Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.
 Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems  (Read 64425 times)

#### Low-Q

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2847
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #90 on: September 17, 2017, 03:43:17 PM »
playing around with capacitors and non-polarized and polarized (electrolytic) is pretty clear, but how about frequency? Can I use just any cap with 50kHz AC or square wave? What if the voltage is is in the range on megahertz?

What if the pulses are square wave from 0 to 5V of 50 kHz? Is that considered pulsed DC and AC only when it goes negative too?

Some of these signal / power sources are pretty unclear what they mean when they say AC or DC. They say AC if it is something else than a constant 5V
DC is DC as long the signal is on either the positive or negative side all the time - regardless of pulses or variable signal. As soon as the signal cross the zero line in to opposite polarity, current starts to flow the other direction, you got AC.

You need AC, but that can be achieved with pulsed DC as long as you connect a capacitor in series first. This high pass filter will lett the pulses through, and let the DC component rest over the capacitor.

Vidar

#### Belfior

• Hero Member
• Posts: 534
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #91 on: September 17, 2017, 04:52:31 PM »
DC is DC as long the signal is on either the positive or negative side all the time - regardless of pulses or variable signal. As soon as the signal cross the zero line in to opposite polarity, current starts to flow the other direction, you got AC.

You need AC, but that can be achieved with pulsed DC as long as you connect a capacitor in series first. This high pass filter will lett the pulses through, and let the DC component rest over the capacitor.

Vidar

Thx Vidar,

so non-polarized caps I can connect to DC or AC and the frequency is going to be a problem only if the MHz is so high it shorts the cap. Meaning the cap can't change polarity as fast as the current.

Electrolytic also, if I make sure the polarity is right?

I got microwave oven caps rated 2100V 50Hz AC 0,8uF and they seem to take charge from secondary coil + full wave rectifier just fine. Cap shows 41V

#### Low-Q

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2847
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #92 on: September 17, 2017, 07:39:47 PM »

You're talking MHz. A cap at 0.8uF is considered as a full short circuit at that frequency range unless you want it to be a capacitor to block DC and conduct AC.

Z=1/(2×pi×f×C)
Z=1/(2×pi×1 000 000Hz×0.0000008F)=0.2 Ohm

Vidar

Thx Vidar,

so non-polarized caps I can connect to DC or AC and the frequency is going to be a problem only if the MHz is so high it shorts the cap. Meaning the cap can't change polarity as fast as the current.

Electrolytic also, if I make sure the polarity is right?

I got microwave oven caps rated 2100V 50Hz AC 0,8uF and they seem to take charge from secondary coil + full wave rectifier just fine. Cap shows 41V

#### Magluvin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5886
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #93 on: September 17, 2017, 08:14:32 PM »
Mag,
I can't fully understand how you can get overunity out of a resonance system.
It's easier to understand the resonance concept by using a low loss spring, and a mass attached to it. The spring is the capacitor and the mass is the inductor.

If you try to extract output from the mechanical system, you also remove the reason why it resonate.
Say you put cotton whool inside the spring. The cotton is the load you want to put energy in to.
Now the resonance system has a low Q, and is no longer willing to sustain oscillation without energy supply.

My nick, btw, reflects this low Q as a speaker system with controlled audioable output. You cant get controll without effort.

Vidar

Not very low loss but it is stainless strap. I made a different magnet config but hadnt gotten back to that yet since. The new magnet sets are sam poles facein and a spacer. So the field between the mags is perpendicular to the axis of the pole face. The flux comes out radially around the spacer so the flux is at right angles to the windings. Should be better performance with that...

Stiffer stainless... Less air resistance

Then magnetic spring... Its different as the freq is dependent on level of input. So freq increases as you drive it harder. It seems to be a non linear spring.

Mags

#### Low-Q

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2847
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #94 on: September 17, 2017, 08:52:00 PM »

Springs are not linear. Their tension increase with amplitude.
If you pluck a gitar string very hard, you can hear that the pitch start high, then it pitch down as the amplitude decrease.

Not very low loss but it is stainless strap. I made a different magnet config but hadnt gotten back to that yet since. The new magnet sets are sam poles facein and a spacer. So the field between the mags is perpendicular to the axis of the pole face. The flux comes out radially around the spacer so the flux is at right angles to the windings. Should be better performance with that...

Stiffer stainless... Less air resistance

Then magnetic spring... Its different as the freq is dependent on level of input. So freq increases as you drive it harder. It seems to be a non linear spring.

Mags

#### Magluvin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5886
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #95 on: September 17, 2017, 10:05:15 PM »
Springs are not linear. Their tension increase with amplitude.
If you pluck a gitar string very hard, you can hear that the pitch start high, then it pitch down as the amplitude decrease.

Ah ok. Well its really noticeable with the magnets.

Mags

#### Low-Q

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2847
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #96 on: September 17, 2017, 10:24:52 PM »

The magnets are attached to a very short suspension. If you use a coil spring, the length of the steel is much longer, and the ratio between excursion and total length of the spring material is very small. Then you will notice much less difference in resoance frequency vs amplitude.
That's one of the reasons why guitars with longer necks sounds better. Less pitch distortion and longer sustain.

You will notice that the amplitude decrease when you load the second coil. At the same time, it is required more current to run the driver coil because back emf is less. There are actually no gain in a resonance. It's just a "standing wave" that occurs in low loss systems. The wave will be weaken as you introduce any form of damping or load. A load of the second coil is acting like a shock absorber which limits the amplitude - and the very reason why cars with damaged absorbers are like playing with life while driving.
However, the shock absorber also take energy from the engine when driving on bumpy roads because the suspension is not a low loss resonance system that could bounce the car in all directions while driving.

Vidar

Ah ok. Well its really noticeable with the magnets.

Mags

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5010
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #97 on: September 18, 2017, 04:05:51 AM »
guitar strings :
The Windbelt is a wind power harvesting device invented by Shawn Frayn in 2004 for converting wind power to electricity.[1][2] It consists of a flexible polymer ribbon stretched between supports transverse to the wind direction, with magnets glued to it. When the wind blows across it, the ribbon vibrates due to aeroelastic flutter, similar to the action of an aeolian harp. The vibrating movement of the magnets induces current in nearby pickup coils by electromagnetic inductio

shock absorber :   http://www.idtechex.com/electric-vehicles-europe/show/en/

#### Magluvin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5886
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #98 on: September 20, 2017, 05:38:18 AM »
Here is another advantage that can be had by adding more drivers to increase efficiency and does this apply elsewhere with other devices, motors, etc....

When we measure the output of a speaker, by the standard db @1meter, then we double the power in, we increase 3db.
96db@1w
99db@2W
102db@4w
105db@8w
And so on up to the limits of the speaker. ex  126db@1024w

The first pic shows this in a graph.

Next we increase the number of speakers and we increase the power accordingly. We increase 6db when we double the number of speakers and power accordingly

1 speaker 96db@1w
2 speakers 102db@2w   1w each speaker
4 speakers 108db@4w   1w each speaker
8 speakers 114db@8w   1w each speaker

Shown in second graph depicting 100w up to 400w. Same increase for doubling speakers and power for each.

Notice the difference between the examples above. In both situations the power was gradually increased, but by also adding more drivers we get another increase of 3db more for each doubling of total power. Where did this increase come from?

The last graph shows just a doubling in the number of drivers. With only 1w total going in, we increase 3db by increasing the drivers while redistributing the 1w total power divided between the drivers.

1 speaker @1w 96db
2 speakers @1w 99db  .5w per driver
4 speakers @1w 102db  .25w per driver
8 speakers @1w 105db  .125w per driver

Its real.

So just by increasing the number of drivers with the same total input, output is increased. So Im in the belief that more coils and magnets on a pulse motor should increase eff, not just increased output per input. This is something that needs to be seriously looked at.  Like if we had 1 electric motor driving only 1 wheel of a car, would adding another motor to another wheel not only increase go power but also increase eff??  Add an electric motor to all 4 wheels, would it be more eff than just 1 motor or just 2 motors?  As of yet before testing it, Id say there is a good chance it may be possible and nobody has really tried it in tests for eff. And if there are some here that object to that possibility, then explain why the gain in eff I have shown here only apply to speakers and not anything else.

Mags

#### Belfior

• Hero Member
• Posts: 534
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #99 on: September 20, 2017, 11:25:04 AM »
couple days ago they announced the finally succeeded in converting light signals to sound, storing it and then converting them back to light. Easier to manipulate sound than light.

It seems this is a major break through in communications http://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-have-managed-to-store-light-as-sound-for-the-first-time/

I think they are trying to steal my light-electricity-sound valves!

Last time I had a good idea I didn't follow through and now it got sold to Germany for 5 million This idea was paying for pizzas with SMS. At that time only thing SMS was used to pay for was background images for mobile phones and ring tones.

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5010
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #100 on: September 20, 2017, 01:25:37 PM »
Do you think that this "5 Million contract" object will become more effective and cheaper than :

let us see and seeing the pizza prices falling

Sincerely
OCWL

#### Belfior

• Hero Member
• Posts: 534
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #101 on: September 20, 2017, 01:29:05 PM »
the pizza deal was a separate one like I said the post. The new idea was the light-electric-sound conversion

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5010
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #102 on: September 20, 2017, 01:40:37 PM »
the pizza deal was a separate one like I said the post. The new idea was the light-electric-sound conversion

Pardon,if I tried in my Sado(river in Portugal, Marquis de Sade)-Maso(I like Pizza,too)-Servancy
to be convenient .

wmbr
OCWL

#### Low-Q

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2847
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #103 on: September 20, 2017, 03:48:42 PM »
Here is another advantage that can be had by adding more drivers to increase efficiency and does this apply elsewhere with other devices, motors, etc....

When we measure the output of a speaker, by the standard db @1meter, then we double the power in, we increase 3db.
96db@1w
99db@2W
102db@4w
105db@8w
And so on up to the limits of the speaker. ex  126db@1024w

The first pic shows this in a graph.

Next we increase the number of speakers and we increase the power accordingly. We increase 6db when we double the number of speakers and power accordingly

1 speaker 96db@1w
2 speakers 102db@2w   1w each speaker
4 speakers 108db@4w   1w each speaker
8 speakers 114db@8w   1w each speaker

Shown in second graph depicting 100w up to 400w. Same increase for doubling speakers and power for each.

Notice the difference between the examples above. In both situations the power was gradually increased, but by also adding more drivers we get another increase of 3db more for each doubling of total power. Where did this increase come from?

The last graph shows just a doubling in the number of drivers. With only 1w total going in, we increase 3db by increasing the drivers while redistributing the 1w total power divided between the drivers.

1 speaker @1w 96db
2 speakers @1w 99db  .5w per driver
4 speakers @1w 102db  .25w per driver
8 speakers @1w 105db  .125w per driver

Its real.

So just by increasing the number of drivers with the same total input, output is increased. So Im in the belief that more coils and magnets on a pulse motor should increase eff, not just increased output per input. This is something that needs to be seriously looked at.  Like if we had 1 electric motor driving only 1 wheel of a car, would adding another motor to another wheel not only increase go power but also increase eff??  Add an electric motor to all 4 wheels, would it be more eff than just 1 motor or just 2 motors?  As of yet before testing it, Id say there is a good chance it may be possible and nobody has really tried it in tests for eff. And if there are some here that object to that possibility, then explain why the gain in eff I have shown here only apply to speakers and not anything else.

Mags
When we measure efficiency in speakers, it does not mean you can achieve over unity just by adding more drivers.
You increase the efficiency in how much air the membrane can move. By pushing more air, you push more mass, and more mechanical work is done to the air itself.

If you have one 8 Ohm driver, 100Hz, excursion of +/- 10mm.
Then increase to four drivers. Two and two in parallell (4 Ohm), then these in series (4+4=8 Ohm). Then you got 4 times the area at 8 Ohm. Now at 100Hz these drivers excursion is +/-2.5mm each because they got 1/4 of the energy input each. The airload is the same, but the mechanical coupling to the air is more efficient. Then you still move the same amount of air in both scenarios.
Say you have 10 grams air load that moves +/-10mm with one driver, then 4 drivers move 40 grams air load only 2.5mm. The energy it takes and provides is exactly the same.
So why does the dB number pr. watt increase? The larger the area, the more "beamy" the sounds travels.
Google line source speaker measurement. These speakers have an array of speakers. Even if the potential efficiency is very high, the practical efficiency does not increase parallell to the number of drivers. It also depends a lot of how close or far away you measure the soundpressure. Close up, you might get a boomy measurement - lots of bass, but little midrange and treble. Further away, the bass response drops while the mid, and high range increase relatively to eachother.

You could have a panel of 1 square kilometer of drivers, but still not achieved more than 100% efficiency. You cannot calculate efficiency in % in the same way as you do with an electric motor for example.
The 1% efficiency is based on a standarized measurement method for audio transmission, and does not apply directly to the efficiency we talk about in solid mecnanical systems.

Vidar

#### Magluvin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5886
##### Re: Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems
« Reply #104 on: September 20, 2017, 06:53:11 PM »
When we measure efficiency in speakers, it does not mean you can achieve over unity just by adding more drivers.
You increase the efficiency in how much air the membrane can move. By pushing more air, you push more mass, and more mechanical work is done to the air itself.

If you have one 8 Ohm driver, 100Hz, excursion of +/- 10mm.
Then increase to four drivers. Two and two in parallell (4 Ohm), then these in series (4+4=8 Ohm). Then you got 4 times the area at 8 Ohm. Now at 100Hz these drivers excursion is +/-2.5mm each because they got 1/4 of the energy input each. The airload is the same, but the mechanical coupling to the air is more efficient. Then you still move the same amount of air in both scenarios.
Say you have 10 grams air load that moves +/-10mm with one driver, then 4 drivers move 40 grams air load only 2.5mm. The energy it takes and provides is exactly the same.
So why does the dB number pr. watt increase? The larger the area, the more "beamy" the sounds travels.
Google line source speaker measurement. These speakers have an array of speakers. Even if the potential efficiency is very high, the practical efficiency does not increase parallell to the number of drivers. It also depends a lot of how close or far away you measure the soundpressure. Close up, you might get a boomy measurement - lots of bass, but little midrange and treble. Further away, the bass response drops while the mid, and high range increase relatively to eachother.

You could have a panel of 1 square kilometer of drivers, but still not achieved more than 100% efficiency. You cannot calculate efficiency in % in the same way as you do with an electric motor for example.
The 1% efficiency is based on a standarized measurement method for audio transmission, and does not apply directly to the efficiency we talk about in solid mecnanical systems.

Vidar

92db exibits 1% eff, not 96db as you had first suggested. 96db is 2.51% eff.  102db is 10%eff.  105db is 20%eff. It is in the list below. Are you saying that yes your 1% is the real deal power eff, Pin(amplifier) vs Pout(acoustical sound power Pae), but the rest of the list say at 105db is 20%eff is not correct? Is 112db@1w not 100%eff Pin vs Pout? And if you disagree with the list other than the 1%value, then I need to see proof in equation and sources for such.

Were talking sub bass here not mid and high phasing and alignment.  Say it were an suv and we start with 1 sub facing the back doors/hatch, then add 1 more sub the same, facing back, then 4 subs, same way. Then 8 subs. The wave all comes forward in the vehicle at virtually the same time whether it is 1 sub or 8. Back in the days guys would do 32 8in subs at 100w and beat the guys pushing couple 15s with 1kw. Thats because the guy with 100w took advantage of the gain of more drivers. I knew of this since the 90s but am only making the connection now with real possibilities of this increased eff method.

If I start with the 1 pioneer 12 at 105db@1w, the sound produced is at 20%eff vs Pin, just as your 1%eff 92db version would have the sound power of 1%eff vs Pin, as shown in the chart, 105db being the max shown, probably for a number of reasons. Wouldnt want to show 114db as being 158%eff all out in the open now would we? even for example sake.
So now I add 1 more 105db sub. .5w per sub total of 1w, same as the single sub test, and we get 108db@1w
Now add 2 more subs, 4 total, .25w each total 1w we get 111db@1w
Finally 8 subs, total power in 1w. We get 114db@1w.

If you dont agree with the fact that we gain 3db by just doubling the number of drivers, this is how it works out...

It is well known, we double the power in a speaker system, we increase 3db. If we double the speakers and power,  say 2 subs total 100w then 4 subs total 200w, we increase 6db.  So now we take the 4 subs tot 200w and we reduce the watts by half to 100w tot we lose 3db of the 6db we had at 200w.  So same power in we increase output 3db just by way of the added drivers. All very well known in the audio industry.

Run it through any speaker program. Just add more speakers and hold the total watts to 1w and watch the output grow compared to 1 speaker @1w.

114db@1w. The calculated actual eff of the system is 158%eff.  Do you not agree with that? If not then how can you stand by your 1%, where the chart/list shows your number is in the ball park of your initial claim, but then you must not be in agreement with the rest of the chart?

If the 158% number is not correct then what is to say that your 1% is? Ive laid out the numbers from a source that does the actual power in vs power out eff calculations of which agrees with your initial quote fairly accurately, you were off from 96db to the actual 92db for 1%eff.

Are you talking actual eff with the 1% number, like Pin(amplifier vs Pout(acoustical sound power Pae)? If so, then what is your guesstimate of the actual eff of a speaker that is 105db sensitivity? And a speaker that is 112db sensitivity?  All @1w of course.

Mags