"new" speaker idea

LOL!

Thanks! Rich

This is essentially an electrostatic speaker. I am trying to use particles in the field ot help out with moving the diaphram so it should be more efficient. Not only do you have the field pushing on the diaphram but also the gas. But you have to control this gas somehow. Since the field is already there and the a charged gas will do exactly that then it might increase the force on the diaphram significantly... or maybe not.

huh? How does those two things you mention relate? the net force

Its true there is no net force when you sum over the balloon just as there is no net force in any collision.

There still is a transport of energy though(well, maybe not much in this case though since its probably almost perfectly elastic).

usually requires thousands for an electrostatic speaker ;/ To much for my purposes.

yeah, but the problem here is the ionized gas. When a molecule or particle becomes deionized from capturing electrons they will become neutral and ineffective. These electrons that they capture can come from just about anything and there probably will be captures from outside the balloon and power source.

yes, because the affinity for electrons by protons are much greater than say, a molecule of 99 electrons and 100 protons.

I think it depends on the gas type too. In a plasma this lasts much longer. Also the better method of insulation the longer.

I think you need to get off this misconception about protons. Also protons are not all that hard to stop. Its neutrons you gotta worry about.

Just get it through your head that I was using the hyrogen atoms as an example... there are close to an infinite number of other possible choices. The only requirement is that they particles distribute themselfs ~uniformly through the balloon and not settle in one spot(although that would be ok if they are light enough to be suspend themselfs in air atleast temporarily).

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...methinks I hear the sound of a joke being missed....

It doesn't matter if you use ionized unobtainium (atomic number 3,877, or whatever you think is a big enough ion). You REALLY need to think this through a LOT more than you have. This "idea" of yours has more than the usual number of fatal flaws - many of which have already been at least strongly hinted at - and absolutely no advantages over more conventional approaches.

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.

That may or may not be true. There are only a handful of issues though and you have not given any reason why it won't work in theory and only pick one instance why it won't work in practice. Its like saying a bike won't work because it doesn't have tires instead of realizing that if you put tires on it then it would work.

Its funny though how you happen to know how everything works. How much experience do you really have with elastic encosures and ionized gases in an electric field?

Its funny how when I point out one flaw in yoru reasoning you then come back with a general statement that it won't work. I ask you to give me a specific reason why it won't work.... that is, why it is theoretically impossible. When you can do that then I will shut up about it. I will even state the problem in a more theoretical sense so you can waste your time poking holes in it.

Given an impenatrable spherical elastic enclosure that on the outer side is conductive and on the inner side is completely insulated with a coatings. Inside the enclosure contains a charged gas and a metal sphere that is also coated with an perfect insulating material. There is a potential difference placed across the metal sphere and conductive coating on the enclosure(it doesn't matter if I didn't specify how one would do this... it doesn't take a genius to make the leap here to see how it can be done). This potential is time dependent.

Now, find any theoretical reasons why this is flawed. Explain first off why there will not be any forced oscillations of the enclosure with the potential. An answer saying that it is insignificant is not good enough unless you can prove it. It may be the case that this is true but here I only care about if it does have force related to the potential or not. If you can prove that it doesn't then all other matters are of practical considerations and are left to experimentation.

It might be the case that you have knowledge of all elastic materials and you know that there is no way to contain a charged gas in any of them without it eventually escaping(and it must to it in a reasonable amount of time as to make it impossible to do this experiment). You may say something like it is impossible to keep the gas charged for any reasonable amount of time as to make it impractical. You may also say end up working out the math and determine that it is impractical on the basis of inefficiency.

In any case these would be valid points but I believe, atleast in your case, you have no knowledge about these topics and hence I doubt I would believe you. giving a specific counter example of one particular implementation of this idea is not good idea. Its like saying that its impossible to goto space because one can't use potatos as a heat shield.

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

all "charged gasses" are plasmas PLASMAS are conductive plamas at or above air pressure are hotter than fire. dielectric strenght is finite

deal with these issues.

apparently he's considered it, apparently you haven't.

given that the "charged gas" is conductive there will be no force the inside of it...

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.

OMG. Shut the f*ck up before you make yourself look even more stupid. All of electronics would not exist if that were true. (think about it.. a wire is a conductor. Electrons are a "Charged gas"... yet electrons move(and yet surely not with constant velocity)... hmm... I knew you were right and Newton was wrong)).

You are on the idiots list now. Go read a basic physics book before you turn in a POS. (or maybe you already are a POS).

You need to learn more than an electricians guid to physics if you want to even remotely join the conversation.

The fact is that that the NET force might be 0 but this does not mean there is internal forces at work. When you realize this you might want to appologize for your stupidity but I'm sure that will never happen.

You need to actually learn what electrostatic equillibrium and then maybe try to realize all the counter examples that exist. Get back to me about this as I would really like to know your reply Mr. Smart Ass.

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