"new" speaker idea

Jon Slaughter wrote: (snip)

Say the surface is negative and the particles are positive. The surface attracts each particle with a force that equals the strength of the electric field times the charge on the particle. This force accelerates the particles toward the surface and vice versa. When the surface and particles meet, they exchange a much larger force (in the opposite direction) that lasts a very short time, as they both stop. But the integral of product of force equals zero. This is just an expression of conservation of momentum.

Ok, Jon, It is pretty simple. If you were to 'charge' the gas particles, they quickly form a circuit between your two spheres (the center one and the balloon...) and recombine and become just a neutral gas. Now, I think you said that the surface was supposed to be covered by an insulator, but if you have any voltage at all (and I think you were talking pretty high voltages here...) then you just get arcing through your insulator. Either way, you pretty soon don't have any charged gas in there.

Have you figured out that we are very politely trying hard to not just call you an idiot... ;-)

Charlie

No, this is not true. Just because the velocity is 0 doesn't mean teh acceleration(and hence the force) is zero.

Think of two inelastic spheres of different masses. As they collide one will change direction(well, lets assume they do). there is a point when that one that changes direction must have 0 velocity... but surely this does in no way imply that the acceleration is 0(basic calculus). (here I refer to magnitudes since obviously the direction will change)

i.e., if the velocity v(t) = (t+1)^2 - 1 then v(0) = 0 but a(t) = 2(t+1) and a(0) = 2

Now, if it is the case that the acceleration is zero then the force is zero and if thats the case then where did it go? If the two objects like this collide and there is no force then there the objects stop.

Now its possible that this could happen with the atoms striking the surface but the likelyhood is small and in any event they would not stay like that for very long. (since the balloon will be struct by different particle at different times with different forces.

Now I assume that you mean the "much larger force" is the impulse applied. Its true that this is large and the sum total will cancel but they are acting on different bodies. There can still be a net transfer of energy. With your logic nothing will ever move because the total net force is zero. This is the case only on a large scale. In a gas there are many forces at work and maybe collisions and at any point there could be a net energy where conservation seems to be violated yet on the whole it is not.

I suppose the real issue, now that I think about is, is that the mean square distance that any particle will travel is very small(most particle will just oscillate in there spot with the "music" except for random motion). There will still be a net effect similar to motion of electrons in a conductor.

I suppose that throws a kink in things since I was thinking that all the particles will end up hiting the diaphragm if accelerated fast enough(which I suppose is still true but highly unlikely). The effect still might be the same but now I'm not to sure about the mechanics.

hmmm, funny you think I'm an idiot. So how do you explain a van de graff generator? or a plate capacitor? How many years did you spend studying physics? mathematics? I have a combined total of 8. Sure, not as many as some here but by no means am I an idiot. The problem is that many of you are trying to poke holes in my idea instead of find means to do it. Its much easier to find problems than to fix them. The fact is that there are many good insulating materials and it mainly depends on the thickness.

The problem with you guys is that you have a fixed perspective and that tends to be one of a skeptic. Thats fine... but you should be so closed minded. The model I gave is not strict. It can be modified usually to get past some of the things you think are impossible.

Anyways, I suggest you think about it a little more before you say its impossible. The arcing you refer to is easily prevented and is done in practice all the time.

I could explain either one pretty well, but I fail to see the relevance to what you're talking about here. That you DO see some relevance strongly suggests that you don't have a very good understanding of either of these.

I would point out that "years spent studying" a given subject clearly doesn't have to have a correlation to how well one understands that subject...but that's getting rather far off the subject.

Actually, no one is TRYING to poke holes in your idea; it came that way. We are trying to suggest - too subtly, apparently - that you didn't really think through what it was you were proposing. Given your claimed familiarity with physics and math, a few minutes spent doing some "back of the envelope" sorts of calculations should prove very enlightening.

Bob M.

lol. ok. I see your just out for blood. You could care less bout the principles or anything else except that you have to be right in any case.

True, I agree. I atleast will admit that I have forgotten a lot of what I learned. This is why I asked about it. The problem with many people is that there methodology of learning is to pretend others are stupid.

No, I agree there are many "holes". The issues several of you bring up are simply hurdles but they do not make it impossible like you want to believe.

Here the issue is with you and several others is that you see something wrong with it and instead of trying to figure out of there is a way around it or if you are just making an oversimplification(like your fixation on hydrogen) you denounce it completely.

If all ideas were completely thought out then there wouldn't be no need for communication. If all ideas had no technical issues then what would be the point? If everyone gave up on the first hurdle then you think we would have all the technological advances that we have? Your mentality is one of pessimissism and skepticism and not one knowledge seeking.

For example, you say "Naw, all we need is an elastic material which is impermeable to protons....should be a piece o' cake.....;-)". Yet you seem to gloss over the fact that many elastic materials do contain gas for long periods of time. A balloon itself does contain helium for many days for it all escapes. Does this mean that all gas will escape all forms of elastic enclosures? No.

Your premisis is false on two parts: First I do not have to use hydrogen as a gas and second one can use different elastic materials that have better properties at inclosing that gas. But yet you fixate on hydrogen and a balloon. I gave hydrogen and a balloon as an example but it is in no way required for the concept.

Your problem is that instead of thinking about the real issues with this idea you want to fixate one something that is not really an issue. The fact that the gas can leak from the enclosure is an issue but there are many more important ones.

One does not need a charged gas, just sufficent voltage to activate that capacitor.

give one example that works at normal air pressure.

Bye. Jasen

lower voltage or thicker dielectric.

It's pity youv'e learned so little. go look up the dielectric strength of latex, silicone, or whatever it is you want to build your balloon from.

Give a more general model then... but for the "charged gas" it seems you're basically describing an electrostatic speaker.

Describe a method that wont destroy the effects you want to exploit. hand-waving may work with investors, but it doesn't work here.

Bye. Jasen

and you must have even learned less. Now thats a real shame. I guess you don't even have the brain cell it takes to realize that you can use a coating.

Hmm. I'm not looking for investors and I wouldn't want a dumbass person like you even close to me... it might rub off.

Hi Jon, Sorry, but most of use here in SED have electronics degrees, in my case a Masters in RF/Optical, so we take a look at your idea, realize that you don't have a clue, and then try and let you know gently, at least at first, where some of the holes are. When you then take a look at some part of the answer we give, and say "But, this can be fixed!" and ignore the meat of the responses, we realize that you are an idiot troll, just spouting off to get a little attention.

But, to put it simply, IT WON'T WORK! There isn't enough force there to accelerate particles. The particles won't stay charged if there is a potential difference between the surfaces, they just go to the opposite charges surface and neutralize it. Electrostatic speakers have LIKE charges and work by mutual repulsion. If you have a ballon around a sphere, and charge them to different potential, they will just attract, and the balloon will short to the sphere, or will just compress a little more...

But then, why am I feeding this troll... :-(

Charlie

oh... I guess they are handing out degree's now to anyone. I have a degree in pure mathematics and have studied 3 years of physics up to quantum mechanics 1 at a major university. I did quite well in all my courses and was usually in the 90th percentile. What about you? I guess you were a genius too and know everything about everything and this is why you post your silly comments?

yeah, ok, whatever. I'm glad you know everything. I wish I did. I wish I could be an arrogant f*ck like you and the rest of your butt f****ng buddies.

Thanks for the input.. I'm sure it has its uses somewhere.

BTW, don't both replying to me because arrogant asswads go onto my ignore list.

"major university"?? Why then do you have trouble naming it ?:-)

_I_ don't have any problem pointing out that I am a graduate of MIT ;-)

You are a jerk of the infinite order. Don't go away mad, just go away.

...Jim Thompson

If I understand correctly, you have a concentric arrangement of center electrode, insulation, ionised gas, insulating balloon skin and outer electrode.

The assumption is that by applying a potential difference between inner and outer electrode, you will apply a force to the individual charged atoms.

This will create a pressure gradient which will affect the pressure at the skin and thus cause the balloon to shrink or expand.

Is this summary correct?

From my rudimentary understanding of physics, this looks OK in theory.

I have the suspicion that you may have to 'refresh' your ionised gas on a regular basis.

The outer electrode does not need to be in contact with the balloon.

You may want to add the plasticity of the balloon material to the list of your problems. The balloons I know would expand much faster than they contract.

Kind regards,

Iwo

And the fact is that I never said this s*it would work and thats why I asked. The problem is that to many of you think you are experts on everything and don't know s*it. It might be the case that there will be to much leakage current with any materials and any insulation. It might be the case it would require to high of a voltage to operate. It might be the case that any known gas will escape the elastic material. But the fact of the matter is that none of you really have a clue. You just know specific instances where it won't work and use that as an argument against it not working at all. You do this because your a dumbass and, I suppose, maybe its your ego involved. Instead of given facts you give speculation and treat it as fact. Show me some real facts and maybe I'll listen... hell that is what I asked for and not the bs you and your buddies poop out your mouths(and not all that have posted like as immature as you and your buddies(and I know you will say I'm the immature one but _go ahead)).

What you guys(those that I'm bitching at) don't realize is that there are two aspects to a problem. The first is a theoretical basis. If the problem is not theoretically feesible then there is no point in continuing. The next part is the practical aspects. The problem here, and as a so called engineer, you should realize that if it works theoretically then it works practically. Its just a matter of finding the right method to implement it. Now maybe other reasons why it becomes impractical but if it works theoretically then it works. It doesn't matter if you think it won't work because you are not a f****ng expert.... so stop trying to act like one. There are only a few people in this NG who deserve the title expert and fortunately you are not one of them.

Now, if you have some practical experience with similar problematic areas of this idea then its fine to state them... but just because it didn't work for you in some instance doesn't mean it won't work for anyone else. You really need to get over your big fat ass ego as one day it might end up getting you hurt.(and no, thats not a threat)

Instead of saying s*it like "It won't work", if you want to say something then atleast say something that is useful. Like "AFAIK there exists no insulating material that could keep y your charged gas from becoming uncharged in a few milliseconds" or something like that. Instead you bullshit because you really don't know the answer but think you must know everything and so you have to say something.

Anyways, enough of your bs... get a life. If you don't have any constructive criticsm then don't say anything at all. I guess though you never were taught that?

I believe the word you're grasping for here is "you're," a contraction of "you are." Also, the phrase is "COULDN'T care less" - if one COULD care less about something, this implies that they care about it to some degree.

"Their." You're welcome. And I am afraid the rest of us have no responsibility for your chosen method of learning.

No, this started out with some very patient and polite suggestions that you possibly didn't understand the situation nearly well enougn, given that you did not see the flaws in your original suggestion. At that point, YOU are one who started screaming that others were calling you "stupid," and slinging other similar (but often mis-spelled) insults around. This is not exactly the sort of behavior that one might expect will get you a lot of helpful answers in response to your questions.

You have been at the very least pointed to several aspects of your idea where, with a bit more thought, study, and/or experience in the field, you would also see that there IS no "way around it." Things simply do not behave the way you seem to think they behave. (Hint: a lot of the difficulty centers around your assumption of a "charged gas" at atmospheric pressures. Don't just whine that you're being picked on about that, actually go DO THE MATH and see what results you get.)

Wrong. What you fail to understand is that you have asked a question about what, to many of the people in the forums to which you've addressed it, are some very fundamental concepts, things that they have a great deal of not only "book learning" but also direct experience in. If you ask an aeronautical engineer about an idea you've had for constructing an 800-foot-long aircraft out of concrete, with 3-foot wings and powered by an old VW bug engine, this is not a matter of that idea "simply not being completely thought out yet" - to that person experienced in the field, it is simply an absurdity, something that is obvously an impossibility on the face of it, and your receiving a response of "it's impossible, go study some more!" should not be entirely unexpected. Do you think something at least a LITTLE like that just MIGHT have happened here? Is there at least a POSSIBILITY that this would be the case? (If not, you are claiming that you are CERTAIN your idea is possible and will work - but if so, you should be able to show why this is so in the face of the criticism you have already heard. That you have not been able to do this suggests that you are, in fact, NOT capable of demonstrating this.)

Again, you missed (by a wide margin, apparently) what others definitely understood as a joke.

Bob M.

What happens if you run a 100KV~1MV Tesla coil at, say,

Thanks! Rich (BTW, Iwo, this guy's a troll.)

Ohh! Oooh! Was it the Polytechnical Institute for Pluralizing with Apostrophe's?

Well, if you didn't think they think they are experts, why bother asking them??????????