So why wouldn't we be a bit more curious about what happens at this ratio? Why not talk factually about it? And hopefully the tread starter might join again. He alone has the real-life data.
Last edited:
No facts, no link to a published patent. Nothing to discuss. Just give it a like or applause or a hats-off
The 0,1 m2 surface, 5 mm stator to stator distance, 100% "obstruction" > cca. 180 pF. If the "obstruction" is only 18,5%, at first sight the capacitance must be cca. 35 pF. But the electrostatic field can spread because the vicinity of electrode-track is free from another, similar charged track. The result is the bigger capacity, but electrostatic field will not uniform. And - of course - there is a little bit parasitic capacitance.
The 50% obstructed stator's capacity is near same as 100% (if the holes diameter smaller than membrane-stator distance).
Yes. Is there a (mathcad) graph/simulation or a formula for the C (capacitance) to d (hole diameter) relation for perforated plate capacitors?
How does the obstruction ratio influences on the overall sensitivity (as also the acoustic radiation impedance might be changing with different obstruction ratios)? In a very coarse model approximation, the sensitivity might show something like a Gauss-like curve spreading between 100% and 0% obstruction ratio, showing a maximum at a certain obstruction ratio. It would then be helpful to more precisely know how this function evolves. This would allow as a design target to choose a distinct obstruction ratio at which a certain max. loss of sensitivity occurs and which is tolerated.
Say for example, at an obstruction ratio of 53% sensitivity is max. Any lowering of the obstruction will then come along with lower sensitivity.
53% obstruction -> 0dB
45% obstruction -> -1dB
35% obstruction -> -2dB
30% obstruction -> -3dB
25% obstruction -> -6dB
20% obstruction -> -12dB
... then choosing an obstruction ratio of 30% ... 35% would seem be an attractive compromize in terms of ratio vs. sensitivity.
Nota bene: These values are phantasy/illustrative numbers only, to exemplify the principle. Reality might be very different, making any of these optimization thoughts useless.
Last edited:
