RE:Cones.
Hi,
Sorry about that: please read : How stupid do you want it to look.
Anyway, I hope that the picture as posted in #141 explains the obvious simplicity of the cone principle and that there is definitely a difference in whether one uses it pointy side up or down.
It has everything to with it since they (and I was part of that team) were the first to implement these principles in commercial designs.
This was to a great extent the reason for the success of these products.
These principles involved : mechanical grounding, mechanical diode, impedance matching (physical properties of materials, not electrical ones) and to a lesser extent constrained layer damping.
Cheers,
Hi,
Sorry about that: please read : How stupid do you want it to look.
Anyway, I hope that the picture as posted in #141 explains the obvious simplicity of the cone principle and that there is definitely a difference in whether one uses it pointy side up or down.
It has everything to with it since they (and I was part of that team) were the first to implement these principles in commercial designs.
This was to a great extent the reason for the success of these products.
These principles involved : mechanical grounding, mechanical diode, impedance matching (physical properties of materials, not electrical ones) and to a lesser extent constrained layer damping.
Cheers,
This thread is going nowhere I think because it doesn't seem anybody here has the expertise and physics knowledge to explain what is really happening with different vibration control devices. The thing with spikes always confused me as to whether they couple , isolate, remove vibrations etc.
I think the best advice is to see what professional industrial vibration isolation and control designs are using and to emulate that.
In another forum the wisest advice was from an audiophile electron microscope salesman who pointed out that where designers wish to reduce the effect of vibrations they mass couple the component AND then decouple/isolate from the surrounding environment.
If you just mass couple something without isolation then perhaps it won't vibrate so easily but if it does it will store vibration longer (like a bigger capacitor). If on the other hand you decouple a vibrating component (more TT's and CDP's)from any
surrounding mass it will not be able to transfer these vibrations anywhere. So you have to use BOTH methods simultaneously and in the correct degree depending on the application.
What nobody has mentioned here yet is a method of decoupling used in hi-end stands I find can be readily adapted by DIYers and that is free hanging shelves with wire. I will post some pictures soon of a marvelous example of this.
I think the best advice is to see what professional industrial vibration isolation and control designs are using and to emulate that.
In another forum the wisest advice was from an audiophile electron microscope salesman who pointed out that where designers wish to reduce the effect of vibrations they mass couple the component AND then decouple/isolate from the surrounding environment.
If you just mass couple something without isolation then perhaps it won't vibrate so easily but if it does it will store vibration longer (like a bigger capacitor). If on the other hand you decouple a vibrating component (more TT's and CDP's)from any
surrounding mass it will not be able to transfer these vibrations anywhere. So you have to use BOTH methods simultaneously and in the correct degree depending on the application.
What nobody has mentioned here yet is a method of decoupling used in hi-end stands I find can be readily adapted by DIYers and that is free hanging shelves with wire. I will post some pictures soon of a marvelous example of this.
Re: RE:Cones.
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.
Well, it may seem obvious in a naive sense. But it doesn't illustrate anything with regard to it functioning any differently pointy side up or down.
You apply x Newtons of force to the base, you get x Newtons of force at the tip. Apply x Newtons of force to the tip, you get x Newtons of force at the base.
Force is transferred equally both ways. So where does the "diode" effect come into it?
The same would apply to a cylinder as a cone. So again, what exactly is the difference?
Again, so what? Success in the marketplace does not constitute proof of underlying claims.
John Bedini's Clarifier is successful in the marketplace, yet his underlying claims are pure fantasy (read his patent sometime if you don't believe me).
But these are just more buzzwords and do absolutely nothing to actually explain the claims being made.
I went poking around on the web last night and came across this white paper written by Goldmund:
<a href="http://www.goldmund.com/old/tecmecgn.html">http://www.goldmund.com/old/tecmecgn.html</a>
In reading it, it seems that much of this is based on some erroneous assumptions. For example they say mechanical grounding is absolutely analogous to electrical grounding yet the paper shows a distinct misunderstanding of electrical grounding.
You said previously that you'd have a field day discussing the physics. So when will you start discussing some actual physics? If you'd like, just start a new thread in Everything Else or something.
se
fdegrove said:
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.
Well, it may seem obvious in a naive sense. But it doesn't illustrate anything with regard to it functioning any differently pointy side up or down.
You apply x Newtons of force to the base, you get x Newtons of force at the tip. Apply x Newtons of force to the tip, you get x Newtons of force at the base.
Force is transferred equally both ways. So where does the "diode" effect come into it?
The same would apply to a cylinder as a cone. So again, what exactly is the difference?
Again, so what? Success in the marketplace does not constitute proof of underlying claims.
John Bedini's Clarifier is successful in the marketplace, yet his underlying claims are pure fantasy (read his patent sometime if you don't believe me).
But these are just more buzzwords and do absolutely nothing to actually explain the claims being made.
I went poking around on the web last night and came across this white paper written by Goldmund:
<a href="http://www.goldmund.com/old/tecmecgn.html">http://www.goldmund.com/old/tecmecgn.html</a>
In reading it, it seems that much of this is based on some erroneous assumptions. For example they say mechanical grounding is absolutely analogous to electrical grounding yet the paper shows a distinct misunderstanding of electrical grounding.
You said previously that you'd have a field day discussing the physics. So when will you start discussing some actual physics? If you'd like, just start a new thread in Everything Else or something.
se
CONES.
Hi,
Pressure at the pointy side is much higher than at the wide base.
In analogy with an electrical diode there is no diode in the sense that it does not "block" in one direction and lets through in the other.
In other words the cone does not isolate at all.
What it does do is create a preferential drain path for the energy generated by the component to be drained away, the larger top alows for easy transfer of the waves to the point and the 90 degree angle of the sides help transfering it.
In that sense it works analogous to a "diode" although not perfectly so.
Let me put it this way, if the principles we applied were to be removed from the product it would not have been any good at all.
At that particular point in time we were lightyears ahead of the competion and all these same principles are still applied by most other successful manufacturers.
We must have done something right, convincing you might take some doing though.
Cheers,
Hi,
Pressure at the pointy side is much higher than at the wide base.
In analogy with an electrical diode there is no diode in the sense that it does not "block" in one direction and lets through in the other.
In other words the cone does not isolate at all.
What it does do is create a preferential drain path for the energy generated by the component to be drained away, the larger top alows for easy transfer of the waves to the point and the 90 degree angle of the sides help transfering it.
In that sense it works analogous to a "diode" although not perfectly so.
Let me put it this way, if the principles we applied were to be removed from the product it would not have been any good at all.
At that particular point in time we were lightyears ahead of the competion and all these same principles are still applied by most other successful manufacturers.
We must have done something right, convincing you might take some doing though.
Cheers,
Re: CONES.
So? That's simply a consequence of the smaller area of the tip and has nothing to do with the force transferred from one body to the other.
The cone transfers the same amount of force from one body to the other as a cylinder would. So what's the difference?
In other words, it's not any sort of diode at all, mechanical or otherwise.
So why call it any sort of a diode? Because a cone and the schematic symbol of an electrical diode both look triangular?
Preferential drain path? Preferential how? You're wanting to couple one body to another. Seems the preferential path would be the shortest, straightest path, no?
And where exactly does the energy drain to? In other words, what is the energy "sink"?
But you'd get the same transfer with a cylinder. And a shorter path I might add.
How is it analogous to a diode? You just said previously that the cones are not unidirectional. So if they're not unidirectional, how can the be analogous to a diode in any sense?
Depends how you define "good." The issue here isn't whether customers judge the product as good or bad. But whether the methods employed actually function as they're claimed to. And so far, I haven't seen any evidence that they do.
But again, that doesn't mean the principles are in fact sound. And again, I'm not arguing whether customers liked the product or not. It's the physics behind the claims that I'm questioning.
But doing something "right" in a sales/marketing sense has nothing to do with the claims being made regarding the underlying physics.
Physics is physics, regardless of any sort of commercial product. And I haven't any interest at all in discussing the commercial product itself. My interest is in the physics.
If you don't care to discuss the physics, just say so and I won't say anything more. But you indicated previously that you would like to discuss the physics so you'll pardon me if I misread you.
se
fdegrove said:
So? That's simply a consequence of the smaller area of the tip and has nothing to do with the force transferred from one body to the other.
The cone transfers the same amount of force from one body to the other as a cylinder would. So what's the difference?
In other words, it's not any sort of diode at all, mechanical or otherwise.
So why call it any sort of a diode? Because a cone and the schematic symbol of an electrical diode both look triangular?
Preferential drain path? Preferential how? You're wanting to couple one body to another. Seems the preferential path would be the shortest, straightest path, no?
And where exactly does the energy drain to? In other words, what is the energy "sink"?
But you'd get the same transfer with a cylinder. And a shorter path I might add.
How is it analogous to a diode? You just said previously that the cones are not unidirectional. So if they're not unidirectional, how can the be analogous to a diode in any sense?
Depends how you define "good." The issue here isn't whether customers judge the product as good or bad. But whether the methods employed actually function as they're claimed to. And so far, I haven't seen any evidence that they do.
But again, that doesn't mean the principles are in fact sound. And again, I'm not arguing whether customers liked the product or not. It's the physics behind the claims that I'm questioning.
We must have done something right, convincing you might take some doing though.
But doing something "right" in a sales/marketing sense has nothing to do with the claims being made regarding the underlying physics.
Physics is physics, regardless of any sort of commercial product. And I haven't any interest at all in discussing the commercial product itself. My interest is in the physics.
If you don't care to discuss the physics, just say so and I won't say anything more. But you indicated previously that you would like to discuss the physics so you'll pardon me if I misread you.
se
PHYSICS IS PHYSICS.
Hi,
When you visited the Goldmund site, did you notice the bibliography part?
You keep on bringing this "force" term into the picture while the word pressure is more appropriate here.
Funneling.
You can read I assume,Steve?
Forcing the energy that is travelling through the cone to intersect the next surface at a right angle maximizes your chances of getting this energy to penetrate through that surface. That's one of the main "points" of a cone or a spike- to present the mechanical energy being led out of the component at a 90° angle to the supporting surface.
Whatever material you put it on, some sink better than others but that is not the issue here.
No, see above.
They are not perfectly unidirectional, unfortunately I do not define the terminology here.
Nothing more than an implementation of physics, it is not because you've not heard of them that they do not exist.
So is mine, and while I point you to facts all you do is come back with comments that are completely beside the point.
Not that I don't care but do we have to go through this deconstructing element to put something across?
According to you extensional damping and constrained layer damping are the same...or have I misread you too?
Cheers,
Hi,
When you visited the Goldmund site, did you notice the bibliography part?
You keep on bringing this "force" term into the picture while the word pressure is more appropriate here.
Funneling.
You can read I assume,Steve?
Forcing the energy that is travelling through the cone to intersect the next surface at a right angle maximizes your chances of getting this energy to penetrate through that surface. That's one of the main "points" of a cone or a spike- to present the mechanical energy being led out of the component at a 90° angle to the supporting surface.
Whatever material you put it on, some sink better than others but that is not the issue here.
No, see above.
They are not perfectly unidirectional, unfortunately I do not define the terminology here.
Nothing more than an implementation of physics, it is not because you've not heard of them that they do not exist.
So is mine, and while I point you to facts all you do is come back with comments that are completely beside the point.
Not that I don't care but do we have to go through this deconstructing element to put something across?
According to you extensional damping and constrained layer damping are the same...or have I misread you too?
Cheers,
Re: PHYSICS IS PHYSICS.
Sure did.
But I was under the impression that you understood the principles involved here and could simply explain them yourself seeing as you were part of the engineering team.
And simply citing bibliography doesn't mean the bibliography actually supports the claims being made. I've seen too many instances where citations have actually refuted the claims made.
Again, you said you'd have a field day discussing the physics. I'm getting the feeling you're doing everything you can to avoid such a discussion.
Why would pressure be more appropriate? What is pressure but force? What difference does it make what area the force is applied across? For any given applied force, the same force is transmitted from one body to the other.
What's the purpose of funneling if the body you want to transmit the force to is as large or larger than the base of the cone?
Sure can. And I even understand the meanings of the words I read.
And how is it that a cylinder does not have the force transferred at 90 degrees to the surface you're wanting to transfer it to?
It's all part and parcel of the same system so why isn't it part of the issue here?
I haven't seen any evidence that they're even marginally unidirectional let alone perfectly unidirectional.
Who's the one defining the terminology? Goldmund's marketing department?
You haven't really brought any physics into the discussion yet. So how can I have not heard of something which hasn't been brought to the table yet?
Completely beside the point? The point is the veracity of the claims being made. And some of the "facts" you have pointed to don't appear at present to be terribly factual.
No offense, but I get the sense that I'm talking to the marketing department rather than the engineering department.
Yes, if what you're putting across makes no sense from a physical standpoint.
Yes, you've misread me. I never said they were the same. You said that constrained layer damping was vastly more complex than extensional damping. I simply said I didn't see the huge difference in complexity between the two that you seemed to be implying.
Damping, whether constrained, extensional or othewise is rather simple. It's no more and no less than a mechanical loss. The conversion of mechanical energy into thermal energy.
se
fdegrove said:
Sure did.
But I was under the impression that you understood the principles involved here and could simply explain them yourself seeing as you were part of the engineering team.
And simply citing bibliography doesn't mean the bibliography actually supports the claims being made. I've seen too many instances where citations have actually refuted the claims made.
Again, you said you'd have a field day discussing the physics. I'm getting the feeling you're doing everything you can to avoid such a discussion.
Why would pressure be more appropriate? What is pressure but force? What difference does it make what area the force is applied across? For any given applied force, the same force is transmitted from one body to the other.
What's the purpose of funneling if the body you want to transmit the force to is as large or larger than the base of the cone?
You can read I assume,Steve?
Sure can. And I even understand the meanings of the words I read.
And how is it that a cylinder does not have the force transferred at 90 degrees to the surface you're wanting to transfer it to?
It's all part and parcel of the same system so why isn't it part of the issue here?
I haven't seen any evidence that they're even marginally unidirectional let alone perfectly unidirectional.
Who's the one defining the terminology? Goldmund's marketing department?
You haven't really brought any physics into the discussion yet. So how can I have not heard of something which hasn't been brought to the table yet?
Completely beside the point? The point is the veracity of the claims being made. And some of the "facts" you have pointed to don't appear at present to be terribly factual.
No offense, but I get the sense that I'm talking to the marketing department rather than the engineering department.
Yes, if what you're putting across makes no sense from a physical standpoint.
Yes, you've misread me. I never said they were the same. You said that constrained layer damping was vastly more complex than extensional damping. I simply said I didn't see the huge difference in complexity between the two that you seemed to be implying.
Damping, whether constrained, extensional or othewise is rather simple. It's no more and no less than a mechanical loss. The conversion of mechanical energy into thermal energy.
se
TOTAL NIHILISM.
Hi,
While I don't believe everything I read in the papers either, I may ask you to explain in plain terms how a cylinder and a cone behave the same under those circumstances?
Yank someone else's chain or prove your point please, or are you teling us the earth is flat after all?
Ciao,
Hi,
While I don't believe everything I read in the papers either, I may ask you to explain in plain terms how a cylinder and a cone behave the same under those circumstances?
Yank someone else's chain or prove your point please, or are you teling us the earth is flat after all?
Ciao,
Re: TOTAL NIHILISM.
Not sure what you mean by "under those circumstances."
Be that as it may, let me just say that both a cone and a cylinder will transmit the exact same force from one body to another and at an angle 90 degrees to the surface of the second body.
Provided of course that the applied force is at 90 degrees, otherwise the force vectors will be something other than 90 degrees for both the cone and the cylinder.
I'm not yanking anyone's chain and I've no point to prove. I was simply trying to get some answers. Why does that cause you to become so defensive?
se
fdegrove said:
Not sure what you mean by "under those circumstances."
Be that as it may, let me just say that both a cone and a cylinder will transmit the exact same force from one body to another and at an angle 90 degrees to the surface of the second body.
Provided of course that the applied force is at 90 degrees, otherwise the force vectors will be something other than 90 degrees for both the cone and the cylinder.
I'm not yanking anyone's chain and I've no point to prove. I was simply trying to get some answers. Why does that cause you to become so defensive?
se
Re: AXES TO GRIND.
I've absolutely nothing to defend. I'm simply asking questions.
I'm more than willing to learn. And if you've any interest in teaching, you should realize that it involves more than simply tossing out marketing buzzwords as if they're expected to be swallowed without question.
If you wish to discuss the physics as you say you do, then please, stick to phyiscs.
se
fdegrove said:
I've absolutely nothing to defend. I'm simply asking questions.
I'm more than willing to learn. And if you've any interest in teaching, you should realize that it involves more than simply tossing out marketing buzzwords as if they're expected to be swallowed without question.
If you wish to discuss the physics as you say you do, then please, stick to phyiscs.
se
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.