Your turk or mine ?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
EQUATIONS ETC.
Hi,
As much as I regret it, I have formulae on this but...how does one post such complex beasts?
For anyone willing to understand what is going on you will need some insight into quantum physics.
A search on the web with regard to VET, AKA Vibrational Energy Transfer will yield a number of papers that treat VET and spectrometry on a molecular level.
A bit over the top when you consider the apparent simplicity of a cone, still it is better than nothing at all.
Interesting books :
Inmann Daniel. Engineering Vibration.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1994.
Family of yours Peter? 😉
Lord, Harold, William Gatley and
Harold Evensen. Noise Control for
Engineers. New York: McGraw Hill
Book Company, 1980.
There are some vulgarised explanations for this and I won't mind providing a link to those if people are interested in that.
The most simple analogy I can come up with is the simple nail, if we want to simplify physics, consider the ease with which it is hammered pointy side down into a material and the difficulty one would experience hammering it into the same material the other way around.
The example is far from perfect but is the best I can come up with if we stick to Newtonian physics.
It has the advantage to provide for some explanation everyone can relate to.
Think of cones as a means of energy drain and I think you get most of the picture.
Ideally, fewer numbers of cones should be better and only one is the best sollution, much for the same reason a unipivot tonearm, it will drain energy better than a multi bearing one.
This is called diffuse energy paths in the case of multiple points of drainage and is detrimental to the sonics.
I feel that all members building amps or preamps or CDPs, you name it that are prone to microphony owe it to themselves to at least look into the matters of :
ED: extensional damping.
IM: impedance matching.
CLD: constrained layer damping (when flexure is involved).
VET: vibrational energy transfer.
And quite likely some more related acronyms.
Cheers,😉
Hi,
As much as I regret it, I have formulae on this but...how does one post such complex beasts?
For anyone willing to understand what is going on you will need some insight into quantum physics.
A search on the web with regard to VET, AKA Vibrational Energy Transfer will yield a number of papers that treat VET and spectrometry on a molecular level.
A bit over the top when you consider the apparent simplicity of a cone, still it is better than nothing at all.
Interesting books :
Inmann Daniel. Engineering Vibration.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1994.
Family of yours Peter? 😉
Lord, Harold, William Gatley and
Harold Evensen. Noise Control for
Engineers. New York: McGraw Hill
Book Company, 1980.
There are some vulgarised explanations for this and I won't mind providing a link to those if people are interested in that.
The most simple analogy I can come up with is the simple nail, if we want to simplify physics, consider the ease with which it is hammered pointy side down into a material and the difficulty one would experience hammering it into the same material the other way around.
The example is far from perfect but is the best I can come up with if we stick to Newtonian physics.
It has the advantage to provide for some explanation everyone can relate to.
Think of cones as a means of energy drain and I think you get most of the picture.
Ideally, fewer numbers of cones should be better and only one is the best sollution, much for the same reason a unipivot tonearm, it will drain energy better than a multi bearing one.
This is called diffuse energy paths in the case of multiple points of drainage and is detrimental to the sonics.
I feel that all members building amps or preamps or CDPs, you name it that are prone to microphony owe it to themselves to at least look into the matters of :
ED: extensional damping.
IM: impedance matching.
CLD: constrained layer damping (when flexure is involved).
VET: vibrational energy transfer.
And quite likely some more related acronyms.
Cheers,😉
Re: EQUATIONS ETC.
Umm.... I know nothing about physics and I have no opinion about whether cones help audio equipment, but this makes no sense. If cones really "drain energy", then I'd expect it to be harder to pound a nail in pointy side down. The energy from the hammer blows would get "drained" into the wood without moving the nail. Just like it's harder to pound a nail into a springy board laying across sawhorses than one resting on a workbench.
Anyway, sorry for interrupting. Back to the debate! 🙂
fdegrove said:
Umm.... I know nothing about physics and I have no opinion about whether cones help audio equipment, but this makes no sense. If cones really "drain energy", then I'd expect it to be harder to pound a nail in pointy side down. The energy from the hammer blows would get "drained" into the wood without moving the nail. Just like it's harder to pound a nail into a springy board laying across sawhorses than one resting on a workbench.
Anyway, sorry for interrupting. Back to the debate! 🙂
PHYSICS.
Hi,
It proves that the pointy side reflects less energy back.
Newton's law: action > reaction.
Cheers,😉
Hi,
It proves that the pointy side reflects less energy back.
Newton's law: action > reaction.
Cheers,😉
Re: EQUATIONS ETC.
Just scan 'em in and post 'em like folks post pictures of their projects and whatnot.
Why? While quantum mechanics is fine for explaining the "why" of what we observe at the macroscopic level, it's not needed to explain WHAT is happening at the macroscopic level.
And I don't see that you need go beyond the "what" for the purposes of this discussion and Newtonian mechanics should do just fine.
For example, quantum mechaics isn't required to explain what is going on at the macroscopic level in an electronic device. Quantum mechanics doesn't invalidate the laws of Ohm, and Joule, and Coulomb, etc.
It's not even analogous.
Cones aren't displacing mass as a nail is doing when you drive it into a piece of wood.
Why not think of them as a mechanical coupling? I mean, that's what they are. And so far it hasn't been shown that a cone provides any greater mechanical coupling as a cylinder.
As for energy "drain," any energy that may be "drained" will depend virtually entirely by what they're coupling to, rather than the coupling itself.
See above.
Fewer numbers of cones/cylinders means fewer, and less complex resonant modes at the expense of greater stability.
This is called diffuse energy paths in the case of multiple points of drainage and is detrimental to the sonics.
se
fdegrove said:
Just scan 'em in and post 'em like folks post pictures of their projects and whatnot.
Why? While quantum mechanics is fine for explaining the "why" of what we observe at the macroscopic level, it's not needed to explain WHAT is happening at the macroscopic level.
And I don't see that you need go beyond the "what" for the purposes of this discussion and Newtonian mechanics should do just fine.
For example, quantum mechaics isn't required to explain what is going on at the macroscopic level in an electronic device. Quantum mechanics doesn't invalidate the laws of Ohm, and Joule, and Coulomb, etc.
It's not even analogous.
Cones aren't displacing mass as a nail is doing when you drive it into a piece of wood.
Why not think of them as a mechanical coupling? I mean, that's what they are. And so far it hasn't been shown that a cone provides any greater mechanical coupling as a cylinder.
As for energy "drain," any energy that may be "drained" will depend virtually entirely by what they're coupling to, rather than the coupling itself.
See above.
Fewer numbers of cones/cylinders means fewer, and less complex resonant modes at the expense of greater stability.
This is called diffuse energy paths in the case of multiple points of drainage and is detrimental to the sonics.
se
Re: PHYSICS.
Sure, when your pointy side is DISPLACING MATERIAL.
First, a lot of the energy that doesn't come back doesn't come back because it's expended as heat due to friction. Second, in displacing the mass you're driving the pointy end into, you're taking that 90 degree force of the hammer and spreading it out laterally.
Again, the whole nail analogy is apples to the cone's oranges.
I'm glad to see you've realized that Newtonian mechanics will work just fine. 🙂
se
fdegrove said:
Sure, when your pointy side is DISPLACING MATERIAL.
First, a lot of the energy that doesn't come back doesn't come back because it's expended as heat due to friction. Second, in displacing the mass you're driving the pointy end into, you're taking that 90 degree force of the hammer and spreading it out laterally.
Again, the whole nail analogy is apples to the cone's oranges.
I'm glad to see you've realized that Newtonian mechanics will work just fine. 🙂
se
Whoever used the spikes, did you notice any difference between placing pointed end up or down under the equipment?
PEARS.
Hi,
Funny...I only have to push levels a bit and my students get smarter...or so they think.
Wrong.
Thank you for providing proof of the misunderstanding...think a little and you'...no I won't educate Rita.
Remember:
Ciao,😉
Hi,
Funny...I only have to push levels a bit and my students get smarter...or so they think.
Wrong.
Thank you for providing proof of the misunderstanding...think a little and you'...no I won't educate Rita.
Remember:
Ciao,😉
Peter Daniel said:
Yeah.
When I put 'em pointy side down, my equipment shelf would keep going "Owww! Ouch! Oooo! Ouch!" and when I put 'em pointy side up, then my equipment would go "Owww! Ouch! Oooo! Ouch!" and my equipment shelf would go "Ahhhhhhhh..." 🙂
se
Re: PEARS.
Or Frank, or Oscar, or Shelly, or Bob, or Susan or anyone else for that matter it seems.
se
fdegrove said:
Or Frank, or Oscar, or Shelly, or Bob, or Susan or anyone else for that matter it seems.
se
Punkt-kontrapunkt.
Hi Peter,
If you'd say cones...than yes.
Naturally there is going to be some people shouting that it doesn't matter what way you put them...😉
We have been down this road before, haven't we?😎
Ciao,😉
Hi Peter,
If you'd say cones...than yes.
Naturally there is going to be some people shouting that it doesn't matter what way you put them...😉
We have been down this road before, haven't we?😎
Ciao,😉
MY BUDDY STEVE....
Hi,
LOL.
What is your problem Sir Steve?...didn't get past Isaac, apples or pears?
How about doing some homework for a change?
Ciao,😉
Hi,
LOL.
What is your problem Sir Steve?...didn't get past Isaac, apples or pears?
How about doing some homework for a change?
Ciao,😉
Re: PUNKT-KONTRAPUNKT.
Except that this has nothing to do with anyone's subjectively perceived differences.
You made claims which you said were based on physics. It's the physics that are the matter for discussion. Not whether anyone pereceives any audible differences or not.
And while claiming to have been part of the enginerring team and understanding the physics involved, all you've offered up so far is a bunch of ambiguous buzzwords. It's a diode. It's a funnel. It's a drain. It's a cheese grater. Mixed in with analogies which aren't analogous at all.
So do you actually understand any of this or not?
se
fdegrove said:
Except that this has nothing to do with anyone's subjectively perceived differences.
You made claims which you said were based on physics. It's the physics that are the matter for discussion. Not whether anyone pereceives any audible differences or not.
And while claiming to have been part of the enginerring team and understanding the physics involved, all you've offered up so far is a bunch of ambiguous buzzwords. It's a diode. It's a funnel. It's a drain. It's a cheese grater. Mixed in with analogies which aren't analogous at all.
So do you actually understand any of this or not?
se
Re: MY BUDDY STEVE....
Ah. So it's back to "go read a book"? Well, it's obvious you haven't any illumination to offer on the subject so I think it's time to close this book now and toss it in the recycle bin.
se
fdegrove said:
Ah. So it's back to "go read a book"? Well, it's obvious you haven't any illumination to offer on the subject so I think it's time to close this book now and toss it in the recycle bin.
se
Nobody Tried Valve Springs Yet ? !.
Frank, sorry I have to agree on this point.
Using 3 or 4 cones whichever way up or down constitutes rigid coupling between the surfaces in my understanding too.
I do expect that cones are somewhat directional, and I expect this is due to sonic waves in the material reflecting away from the tip and toward the flat end - perhaps they coulb be deadened by recessiong the flat end and filling with some kind of deadening compound - note Peters comment that sonics altered when he changed one of his cones to one made of brass.
I further expect that cones due to the sharp points allow see-sawing of the surface between these points and reduced coupling because of this.
In my experience cones are quite position dependent, and this is due to coupling to particular nodal points of the supporting surface, and this positioning requires tuning by ear.
In my view, I do not understand why anyone would want to solidly couple to a vibrating supporting surface.
This is the reason that I use springs - I get really good isolation and no nodal behaviour.
I find that the electronics become much less microphonic when isolated in this manner, that the sonics are different, and to my ear rather more correct and gentler sounding.
To my ear no resonances is the desired situation.
Eric.
Frank, sorry I have to agree on this point.
Using 3 or 4 cones whichever way up or down constitutes rigid coupling between the surfaces in my understanding too.
I do expect that cones are somewhat directional, and I expect this is due to sonic waves in the material reflecting away from the tip and toward the flat end - perhaps they coulb be deadened by recessiong the flat end and filling with some kind of deadening compound - note Peters comment that sonics altered when he changed one of his cones to one made of brass.
I further expect that cones due to the sharp points allow see-sawing of the surface between these points and reduced coupling because of this.
In my experience cones are quite position dependent, and this is due to coupling to particular nodal points of the supporting surface, and this positioning requires tuning by ear.
In my view, I do not understand why anyone would want to solidly couple to a vibrating supporting surface.
This is the reason that I use springs - I get really good isolation and no nodal behaviour.
I find that the electronics become much less microphonic when isolated in this manner, that the sonics are different, and to my ear rather more correct and gentler sounding.
To my ear no resonances is the desired situation.
Eric.
AH...
Hi,
Yes, cones couple to the next environment they meet, I never said they isolate, decouple.
Yes, indeed and nobody claimed otherwise.
Why am I starting to sound like Phred D.?
Bummer,😉
Hi,
Yes, cones couple to the next environment they meet, I never said they isolate, decouple.
Yes, indeed and nobody claimed otherwise.
Why am I starting to sound like Phred D.?
Bummer,😉
THE ALHABET.
Hi,
3.20...last effort...
The only thing I've understood so far is that most people don't.
As for myself, yes I do.
What I do notice too is that people prefer to talk about physics rather than about what they hear.
How about trying something like Eric does with his springs and than come back with theories iso deconstructing theory at first hand for a change?
Must go ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....
Ciao,😉
Hi,
3.20...last effort...
The only thing I've understood so far is that most people don't.
As for myself, yes I do.
What I do notice too is that people prefer to talk about physics rather than about what they hear.
How about trying something like Eric does with his springs and than come back with theories iso deconstructing theory at first hand for a change?
Must go ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....
Ciao,😉
Re: AH...
And unless that next environment is good at converting that energy into heat (which pretty much excludes rigid surfaces), it's just gonna come right back.
So why not cut out the middleman and just convert that energy into heat right from the start by using feet which are good at converting energy into heat?
Something like the old AudioQuest Sorbothane feet would do a very good job of that.
se
fdegrove said:
And unless that next environment is good at converting that energy into heat (which pretty much excludes rigid surfaces), it's just gonna come right back.
So why not cut out the middleman and just convert that energy into heat right from the start by using feet which are good at converting energy into heat?
Something like the old AudioQuest Sorbothane feet would do a very good job of that.
se
I find that most commonly used supporting surfaces vibrate like hell.
Why couple this energy up and into the equipment ?.
Lossless isolation (springs) do a very good job of isolating the surface from the equipment ime.
Sorbothane is viscous and lossy and not quite the same thing ime.
Eric / - isolation springs rule.
Why couple this energy up and into the equipment ?.
Lossless isolation (springs) do a very good job of isolating the surface from the equipment ime.
Sorbothane is viscous and lossy and not quite the same thing ime.
Eric / - isolation springs rule.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.