Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Discussion board help and admin topics => Half Baked Ideas => Topic started by: The Observer on July 22, 2009, 05:43:41 PM
-
Thank you, for your interest in this.
The situation is this...
1) 2 Guitars ... 1 Acoustic, 1 Electric.
2) Same string, same length.
3) Each strummed with equal force.
The Acoustic Guitar emanates a sound wave 100's
perhaps 1000's of times louder than the Electric Guitar.
a) Where does the "extra" sound come from?
b) What happens that would produce this effect?
c) Does energy "appear" to be amplified?
d) Is energy being amplified?
I would appreciate any answers to
these questions you can provide.
O O
0
\__/
The Observer
-
Thats easy since I play both. An Acoustic has a Resonance chamber the electric doesn't. The frequency's resonate within the cavity bouncing out the sound hole. If you only pluck one string it will continue to produce its frequency until the string comes to a complete rest. When you pluck them all you are adding volume to the resonance cavity. Overtones from one string can set another string into vibrating its frequency. So I would say it is adding energy as far as acoustic resonance.
-
Well once this book about keely has been turned into an ebook..you will have a much better idea of why...it is the wonder of more out than in.
Same with earths resonance etc, louder well it is obviously tapping into something, regarding rf and earths resonace lets say you have a radio transmitter and broadcast it..its radio reception is like what 50-100 miles...and then you use the earth and the range has been quadrupled...thus hence where and what it is tapping.
This vaccum/zpe where is basicly a medium as well as other mediums interlinked toeach other is where it recycles it's self endlessly..as it always moves as with everything..more like velocity and then as it recycles it's self..it is a wonder that only god in the deep blue only seems to know.
-
Someone answered this question recently on this website or "the" other.
There's not so much "more" energy coming from the acoustic guitar, as there are more and longer AUDIBLE waves. In the electrical guitar, the strings energy to go other energy transitions and frequencies. It was a very plausible explanation when I read it. Written better than I just did, but that goes without saying.
-
Well,
Here's my 2 cents' worth as an amateur guitar builder:
As IotaYodi pointed out, the acoustic has a resonance chamber. The string vibrations are transduced thru the saddle to the bridge (and bridge plate below the top) and from the bridge, to the top. The top then acts similar to the wafer of a speaker. As it vibrates with the frequencies of the strings, air is displaced both outside the resonance chamber and within, giving the amplifying effect. In addition, the back and sides of better quality acoustic guitars are made of solid hardwood (traditionally called tone woods) - for example, maple, sycamore, rose wood, mahogany, koa to name a few. When the sound transduced to the top hits the back and sides, it bounces back to the sound board (top). This overall action of the top in tandem with the back and sides gives the amplifying effect of the acoustic guitar. You will notice that lower end acoustic guitars have laminate (plywood) back and sides and often, laminate tops as well. The multiple layers and glue within the laminate essentially mutes the sound transduction and reverberation off back and sides. As a result, a laminate guitar is going to have much less projection than a solid wood model. Mid range priced guitars (say, 200 to 500 dollars) will often have a solid spruce top and laminate back and sides), while guitars $500 and up will more frequently have solid wood back and sides. The kind of bracing also has an effect. Light and strong wood such as sitka spruce is generally the number 1 choice for better acoustic guitars. Solid wood and resonance chamber = better, louder sound.
FWIW
Hope it helps.
Bob Smith
-
Interesting...So you're saying that some of the amplification from body of the guitar is refocused back to the sound board, increasing efficiency. Kewl to know!
Ok, how about taking an Alpenhorn, attaching some piezo assemblies to the output end, transducing the amplified vibrations at the rim to electricity, in order to power a small air compressor at the mouth?
No go?
Well....I tried.
-
Interesting...So you're saying that some of the amplification from body of the guitar is refocused back to the sound board, increasing efficiency. Kewl to know!
Ok, how about taking an Alpenhorn, attaching some piezo assemblies to the output end, transducing the amplified vibrations at the rim to electricity, in order to power a small air compressor at the mouth?
No go?
Well....I tried.
Yes it is like that.
-
Thank you, for your interest in this.
The situation is this...
1) 2 Guitars ... 1 Acoustic, 1 Electric.
2) Same string, same length.
3) Each strummed with equal force.
The Acoustic Guitar emanates a sound wave 100's
perhaps 1000's of times louder than the Electric Guitar.
a) Where does the "extra" sound come from?
b) What happens that would produce this effect?
c) Does energy "appear" to be amplified?
d) Is energy being amplified?
I would appreciate any answers to
these questions you can provide.
O O
0
\__/
The Observer
The sound is amplified, but the energy is not. Without the soundbox of the acoustic guitar, the energy in the vibrating string would simply escape in another fashion. With the soundbox, much more of the energy is converted to audible (and audibly pleasing) sound. The soundbox does not magically amplify the energy, though; that would be impossible without some type of other input of energy, such as an electric amplifier.
-
Iota,
I agree, that the sound waves (pressure variations of air) resonate within the air chamber.
There are 2 things resonating.
1. The String.
2. The Air Chamber.
When you hear an Electric Guitar you hear
1. The String
When you hear an Acoustic Guitar you hear
1 The String
+
2. The Air Chamber
This is why it is louder... anyone disagree?
++
ll
ll
ll
( 0 )
(____)
The Observer
-
In honor of the 40th anniversary of the Apollo moon shots, I think we should send an accoustic and an electric guitar back up, and they should play them to prove these wild theories of yours.
IF no sound is heard,
Then I'll believe we actually went to the moon.
-
Hey Cloxxki
It's good to hear that I am not the only one asking this question.
However, the explanation you recite is lacking a bit.
I realize you are summarizing and may have not got the other person's explanation right.
Never the less, I must address what you said so there is not confusion in the ranks.
You say there are "more and longer audible waves".
More waves... Yes I suppose since the acoustic cavity's waves
add constructivly to the strings waves.. however more waves do not appear.
Only waves of higher amplitude at the same frequency appear to the outside observer.
Longer audible waves... You must mean waves of higher amplitude.
Longer waves means a different sound with lower pitch.
Higher waves mean a louder sound of the same pitch.
And... as most don't seem to get....
Higher waves mean more energy from the source.
.
As far as an electric guitar's stings energy going to "other transitions and frequencies"...
That's pretty vague..
The string is vibrating at it's natural frequency(s).
It cannot vibrate at other frequencies unless you change the tension, length or mass.
Other transitions? Come on... that is gibberish.
The real crux of the matter is Resonance/Forced Resonance..
There should be a Forum Section on Resonance, because Resonating objects exhibit free energy characteristics !
If the section exists and I didn't see it , my apologies. ;o)
Have a great day,
The Observer
-
Wow, you go in-depth on my "trying to be vague" summary :-)
To me, an acoustic guitar seems to produce sound for a longer time. The louder aspect makes the sound be more easily audible over a longer distance, I suppose.
It comes down to this: with an acountic guitar, you get lots of resonant sound, with the electric guitar, human senses are less specialized to notice what the string's energy was transformed into.
You can argue with me further, but I'll just end up stating that you are probably right, I am not a specialized, just meant to echo what I'd just read, and what I had accepted as most plausible. If an acoustic guitar we OU, the military would have found ways to shoot bullets with it, or split atoms.
-
Hey Cloxx,
Thanks for your response.
I'm not trying to be rude.
I think I come across that way though... because of my passion about this subject.
For that I apologize. ;o)
What I really want is for people here to see forced resonant systems as I do.
That is...
Step 1. Realize a resonant system STORES energy.
Step 2. Realize a resonant system can emanate energy.
Step 3. Realize the energy emanated has to do with the energy stored.
Easy as that... Free Energy... no way around it.
The simplest example I can think of is a Swing.
Take the power of 1 finger at the correct frequency (the swing's natural Frequency).
Start pushing the swing...
at first not too much action... not very much wind produced.
then as the swing absorbs the energy from the finger,
the swing swings higher.
More action... more wind.
this goes on until the the swing's max energy stored is reached.
THEN...
Each small push produces a lot of action and a lot of wind.
Anyone get it? (there I go acting rude again) ;o/
Sorry.
Hope everyone is having a great day,
The Observer
-
Acoustic guitars are more efficient.
Assuming that both the electric and acoustic guitars are strummed with the same amount of energy then in the case of the electric guitar the sound waves are absorbed by the air in the room. In the case the acoustic guitar the sound waves are gathered and reflected out of the hole in the resonant chamber of the guitar body. Sound waves that, in the case of the electric guitar are sent out in all directions are are gathered redirected in mostly one direction (out the hole) by the resonant body.
If you took the same amount of energy used to strum (measured in joules) and say used it to drive a loud speaker you would get a similar level of sound.
Its not so much that the guitar amplifies the sound as it is that the sounds out of an electric guitar are dispersed in all directions so that a person sitting some distance from the guitar hears a faint sound. The acoustic guitar directs the sound waves in one direction. Sound that would have traveled behind the musician, for example, is redirected by the resonant body to emanate from the front of the musician along with the sound waves that also emanate forwards.
So by redirecting all the sound waves in one direction the listener hears louder music. Also bear in mind the the human ear is non-linear. Sound meters use the decibel scale which is logarithmic. If you double the sound energy the human ear does not perceive twice the sound volume.
It is much like a using a magnifying glass in the sun. By gathering the light received by the total surface area of the glass and focusing it on a tiny pinpoint you can get a hot spot that will ignite paper (implying 600F or higher). Take away the magnifying glass and the paper will not catch fire. The magnifying glass merely concentrates the energy. It does not amplify it.
-
Acoustic guitars are more efficient.
Assuming that both the electric and acoustic guitars are strummed with the same amount of energy then in the case of the electric guitar the sound waves are absorbed by the air in the room. In the case the acoustic guitar the sound waves are gathered and reflected out of the hole in the resonant chamber of the guitar body. Sound waves that, in the case of the electric guitar are sent out in all directions are are gathered redirected in mostly one direction (out the hole) by the resonant body.
If you took the same amount of energy used to strum (measured in joules) and say used it to drive a loud speaker you would get a similar level of sound.
Its not so much that the guitar amplifies the sound as it is that the sounds out of an electric guitar are dispersed in all directions so that a person sitting some distance from the guitar hears a faint sound. The acoustic guitar directs the sound waves in one direction. Sound that would have traveled behind the musician, for example, is redirected by the resonant body to emanate from the front of the musician along with the sound waves that also emanate forwards.
So by redirecting all the sound waves in one direction the listener hears louder music. Also bear in mind the the human ear is non-linear. Sound meters use the decibel scale which is logarithmic. If you double the sound energy the human ear does not perceive twice the sound volume.
It is much like a using a magnifying glass in the sun. By gathering the light received by the total surface area of the glass and focusing it on a tiny pinpoint you can get a hot spot that will ignite paper (implying 600F or higher). Take away the magnifying glass and the paper will not catch fire. The magnifying glass merely concentrates the energy. It does not amplify it.
Mmmm, I don't think so.
I think an acoustic guitar does indeed make the string sound much stronger.
When I think of an acoustic guitar I can't help but think of the "his masters voice" wind up recordplayers with the big horn on top to amplify the very weak sound of the needle.
If the horn was only directing the sound in one direction then it could hardly be heard when not directly in front of the horn, but for some reason it is now very well heard all over the room.
Where does the extra power come from?
Back in the seventies there were drawings for exciter loudspeakers in Elector (a magazine), it was just a normal two way loudspeaker box with a tweeter and a midrange speaker.
The exciter itself was a clever fold up horn made up of all sizes of plates inside with a hornlike opening on the front.
These plates made a horn like room inside the box so it was in fact a horn.
Nice thing was that it adds Decibels to the midrange speaker so you got more "Watts" out then you put in (this was handy for people who could not afford a powerful end amplifier but still wanted a lot of power out of their speakers).
So all in all, there is much more to acoustic amplification then meets the eye, and the magnifying glass example does not work in my opinion.
-
Swimmingcat,
First, welcome to the forum, cool name.
I am honored that you felt compelled enough to answer my question to sign up.
Second, thanks for spending the time to write a clear answer.
Third, I can tell you made a lot of your theories up and do not play acoustic guitar..
Basically, you are saying that sound that would have gone behind the guitar is refocused (echoed) back to the front... and constructively interferes with the strings waves to make bigger waves on the front side and virtually no wave on the the back.
Thus your explanation for louder sound with no extra energy.
You mention Resonance. but do not account for it.
Although the statement, "the acoustic guitar is loudest near the hole" is true...
It is also louder everywhere, including behind the guitar.
As a person who has played for over 30 years, you will have to take my word for it.
You mention a loud speaker.
You will be surprised to find out that I claim a loudspeaker is an overunity device !
The reason is not as simple as this (the guitar)... as one must understand magnetic permeability
and comprehend that a speaker built using only coils takes far more energy
than using a magnet and a coil/wrapped around iron.
Anyways, since you mention resonance but do not explain how it fits into the equation...
I will offer a short explanation.
You need to understand what Forced Resonance is.
a. Every object has a natural frequency(s) that it will vibrate at.
b. One vibrating object can start another object vibrating (must use natural frequency).
c. A small driving force can cause a large oscillation in the second object.
This is because of the phenomenon that Resonant Systems STORE energy.
d. The second object interacts with the real world in terms of the energy STORED.
In the case of the Acoustic Guitar.
There are 2 objects...
1. the string
2. the air in the guitar
The String (1.) is the small driving force mentioned above.
The Air (2.) is the Resonant System that Absorbs Energy and has large oscillations.
You and me are the real world that hears the result of a Vibrating Systems
interacting with the world in terms of the Energy It Stored.
I will apologize for acting like a know it all... but you will find all this (and more cunundrums)
in a regular college physics text book.
The Observer
-
I do not agree than a guitar or a loud speaker are over unity devices. They simply are efficient at producing sounds that the human ear responds to with the input energy (strumming or electrical signals respectively) provided. I would like to believe that they are over-unity, but your points are not able to provide enough sway.
Though I do have an open mind to over unity devices, they appear to be much like sasquashes - people have reported seeing them and there are even videos but none are available for close inspection. Without the scrutiny of others these stories just appear to be fanciful tales.
I challenge anybody to produce a set of plans for an over-unity device. I have access to a machines shop and an electronic technician. I can have it built - no problem.
The fact is that nobody can come up with such plans. All reportedly over-unity devices are shrouded in secrecy and all reports of their operation are uncorroborated - basically hear-say. I challenge anybody to provide me with an opportunity to examine an over-unity device or produce some plans to build one. I expect I will be waiting for a long long time.
Typical of the over-unit fair are documents like the MEG-patent:
http://www.cheniere.org/references/MEG_Patent.pdf
This document fails to give enough information to build a machine. It merely gives the inventors the right to take somebody to court who they think may have infringed on this patent. And if you find it confusing perhaps you could buy one of the dozen or so books ADVERTISED in the patent that supposedly explain the principles involved. I would put forward the notion that the intent of this document is to sell books.
One such book "The Final Secret of Free Energy" talks all around the subject with analogies. But the text never actually reveals any real physical phenomenon that demonstrate the principles. Where's the beef?
If the MEG actually worked and is really just a configuration of magnets, wire, and electronics then then far more money could be made by selling these machines than by selling books. Far more benefit to humanity could be gained by making small versions of this machine available to one and all to prove the concept to the world. And I would be happy to build them for the inventors to sell. They have a patent after all, and certainly would be entitled to royalties. But for some reason they prefer to sell books.
-
What we need is a truly standard strum.
How about the "gizmo" used by Godley and Creme?
http://14.media.tumblr.com/PwCIEKd8Nm7mbw05kyEUJkdFo1_500.jpg
I think it was some sort of rotating arrangement of six shaving brushes
which stroked the strings, and gave infinite sustain. Then a microphone can record the actual sound level produced.
Don't forget to include a National guitar with the steel whatchamecallit
Paul.
-
Step 1. Realize a resonant system STORES energy.
Step 2. Realize a resonant system can emanate energy.
Step 3. Realize the energy emanated has to do with the energy stored.
.
With string instruments, the materials they're made of don't -store- energy, they -react- to energy (well, they store energy to 'burn' maybe).
OK, take a Les Paul, unplugged: Why doesn't it project much sound? Because the chunk of wood the strings are attached to requires a lot more energy than a vibrating string to move/vibrate much (the solid-body has a lot of 'inertia' to overcome).
Next, take a Martin D-28: Same string produces great sound. Why? because the
-thin- top/back/sides vibrate -more- with a lot -less- energy input (a lot less 'inertia' to overcome).
Moving right along, you take a 5-string banjo that uses a drum-head as a sound-board (less inertia, yet) and it's even -louder-.
The vibrations of the strings are transmitted, through both the 'nut' and the 'bridge', to the body of the guitar, the more the body reacts (vibrates), the more air is set into motion and the greater the SPL (sound pressure level).
Regardless of any sympathetic vibrations or standing-waves setup through various resonances that result from the selection and consistency of the materials chosen or their configuration in the instrument (which has more to do with 'timbre'), the primary reason for differing sound pressure levels is the relative degree of inertia between the two styles of guitar construction.
The easier it is to get the sound-board moving, the more air you're gonna push, the more volume you're gonna get.
If you want to get into phasing, standing waves and harmonics, that's also an interesting direction that will lead you more into tone than to SPL, but the original question about 'why' is one -louder- than the other follows the above tenets (at least with guitars, winds and brass are different animals).
Tony
.
-
@Observer
You know, I don't necessarily disagree with the direction you seem to be taking with this thread because it is interesting stuff to ponder, but it would also be useful to run some practical bench-tests and gather a little data to mull over.
How much energy would you expend in intitiating the 'seed' vibration?
How much of the resulting SPL could you 'direct' twords a collector?
Upon collection, what means would you use to convert SPL to, say, electricity?
Compare converted-energy to initiating-energy and see if it still seems viable.
I've used an old Audio Cyclopedia (Howard Tremaine) for years (since '72) as a reference for sound, the 2nd edition of this volume is still available; ISBN 0672206757, if you're more interested in sound than the average guy.
There's been a fair amount of work done in piezo-acoustics for energy production/conversion, too, you may find some interesting directions to follow there, as well.
Tony
-
Swimmingcat,
To understand that a speaker is overunity you need to understand Anisotropic Energy & Magnetic Permeability
and how they pertain to ferromagnetic materials.
In short, when a coil is wrapped around a piece of iron..
the resultant magnetic field is
The Coil's Magnetic Field + The Iron's Magnetic field.
And the Iron's magnetic field is 5,000 times that of the coil !!!!!!!
I appreciate your rant...
I think alot of people are skipping the basics.
That's why I am emphatic about this Resonance Thing.
Paul,
Although a machine to do some strumming would be cool,
It is undeniably true that an acoustic is much louder than an electric.
However you brought up such a great point.
National Guitar...
I discovered this last night when doing research.
For those of you that don't know, In the 1920's they made super duper
loud Acoustic Guitars because of problems of the band overpowering
the guitar before electric amps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonator_guitar
You know what they called it?
A Resonator Guitar.
hmmm... they made it louder by doing something with a Resonator !
No kidding?
I'll be back,
The Observer
-
Utiltarian... from page 1 of this thread,
The sound is amplified, but the energy is not. Without the soundbox of the acoustic guitar, the energy in the vibrating string would simply escape in another fashion. With the soundbox, much more of the energy is converted to audible (and audibly pleasing) sound. The soundbox does not magically amplify the energy, though; that would be impossible without some type of other input of energy, such as an electric amplifier.
You state the sound is amplified, but the energy is not?
1. Higher amplitude waves come from a larger energy source.
You mention the energy would escape in another fashion?
2. Everything is the SAME except for the Acoustic Resonating Cavity.
You assert the sound box converts energy to audible energy.
3. The sound box is actually an Acoustic Cavity Resonator.
On a side note. I stopped by the book store and read some Tesla books.
I was interested in exactly what he was going to do with Wardencliff.
Apparently there were going to be many uses, one of which was Free energy for all.
Wardencliff was actually smaller than the worldwide version, but in short...
Tesla wanted to put a radio frequency out that would Resonate in the Schumann Cavity ( a very specific frequency ).
That is , a small driving force (the tower) would cause a large oscillation in the resonator (the Schumann Cavity).
This large oscillation would then be tuned into for free energy by "large radios" dialed into that frequency.
Or using the guitar analogy...
The Wardencliff Tower is the String.
The Schumann Cavity is the Body of the Guitar.
Regards,
The Observer
`
-
I made an important discovery.
This discovery proves that two similar tuning forks (1 struck, 1 not struck) ring for a longer period
than the case with just 1 tuning fork.
This proof is important because naysayers and Wiki pages say the opposite is true !
1. Take an acoustic guitar and tune it perfectly... with a tuner if you have to.
2. Strum the High E String.
3. Damp the High E String.
4. Observe an E still ringing.
5. Observe that the Low E and A Strings are vibrating. (Two Strings that were Not Plucked !)
6. Strum High E Sting with all other strings Damped.
7. Time the length of sound from High E String (~6 seconds)
8. Strum High E String without Damping any other strings.
9. Time length of sound from High E, Low E and A vibrating... (~ 12 seconds !)
One final point is that it is louder with all vibrating too, however I havn't tested this with a decibel meter for definitive proof.
Please try this at home, this is reproducible proof that Free Energy exists in Forced Resonant Systems.
It will happen every time, as long as the guitar is in tune.
Please let me know how this turned out for you. ;o)
++
ll
ll
ll
( O )
(____ )
The Observer
-
The acoustic guitar's body is designed to couple to ambient air
better then the electric guitar which is designed to couple better
to an electronic pickup. But...the resonant box of the acoustic
guitar is going into interfere with a number of "hot licks" and
offset tuning of an accomplished musician. So the acoustic
guitar is louder...but not necessarily better.
Which is louder; A big cone speaker in an acoustic chamber cabinet
or small cone speaker when driven with the same signal?
:S:MarksCoffman
-
The Observer:
Please try this at home, this is reproducible proof that Free Energy exists in Forced Resonant Systems.
--------
I recently posted this response to someone else's statement about resonance:
The statement:
Shortly : ask yourself , how RESONANCE is at all is possible ? When you struck a rod at correct frequency and it sings very long - isn't that an unexpected miracle ?
The reply:
It's not a miracle because it's the same resonance ring-down that you see in an RLC resonant oscillator. The stiffness of the rod is like a spring, and that represents the size of the coil. The mass of the rod is like a capacitor - the speed of the moving mass is like the voltage across the capacitor, and the amount of mass is like the size of the capacitor. The fact that the rod does not sing forever, is because there is some energy lost in the mechanical hysteresis loop of the rod. This is like the resistance in the electrical RLC resonator.
When you hit the rod you put energy into it. The rod stores that energy by singing. The stored energy goes back and forth between the moving mass and the compressed spring. When the mass is moving its fastest, the spring is completely decompressed, and all of the stored energy is in the moving mass. When the mass has stopped moving, the spring is at it's maximum compression, and all of the stored energy is in the spring.
Just like in the electrical version the energy goes back and forth between the capacitor and the coil. When the capacitor voltage is at it's maximum, there is no current in the coil, and all of the stored energy is in the capacitor. When the capacitor voltage is at zero, there is maximum current in the coil, and all of the stored energy is in the coil.
So in both cases, energy is just going back and forth in a nice smooth sine wave pattern. Resonance is just energy smoothly moving back and forth between two things that can store the energy.
At the same time, the form of the energy is always transforming back between two different states in a sine wave pattern. In the above examples the two states are a moving mass and a compressed spring, and a capacitor with voltage across it and a coil with current going through it.
That is the key to understanding resonance and it applies to almost anything that resonates. If you don't understand it, it is worth reading through until you do understand it. The prize is five Brownie Points.
------
"Forced Resonance" would more aptly be described as putting energy into the resonant system, and then watching it decay out of the resonant system and transform itself into other forms of energy. There is no over unity there, but it is a fun and fascinating study.
Can anyone see how this applies to the acoustic guitar example?
MileHigh
-
Can anyone see how this applies to the acoustic guitar example?
Mile High,
The rod's response to forced resonance is similar to the response of a decent guitar made from solid tone woods. A solid back, sides and top -and neck- will all resonate together, much like your rod example, until the resonance eventually subsides below the audible level. Cheap guitars made with plywood back, sides, top and neck generally won't resonate this way.
Bob
-
Hey Bob,
You are right and I will throw in lots of colour commentary.
The string is a resonator, the mass of the string per unit length is the capacitance, and the springiness or stretchability of the string is the inductance.
The air cavity is a resonator, where the mass of the air in the hole is the capacitance and the rest of the air inside the cavity acts like a compressible spring so that is the inductance.
Then the main body of the guitar is a resonator where the mass of the wood is the capacitance and the stiffness of the wood is the inductance.
So when you pluck a string, the initial energy in the string resonator starts being coupled to the resonators of the air cavity and the body of the guitar. They look sort of like electrical transformers, and some of the initial vibrational string energy is coupled or transferred into the other two resonators with a certain coupling factor that is dependent on the frequency.
To be a bit more precise, the string is the driving source of the energy after it gets plucked and the other to resonators simply react, and act like filters. In other words, the natural resonant frequencies of all three resonators are different. So it depends on what note the string is playing to see how much the air and guitar body "filters" react to the stimulation.
In the end, you can cut the energy that your finger initially imparted into the string into two things, sound energy and heat energy. Ultimately the sound energy becomes heat energy also. Even the string itself heats up as you play it, there is some energy lost in the wire just like bending a coat hanger.
So you pluck the string, and after 10 seconds, all that you are left with is heat. The resonance was just storing the energy for a short while, and it bleeds off and becomes heat.
MileHigh
-
Hey Mile High,
As far as I can tell, you have some decent knowledge when it comes to how resonant systems work.
The most important points that I am trying to impart to others are.
1, What a Driven or Forced Resonant System is...
(Small Giver of Energy ------> Receiver of Energy)
2. How the Receiver in a Forced Resonant Situation receives and STORES ENERGY.
3. How the Receiver of Energy vibrates at an amplitude congruent to it's STORED ENERGY.
4. We FEEL/SEE/HEAR the vibrations that are the amplitude of the STORED ENERGY.
I would like you to respond to my guitar experiment.
In Summary... While the High E String vibrates for 6 seconds alone,
the High E will start the Low E and A vibrating (if not damped)
and all will ring for 12 seconds !
If you wanna calculate Watts-seconds using... Power=Intensity*Area*Seconds
It is easy to see there is twice the energy ,and that's if it isn't louder... (which it is).
Have a nice day,
The Observer
-
The Observer:
While the High E String vibrates for 6 seconds alone,
the High E will start the Low E and A vibrating (if not damped)
and all will ring for 12 seconds !
This is very similar to the string coupling it's energy to the air cavity and the body of the guitar. In this case it's going from string to string. I am not a guitar player buy are the High E and the Low E one octave apart? If yes, then the Low E probably vibrates at it's first harmonic; the High E again.
The bottom line is that the energy drain to heat is slower. Some of the energy moved over to some other strings, and that ended up extending the life of the oscillations. From another viewpoint, you simply drained the power out of the oscillation more slowly, producing heat more slowly.
It may appear to sound louder because your ear is so sensitive to sound and you are dealing with the psychoacoustics of how you respond to the apparent volume of two strings vibrating at the same time.
MileHigh
-
Hello Mile High,
Thankyou for your response.
I agree that the other strings are vibrating at Harmonics of the High E.
But you say
The bottom line is that the energy drain to heat is slower.
Some of the energy moved over to some other strings,
and that ended up extending the life of the oscillations.
From another viewpoint, you simply drained the power out of the
oscillation more slowly, producing heat more slowly.
Heat drain is slower?
Come on... You will need to provide something vaguely specific here.
Energy moved over to the other strings?
Well yes and no.
Yes....Sound waves crossed the other strings and started them vibrating.
No... No more energy left the Low E String to accomplish this !
(unless you count the energy coming back from all the resonators)
Drained power out of the oscillation more slowly?
Well, since the Resonators not struck... The Body of the Guitar... the Air in the Guitar,
the Low E String and the A string... started vibrating..
They give off vibrations !!!
Yes it's true.
And reinforce the system of aforementioned Resonators including the High E.
This is how it is working... is it not?
Finally, I had to look up psychoacoustics.
You are saying that I am imagining that it is louder when all 3 strings vibrate.
I say, yep, just like I imagine that the Acoustic Guitar is louder than an Electric.
Which brings me to my final point.
You say the human ear is sensitive?
I would like to know how in God's good name you figure that?
Did you know the energy difference between 20 and 40 decibels is not 2 times more but 1000 times more.
In other words.. Normal conversation is over 1000 times louder than the library !
My point is... our ears are not sensitive, they need to be UNsensitive to cover the range of volume that they do.
My next post will include a College Text Book Proof that the waves emitted from an Acoustic Guitar
are indeed 1000 times more Powerful than those from an Electric Guitar.
The Observer
-
The Observer:
By the "energy drain" I mean the following: As you listen to the sound of the plucked string you know that the energy has to be going somewhere. Some is obviously going into the air, some is making the body of the guitar vibrate, etc. The final destination for all of the vibratory energy is heat energy, a.k.a. "heat." So if you pluck a string and put 10 units of energy into it, you ultimately end up with 10 units of heat. It might take two seconds, five seconds, or ten seconds, but you always end up with 10 units of heat energy.
So that's what I mean by the "energy drain to heat." The vibrational energy becomes heat energy, and the longer it takes to get there, the slower you are "burning off" your vibrational energy and turning it into heat energy. The rate of the burn-off is measured in units of power, Watts. The vibrational energy is measured in Joules and the heat is measured in Joules.
Well yes and no.
Yes....Sound waves crossed the other strings and started them vibrating.
No... No more energy left the Low E String to accomplish this !
Incorrect. Energy does leave the Low E string (first one plucked) to get other strings vibrating. This is fact. The only way a second string can get vibrating in your example is to have energy get transferred into it from the first string. The amplitude of the first string's vibrations decrease as a result of the energy transfer.
And reinforce the system of aforementioned Resonators including the High E.
There is no "reinforcement" going on anywhere. The initial energy from the string pluck is simply physically moving through space into the guitar body and air, etc, and at the same time this fixed original amount of energy is being converted into heat energy in various places.
My point is... our ears are not sensitive, they need to be UNsensitive to cover the range of volume that they do.
If you do some more reading you will find that human hearing is both sensitive and insensitive, it's dynamically adaptable and you are not normally conscious of it.
My next post will include a College Text Book Proof that the waves emitted from an Acoustic Guitar
are indeed 1000 times more Powerful than those from an Electric Guitar.
I am sure that you can find something but you have to understand the subtle point behind all of this. Assume both the electric and the acoustic guitar strings are plucked and store the same initial energy. Let's split the final form of the energy in this case into sound energy and heat. The acoustic guitar will certainly convert more of it's initial energy into sound energy as compared to the electric guitar. You assume that most of the heat energy in the case of the electric guitar is converted into heat in the body of the guitar. That's your answer, as simple as that.
MileHigh
-
Question...
How many times more powerful is an Acoustic Guitar than an Electric Guitar?
(Assume Acoustic is 60db and Electric is 30db at a nearby distance.)
30 db = 10-9 W/m2 60 db = 10-6 W/m2
Intensity = Power/ Area
Because we know The Intensity of the Wave in both situations
(Acoustic vs. Electric),
We rearrange using simple algebra ..... Power=Area * Intensity
Acoustic Power is..... Area*10-6 W/m2
Electric Power is .... Area*10-9 W/m2
Divide answers for Ratio....(note - Area cancels out if you were wondering where it went)
Acoustic Power / Electric Power = 10-6 W/m2 / 10-9 W/m2
Ratio is 1000.
Or
An Acoustic Guitar is 1000 times more powerful than an Electric Guitar !
Is it any wonder that Tesla was Obsessed with Resonance?
And that nearly every bit of Stanly Meyer's inventions exploited Resonance?
Best Regards,
The Observer
-
The Observer:
You are correct, let's assume that an acoustic guitar can produce sound that's 30 dB, or 1000 times, higher in intensity than an unplugged electric guitar.
Then when you look at this situation at a deeper level, and since we are on a forum that is all about energy research, you want to be more precise with your choice of words to explain the phenomenon that you are observing in terms of energy.
In that sense, the acoustic guitar is not "1000 times more powerful" than the electric guitar because neither of these devices is a source of power or a source of free energy. Saying that the acoustic guitar is more "powerful" than the electric guitar implies that there are inherent sources of energy in both guitars and that's not the case.
You can restate it like this: If you put the same energy into acoustic and electric guitars by plucking their strings, the acoustic guitar can produce 1000 times the sound intensity of the electric guitar.
Again, both types of guitars are passive devices that only respond to energy being put into them and they react by resonating. Some of the energy stored in the resonator becomes audible sound, and within a fraction of a second the audible sound energy becomes heat energy. The rest of the energy stored in the resonator becomes heat also. For the electric guitar, it is safe to assume that a substantial amount of the energy stored in the plucked string resonator makes the whole body of the guitar vibrate. The vibrating guitar body quickly turns this vibrational energy into heat energy.
Here is a thought experiment: You have an electric guitar and you suspend it in air with two wires. Next to the guitar there is a rotating wheel with a pick on it. The wheel rotates at two revolutions per second so the guitar string is being plucked twice per second. You have a thermocouple attached to the middle of the guitar on the back of the guitar. You note the temperature of the guitar body, then switch on the rotating wheel and start the experiment. The temp of the guitar body at the start of the experiment is 20.2 C. After one hour the temp is 20.8 C. After two hours the temp is 21.3 C, etc.
The conclusion: When you pluck the guitar strings of an electric guitar some of the string-pluck energy becomes heat energy, and this heat energy slowly starts to heat up the body of guitar itself. With further measurements we could calculate how many milli-joules of heat are produced with each string pluck.
MileHigh
-
Mile High,
I appreciate your time on this.
If there's one thing I know about you... you like to talk about heat.
OK... let's talk heat.
Your thought experiment is to find out how much of an electric guitar's string energy is transfered
to the hard body of the electric guitar using a thermometer.
I like it !
I just want to add one more thing to it if I may.
Let's substitute the acoustic guitar for the electric in your automatic string plucker thing-a-majig.
Then place the hard body of the electric guitar next to the acoustic.
Now the hard body is absorbing waves 1000 times larger than before !
Because Waves of Higher Amplitude carry More Energy...
This means the hard body will heat up far faster than when absorbing only the waves from the string.
The extra heat is the extra energy I am talking about.
The Observer
-
The Observer:
I give you credit for putting up a spirited argument.
Now the hard body is absorbing waves 1000 times larger than before !
Because Waves of Higher Amplitude carry More Energy...
The problem here is you are not putting a number on the waves that are "1000 times larger." Larger than what? How large are they?
Let's try to answer those questions. First of all, there is no "what" to compare to. Let's answer how large they are, which is the real question.
For starters, lets talk in terms of average power, because it is easier. The string plucking has an average power associated with it, the resonating strings, the sound energy, etc. Every measurable energy process in the system is running at some average power.
To make life simple, let's just say that we start with 100 units of average power at the input, the string plucking. Now let's follow the energy trail:
String plucking - 100 units
Less 2 units lost to heat (a.k.a inefficiencies)
Strings resonating - 98 units
Now let's beak down the string resonating power, it gets split into three things
audio power - 5 units
heating body of guitar - 33 units
heating air in vicinity of string - 50 units
Now let's see what happens to the audio power
audio power heating up electric guitar body - 1 unit
audio power reflecting off electric guitar body - 4 units
So, you started off with 100 units of string pluck power going into the acoustic guitar, and only 1% of that energy ended up heating the body of the electric guitar.
Here is something to ponder: When you feel heat with your fingertip, you might be sensitive starting at about 1/4 watt of power. However, when you hear sound with your ears, you probably start to hear sound when the audio power is around a few microwatts or even much less than that. A loud acoustic guitar might be putting out 1/10th of a watt of acoustic power. I am just taking ballpark guesses. But when you barely pick one string, that's microwatts of audio power and you can still easily hear it.
For your ideas, you can try to follow the "energy audit trail" as a thought or real experiment.
MileHigh
-
Mile High,
The problem here is you are not putting a number on the waves that are "1000 times larger." Larger than what? How large are they?
1000 times larger than the waves coming from the string on the electric guitar.
The Observer
-
The Observer:
1000 times larger than the waves coming from the string on the electric guitar.
Suppose the average audio power coming from the electric guitar string is 1 microwatt. That means that the acoustic guitar string is 1000 times that, which is 1 milliwatt. Then using my example the average strumming power is 20 times that, which is 20 milliwatts.
So there is your breakdown, each type of guitar is turning a fraction of the average strumming power into audio power. The acoustic guitar can turn 5% of the strumming power into audio power, whereas the electric guitar can only turn 0.005% of the strumming power into audio power.
That's it, there are no gains or amplification when you compare an acoustic guitar to an electric guitar. There is no real relationship between the two devices, they just have different stats. Both convert mechanical strumming power into audio power, and the acoustic guitar does a better job at it.
MileHigh
-
Mile High,
You say that there is a lot of energy in the strum that is never realized as sound.
And that the Acoustic Cavity somehow \taps into more of it.
If you can tap that energy any other way than with resonance... OK you got me !
Once more...you state sound is not amplified.
I bet if you heard sound waves coming from an electric amplifier 30 Db louder...
you would say that sound was amplified.
Curious that the sound box of the guitar would skew your judgment that sound is being amplified by it.
The Observer
-
Hey Observer,
It sounds like you are getting my points which is cool.
Curious that the sound box of the guitar would skew your judgment that sound is being amplified by it.
The fact that the ears are very sensitive to sound energy and the sound box allows for more efficient extraction of the available energy in the vibrating string is a happy combination that makes acoustic guitars just fine for sing-alongs. If the sound box wasn't there (electric guitar) then much more of the available string energy goes into heat production.
There is the concept of "impedance matching" that plays an important part here that was not discussed. The sound box facilitates an impedance match between the vibrating string energy and the transformation and export of that energy into acoustic energy that goes into the surrounding environment. You can't "over impedance match" to get any extra energy. However, with a good impedance match between the vibrating string and the air (super-duper sound box) you can get "a bigger slice of the energy pie" that is represented by the vibrating string. There are still heat slices, but at least the audio slice gets larger and the heat slices get smaller.
MileHigh
-
Mile High,
Impedence Matching?
Let's call it what it is.... Forced Resonance.
The String causes Waves in the air...
The Waves in the air are what forces the air in the Helmholtz Chamber into resonance.
The Resonant Chamber stores Energy.
The Resonant Chamber Vibrates with an amplitude congruent to the energy it can store.
The Resonant Chamber emits a Wave congruent to the energy it can store.
The Wave emitted from the Chamber is larger than the original wave.
The very definition of amplification.
This is how it it working... is it not?
The Observer
-
No, No.....no.....you are waaaayy off!
It's the electrons being forced into lower/higher energy state cycles, thereby exciting/de-exciting the active vacuum, coercing a highly localized portion of the universe into a sort of quasi-time reversed, vibratory sympathetic resonance.
It's free energy all the way! This discovery carries with it some heady implications for the future of mankind as we know it.
This very well could be the change we can believe in....
Can you feel it? The electricity in the air?
Wooo.
;D
-
The Observer:
It looks to me like what you are saying is basically right except for the punch line:
The Wave emitted from the Chamber is larger than the original wave.
The very definition of amplification.
It's not truly amplification. The Helmholtz resonator of the guitar body is acting as a filter here in that its response to the plucked string is not at it's peak response frequency, i.e.; it's own natural resonant frequency, but it still is responding and oscillating at the resonant frequency of the string.
The response from the Helmholtz filter produces a column of vibrating air mass that vibrates at the same frequency as the string, since the string is the excitation. At this point onwards I am out of my realm of expertise but I will assume that the string vibrating in vibrating air can transfer more of its energy into the air per second as compared to the string vibrating in still air. This is where the impedance match takes place.
Again, all the impedance match means is that you have found a better way to suck power out of the vibrating string. Hence you get a louder sound from the acoustic guitar.
It's not amplification, it's just more efficient extraction of some of the available power from the vibrating string and turning it into audible sound power. The same amount of energy per string pluck is always there, it's just a question of how you exploit that energy.
MileHigh
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but why can't I hook my accoustic guitar up to my electric guitar amp and collect the energy coming out the plug? If I turn it up to the max, will I get more energy out of it?
HD
-
Mile High,
It looks to me like what you are saying is basically right except for the punch line:
Quote from the Observer
" The Wave emitted from the Chamber is larger than the original wave.
The very definition of amplification."
It's no joke...
-
Resonance allows one string's sound wave to reinforce the next and
then allows more efficient transfer of the total reinforced wave to the
whole environmental air. It's louder, but you pay a price; Try stopping
the Built up Resonant wave dead. - You can no longer do it - your
instrument's sound can no longer turn on dime, Resonant build up has
both pluses and minuses. It may be better to add electronic amplification
where the base instrument is not affected by resonant energy build up.
It is "amplification" - but it is not *net* energy amplification.
You could get energy from your guitar pickup...but like microphone
energy it is very very low. Low level human hearing takes place near the
brownian atmospheric noise level.
:S:MarkSCoffman
-
MSC,
Pay the price because energy is built up?
My point is that the acoustic chamber of an acoustic guitar amplifies sound.
It does this by, as you say, by building up energy in a certain local (the acoustic chamber).
It is "amplification" - but it is not *net* energy amplification.
First... you can't have it both ways.
Second ...sound waves 1000 times larger come from the Chamber (than from the string) & also sound out longer.
and you think there is no amplification of Sound????
I have one question for you.
"How tall would you be if you were 1000 times taller?"
Sincerely,
The Observer
P.S. It makes me a little nuts when it appears
I'm only person who thinks the acoustic chamber of an acoustic guitar amplifies sound...
so forgive me if I sound a bit defensive. ;o)
-
MSC,
Pay the price because energy is built up?
My point is that the acoustic chamber of an acoustic guitar amplifies sound.
It does this by, as you say, by building up energy in a certain local (the acoustic chamber).
First... you can't have it both ways.
Second ...sound waves 1000 times larger come from the Chamber (than from the string) & also sound out longer.
and you think there is no amplification of Sound????
I have one question for you.
"How tall would you be if you were 1000 times taller?"
Sincerely,
The Observer
P.S. It makes me a little nuts when it appears
I'm only person who thinks the acoustic chamber of an acoustic guitar amplifies sound...
so forgive me if I sound a bit defensive. ;o)
Sorry, but the chamber does not amplify, at least not in the sense that an electric amp amplifies an electric guitar.
The chamber serves to capture and direct the sound energy. But if you were to compare the sound of strings (with no chamber) an inch away from your ear to what you hear standing a few feet away from the chamber of the acoustic guitar, you would not find the chamber to be louder. Therefore, no amplification, just efficient capture and redirection.
-
...
-
Utilitarian,
You state the chamber does not amplify sound.
I gather you think sound is being reflected back to the front of the guitar,
constructively interferes with the string's waves going forward,
and hense a louder sound.
And that there is less sound behind the guitar because of reflection.
I will state that you are entirely wrong if this is your interpretation. (please see attachment)
You first need to understand what a Helmholtz Resonator is...
Then ask your self how resonant systems store Energy.
Finally, you will realize why Tesla, Stan and others were/are using Resonance on a daily basis.
The Observer
-
When a guitar string is plucked, a finite amount of energy is imparted to that string. That energy is then dissipated in several ways.
Mainly, you notice that the string will vibrate at it's natural frequency. This vibration creates sound waves in the air surrounding the string that radiate outward, similar to the way light waves radiate from a light bulb. Only a small portion of the entire amount of energy initial imparted to the string is imparted to each sound wave (each vibration cycle). And only a fraction of each sound wave (radiating 360 degrees from the string) is going to reach your ear. The further from the string you are, the smaller still the amount of each sound wave that your ear will receive. This is why the sound is less loud the further away you are, exactly how a light appears dimmer the further from it you are.
In an acoustic guitar a large portion of the sound waves facing the acoustic chamber interact with it in several ways, localizing it, and therefore not dissipating into the air further away. First, the sound waves may reflect and bounce around in the chamber, and ultimately be re-directed towards the front of the guitar through the opening as constructive interference. Secondly, the sound waves cause the wood of the acoustic chamber, and especially the top sounding board, to vibrate at the same and harmonics of the same natural frequency, again, localizing the sound energy rather than letting it dissipate into the surrounding air. The vibration of the sounding board also constructively reinforces the vibration of the string both acoustically (through the air) and physically (through the bridge).
The second, and often overlooked, way that energy is dissipated from the string is by energy transfer from the vibrating string through the bridge, directly to the sounding board of the acoustic chamber. That energy is also localized and vibrates the wood of the sounding board adding to the constructive reinforcing interference and subsequent increase in heard volume of the struck note.
These are all reasons why the size, shape, thickness, and material choices for the acoustic chamber, bridge, and especially the sounding board are important to achieve an acoustic guitar with particular "tone" as well as volume. It all has to do with how much of the energy from the initial plucking of a string is imparted to these constructive interference sound wave producing elements. Any energy lost to dampening materials or through the air not directed to your ear is energy not perceived by you as sound.
An electric guitar lacks most all of the constructive interference sound wave producing elements of the acoustic guitar. Instead, it is designed to keep the energy in the string itself. These strings are thinner, stiffer, and looser. They are designed to vibrate with a smaller amplitude than their thicker, softer, tighter acoustic counterparts. This causes less of the energy caused by plucking to be imparted to the air as sound, for sound is just a loss since it is not the method by which energy is transferred to electric guitar pickups. The electric guitar string is also often ended at a heavy nut and bridge that are designed to keep the energy in the string, not transmit it to a sounding board. You can notice this effect as more natural sustain in electric guitars with heavier nuts and bridges/tailstocks. Likewise, the frets on the electric are also usually much heavier than on an acoustic so as to transfer less energy to the wood of the neck and keep it in the string.
The electric guitar pickup includes a magnetic field that resists the vibration of the string and unfortunately dampens it somewhat. This additional loss mechanism is not present on the acoustic guitar.
If you string an acoustic guitar with the thinner, looser strings of an electric, and dampen the constructive interference sound creating properties of the acoustic chamber (mainly the sounding board) by attaching a heavy weight, thickening it, etc, it's volume will decrease immensely. Eliminate the hole so that sound cannot enter or reflect back from the chamber and I believe you will be down to the volume of a similarly gauge string electric.
Likewise, take a well built electric with a heavy (brass) nut and bridge through an amp turned up to the same volume as the best acoustic, and I guarantee you it will ring the notes for longer. The electric guitar strings can vibrate for a longer time since the initial energy is not transferred to other acoustic elements directly. They are just not optimized (like the body is not optimized) for producing sound directly.
M.
-
Mondrasek,
Without ever mentioning Resonance, Helmholtz or even Resonant Chamber,
I highly doubt you know how an acoustic guitar works to amplify sound.
You assert that the nodes of the string Vibrate... Hello !?!? Noooo...
It's the Antinodes that Vibrate silly.
If the nodes moved the string would not vibrate.
Finally, you say an electric string vibrates longer in the presence of a powered amp....
You bet it will.. but you don't realize that you set up a feedback loop.
To spell it out
When the string vibrates at it's natural frequency...
and the amplifier amplifies it...
The string then absorbs the amplified natural frequency energy from the amplifier
and vibrates longer.
The real question is ...
does an acoustic guitar string vibrate for less time than an unplugged electric ?
Because a louder sound is produced by the acoustic
which would mean the same energy is used up faster.
The answer is...
An acoustic string/chamber vibrates LONGER and LOUDER... and unexpected result to a Newtonian physicist.
The reason why is the aforementioned feedback loop.. cept the resonant chamber is the amplifier.
I have tested this... and it is true.
I invite you to test it for yourself.
Then we can let the experimental data speak for itself and we can observe without judgement.
Regards,
The Observer
-
Well Observer, if you want to be an asshole, that is your prerogative...
I said nothing about nodes.
I also did NOT mean the electric would ring longer if in feedback with the amp.
I have played and built guitars for over 25 years. I wrote my explanation based on that experience as well as that of the various engineering classes and real life situation that I have encountered dealing with vibration and acoustics.
I suggest YOU try this experiment. String an acoustic and an electric with the same gauge string (only one is necessary). Mic the acoustic through a regular microphone, and run the electric through an amp (in a different room if you want). Record each. Set the volume of each so they are the same. Record a single pluck. Your acoustic will ring for a shorter time. Why? Because it is dissipating the energy of the pluck directly to the air and other acoustic elements of the guitar body faster than that of the electric.
An acoustic guitar is in fact louder by design. It transmits the energy of the plucked string to sound directly. However, an electric guitar string rings for longer. It does NOT transmit the energy of the plucked string to sound directly, but instead tries to maintain it within the string as long as possible, at a lower amplitude.
Same energy is release by both. And it is the same amount of energy introduced by plucking.
An acoustic guitar is designed to transfer the energy of a plucked string directly into sound. The electric guitar is designed to transfer the energy of a plucked string to an electrical pickup: a permanent magnetic field that is wrapped by a wire coil. When the commonly grounded electric guitar string vibrates in this magnetic field, a similar electric current is produced in the coil. That is the method of energy transfer in the electric: string energy becomes electric current. Only when that electric current is amplified and introduced to a speaker do you get the sound it was designed to make.
So to put it in terms you might find familiar: An electric guitar produces 100% more current than an acoustic guitar! Holy shit!
Go figure.
M.
-
Hey Mon,
I agree.. I am kind of an asshole.
I also appreciate the sarcastic tone of your reply.
Makes a debate more interesting.
Thank you.
The second, and often overlooked, way that energy is dissipated from the string is by energy transfer
from the vibrating string through the bridge, directly to the sounding board of the acoustic chamber
This is where you say the node vibrates the bridge.
As a guitar maker you should know the bridge does not and can not move.
Technically, it is fixed and reflects the wave on the string.
In any of those classes did they mention Resonant Chambers?
And how they work?
I ask this because you need to realize that air inside the chamber is a spring
that vibrates dependent on the size of the chamber and the volume of the hole.
In other words... the Chamber is a Helmholtz Resonator.
I appreciate your experiment... but I'll give you some energy by not tapping into the coils.
In this case I have tried it... and the acoustic string vibrates LONGER and the resultant sound is LOUDER.
In fact I discovered that when the Low E and A are allowed to vibrate with the high E... it's even LOUDER and LONGER.
Let's get to the basics... The real question is...
Do two tuning forks (same natural frequency) ring louder than one when 1 is struck?
I have found they are Louder & ring Longer as well !!!!
The Observer
P.S. Check earlier posts for a college text book proof that the waves emitted from the acoustic chamber
are 1000 times larger than the waves from just the string.
Do you know how tall you would be if you were 1000 times larger?
-
http://www.disclose.tv/viewvideo/29990/Dr__Steven_Greer_The_Promise_of_New_Energy/
-
I think mondrasek has it. Would it be true to say that the vibrating
string sends out its energy in two ways?:
1. vibrating the air and causing sound
2. vibrating the wood of the instrument.
In an electric solid bodied instrument, this latter energy ends up as a tiny
amount of heat whereas acoustic along with Dobro/National type
instruments send much of this energy back to the strings.
-
As a guitar maker you should know the bridge does not and can not move.
Technically, it is fixed and reflects the wave on the string.
Actually that is not true. The bridge on an acoustic guitar is not a truly ridged attachment point for the strings. The bridge is attached to the sound board top surface of the resonance chamber. That sound board is designed to vibrate along with the strings. The sound board material, thickness, internal bracing, and location of the bridge are all specifically designed to convert as much of the string energy to sound as possible with the added nuance of doing so mostly with frequencies that produce a pleasing tonal quality. In fact, a vibrating string alone can only move so much air to produce sound directly. It is actually a fairly insignificant amount. The flat surface of the sound board moves a few magnitudes volume more air, producing a much greater portion of the sound you hear from an acoustic guitar. This effect, added to the complimentary interference from the Helmholtz resonator type acoustic chamber (or sound box), are the two main methods by which the initial energy imparted to the strings by plucking are converted into sound waves.
Tap the sound board or even the tuning head of a guitar and it will induce a ringing in the strings. In fact, there are feedback devices that can be mounted to the tuning head of an electric guitar (electric transducer of some sort) that will vibrate at the frequency of the strings producing infinite sustain of the original notes (and not the harmonics favored by the amp/guitar body combo).
So yes, energy is transferred through the bridge "node" of the guitar to the sound board since it is not a true ridged mount. It is also trasferred through the nut and frets to the neck where it is mostly lost I believe, though some may make it to the sound board or resonance chamber I guess.
If the sound board is too ridged, the sound is less, but the sustain is more, similar to a solid body electric. If the sound board is not ridged enough, the sustain suffers but you can still have a loud guitar. This is also how a banjo is designed.
In any of those classes did they mention Resonant Chambers?
And how they work?
I ask this because you need to realize that air inside the chamber is a spring
that vibrates dependent on the size of the chamber and the volume of the hole.
In other words... the Chamber is a Helmholtz Resonator.
I agree. So?
Let's get to the basics... The real question is...
Do two tuning forks (same natural frequency) ring louder than one when 1 is struck?
That is an easier example to work with! But I disagree with your assesment of the "real question". I believe it should be...
Do two tuning forks (same natural frequency) produce more sound energy than the energy introduced when 1 is struck?
My answer to that is no, they do not. They localize that energy by feeding back a portion of that sound energy between themselves rather than simply radiating it away in all direction. This localization (or concentration) of the sound energy results in a sound that can be sensed as louder and longer. But no extra energy is produced that I can tell. I'd be happy to be shown otherwise.
M.
-
The write up on Wikipedia on "acoustic guitar" is pretty good.
-
Paul,
1. Yes... the string vibrates causing air pressure waves.
The Body of the Guitar is a Helmholtz Resonator.
2. No... the node of the string does not vibrate.
Everyone thinks this... but it just simply is not true.
The tension of the string must remain constant for a guitar string to stay in tune,
and the ends must remain fixed to reflect the string's wave back and forth..
In other words... if the ends of the string wiggled... the string would not vibrate as well
depending on how much wiggle you wanted at the node.
It is very easy to test this... strum a string and feel the bridge.
It does not vibrate and you cannot dampen the vibration from this point... the node.
You mention National/Dobro guitars but fail to mention they are Resonator Guitars.
Meaning they use extra resonators to amplify the sound more than a regular acoustic.
Because they are called Resonator Guitars...
One must ask what a Resonator is and how it works.
Question.... What is a Resonator?
Answer...Anything that Vibrates.
... A Tuning Fork
... A Guitar String
... The Air in an Acoustic Guitar Body (Resonace Chamber)
... The The Body of an Acoustic Guitar
... The Metal in the Cone of a Resonator Guitar
Question... How does a Resonator Work?
Answer... 1. A small oscillatory driving force causes a LARGE Oscillation. (natural or harmonic frequency)
This is because Energy is Stored in the system.
2. Different Systems store Different amounts of energy. (Vibrationally)
Example. A Large swing can store more energy than a small swing from the same driving force!
3. The System vibrates at an amplitude congruent to the amount of energy it can store.
We see/hear/feel this amplitude from said System.
Resonance is a phenomenon... it exhibits non-linear characteristics.
This is why I am interested in everything about it...
The Observer
-
Hey Mon,
Thanks for bearing with me on this.
I can tell you are fairly knowledgeable and appreciate it.
The bridge is a tricky subject.
I have not observed it vibrating.
I cannot dampen the sound by pressing on the bridge.
I am pretty sure wave energy reflects when encountering a material of different density.
That's why the strings vibrate... a standing wave is formed because of this reflection.
I also admit that Wiki and other places talk about the bridge.
So I will be the only one who wonders if this is actually true due to the static nature of the node/bridge.
In other words... the Chamber is a Helmholtz Resonator. <--- The Observer
I agree. So? <---- Mondrasek
So...
A Resonator can Store Energy and a Large Oscillation can be produced from a small oscillation.
A Resonator Vibrates with an amplitude congruent to the Energy it Can Store.
A Large Resonator can store more Energy than a small resonator.
Remarkably, we see, feel and hear... the Energy Stored Vibrationally.
That is an easier example to work with! But I disagree with your assesment of the "real question". I believe it should be...
Do two tuning forks (same natural frequency) produce more sound energy than the energy introduced when 1 is struck?
I agree... a better way of posing the basic question of concern..
Then we must agree (about the simplest physics there is)...
Louder Sounds carry more Energy than Softer Sounds.
&
A Longer Sound carries more energy than a Shorter Sound (of same intensity)
meaning
A Longer and Louder Sound = More Sound Energy
And now for the aforementioned tuning fork experiment.
You can test this with just 1 Acoustic Guitar in a matter of minutes !!!!
1. Take your tuner and tune that SOB better than it has ever been tuned before... spend like 5 minutes.
(Damp all other strings but the one being tuned during this process)
2. Strum the High E String.
3. Observe that the Low E and A String are vibrating (at the High E... a harmonic frequency of these strings)
4. You can dampen the High E shortly after strumming and the Low E and A will be vibrating !
(classic tuning fork experiment right?)
5. Now we have 2 tuning forks (the High E String+Acoustic Chamber) & (Low E + A Strings)
6. Strum High E String with all other strings damped... note Volume & Duration.
7. Strum High E string with out damping (letting the Low E and A vibrate also)... note Volume & Duration.
8. Do it about 20 times to make sure you are not imagining anything. ;o)
9. If you are unsure.. use your guitar tuner (at High E) to see the Louder and Longer effect.
You say that you would "be happy to be shown otherwise"... so I implore you to try it out.
I know you have decent acoustic laying around.
Anyone else is welcome to try this and see what motivated Tesla, Stan and others.
Have a Good Day,
The Observer
-
Observer,
I appreciate your enthusiasm with this subject. I too find resonance facinating in all it's forms, especially electrical circuits.
The bridge is a tricky subject.
I have not observed it vibrating.
I cannot dampen the sound by pressing on the bridge.
I am pretty sure wave energy reflects when encountering a material of different density.
That's why the strings vibrate... a standing wave is formed because of this reflection.
I would be surprised if you could feel the bridge vibrate. Only a tiny amount of energy is moving through it at any given time. To feel that would be like being able to feel you fingers tingle due to the sound waves hitting them when someone was talking. Also, the bridge is the node as you have pointed out. If it was a perfect node, it would not move at all and no energy could move between the strings and the sound board. But it is not perfect and energy does travel between them. The bridge "node" does not physically translate much, if any at all, when this happens.
I am reminded of how we play true harmonics on a guitar, ie. when you finger a string lightly above a node point but do not push it down to the fretboard and then pick. Your finger is an imperfect node that causes some energy to reflect back while allowing some to continue through to the other side. The result is a string that vibrates on both sides of the node. If fingered above the 12th (middle) fret you get a true harmonic of that string, a note one octave higher. Instead of ringing in the manner of a half sine wave, the string will ring with a full sine wave shape, with the center not moving at the point where your finger touched it and caused a node. This is what happens at the bridge. It does not reflect 100% of the energy, but say only 99.9%. That .1% makes it through to the sound board which then moves some magnitudes more air as direct sound waves.
A Resonator can Store Energy and a Large Oscillation can be produced from a small oscillation.
A Resonator Vibrates with an amplitude congruent to the Energy it Can Store.
A Large Resonator can store more Energy than a small resonator.
Remarkably, we see, feel and hear... the Energy Stored Vibrationally.
We do not hear the stored energy. We hear the energy as it leaves this storage and emanates out from the resonator. So yes, the resonator can store sound energy, and release it over a shorter time than if it had not been captured with the result that it is louder. Not longer. Just louder.
You can test this with just 1 Acoustic Guitar in a matter of minutes !!!!
Unfortunately that is not a valid test and does not represent the two tuning fork experiment correctly. This is again because the bridge is not a perfect node. So all the strings are actually mechanically coupled through the bridge and sound board. Thus they can excite each other mechanically. The tuning fork experiment keeps them isolated except for acoustic coupling.
If you want to try this experiment on a guitar you should at at least do so on an electric where the sound board is not in play and the heavier bridge and nut will allow for much less mechanical coupling between the strings.
Edited to add: In your experiment where you dampen the low E and A while timing the ring out of the high E, you are actually dampening the high E as well since it is mechanically coupled to the low E and A. You might be able to get around this by actually removing the low E and A for that portion of the experiment, but this would also change the length of the high E somewhat as the neck springs back (if it does not ground out the high E to the fretboard completely).
-
2. No... the node of the string does not vibrate.
Everyone thinks this... but it just simply is not true.
But if you put your ear flat on a solid bodied guitar whilst it is being
played, the sound will come through clearly to some considerable extent.
-
But if you put your ear flat on a solid bodied guitar whilst it is being
played, the sound will come through clearly to some considerable extent.
I think too that the solid body of a guitar would participate with
the strings in resonance. The primary resonant frequency is very much
higher because the speed of sound in different materials is higher than
the speed of sound in the air gas.
:S:MarkSCoffman
-
I think too that the solid body of a guitar would participate with
the strings in resonance.
Most definitely. In fact, I often tune my electrics string to string by the feel of the vibrations in the neck and not by listening to the tone (if the guitar has the intonation set well). You can feel the notes coming in and out of phase just as well as you can hear them. I have more difficulty hearing the phasing unless my amp is up and distorted, but that can cause other frequencies to interfere due to feedback.
One simple sound board test to try: Strum your unplugged electric normally, and then while pressing the tuning head against a wall. The wall will act like a sound board and it will be much louder. You can do this with most any hard surface. I do this while setting the intonation (each individual bridge saddle distance from the nut) since I do this by comparing the whole string notes to the true harmonic at the 19th fret, which can be a bit faint to hear without that trick.
M.
-
Been awhile... Hello,
Alright... there is a common physics experiment.
You need
1. A Small Speaker that emanates an audible tone.
2. A Tube connected to a Water Reservoir via a hose.
3. A Water Reservoir that moves vertically.
Ok... Here's what you do.
A. Get the speaker going.
B. Adjust water level in Tube by raising and lowering the Reservoir.
C. Observe a loud sound when resonance occurs in the tube.
The sound is louder everywhere...
A sane person would say that sound was amplified.
A person with vested interests in oil will say not.
End of Story.
Good Day,
The Observer
-
Here's a link to a similar experiment....
http://phoenix.phys.clemson.edu/labs/224/resonance/resonance.mpg
The Observer
-
Tweet....
The Observer is astounded that no-one wants to Talk about Resonance... How it Works or Why Tesla and Stan used it daily to achieve extraordinary results. ! ???
End Tweet.
-
M.
-
Point 1
The string of an acoustic Guitar vibrates longer...(this is a fact anyone can check)
and certainly doesn't vibrate 1000 times shorter. (the magnitude of the amplification)
Whoever wrote this article in Wiki never tested this !!!!!!!
Point 2
An unamplified guitar??/ Compared to what?????
This implies the other situation is amplified. (an acoustic)
Can't have it both ways !!!
Let's talk about resonance and how it works Mon.
The Observer
-
The string of an acoustic Guitar vibrates longer...(this is a fact anyone can check)
Absolutely not true. Your "experiment" with the acoustic guitar is flawed since you do not acknowledge that energy from the plucked high E is transferred mechanically to the sound board and then to the low E and A. If you want to prove this for yourself, de-tune your low E and A until they are slack and time how long your high E rings. It will ring longer than when you are damping your low E and A. This is because when you damp your low E and A you are in effect also damping your high E, since they are mechanically coupled through the bridge and sound board.
An unamplified guitar??/ Compared to what?????
The article clearly states that an unamplified guitar is "one with no soundboard at all". Similar to a solid body electric (not plugged in). The (unlpugged) electric guitar string rings longer, but quieter. The longer ring time (sustain) is arguably the main feature that leads many guitarists to the electric guitar. Can't get it with an acoustic. Unless you start inducing some sort of feedback, either mechanical or acoustic.
Let's talk about resonance and how it works Mon.
Sure. Resonance is neat. But I'd prefer to talk about something that has to do with "free energy". Resonance produces some interesting effects, but not free energy as far as I'm aware.
M.
-
Hey Mon.
1. Forget about the Acoustic only experiment...
This is a true statement...
Same string...Same Strum... Acoustic String vibrates longer than Electric String.
I have tested this.
2. The point is when they state unamplified... logic dictates that it is being compared to an amplified guitar.
Why this makes no sense is that they state an acoustic guitar is unamplified.
Get it?
3. Why you won't even address the fact that Tesla and Stan used resonance to achieve their results is highly suspicious.
Kind Regards,
The Observer
-
Observer,
1) You are the only one I have seen stand by the statement:
Same string...Same Strum... Acoustic String vibrates longer than Electric String
This is completely untrue. I believe you are not recognizing that the electric string vibrates longer because you cannot "hear" it. If you were to amplify the output (as it is designed to do) you would clearly "hear" that the electric rings out much longer than the acoustic. So far your "tests" have not been performed properly and you are sticking to your false observations. Appears to be motivated reasoning.
2) The article is referring to a an acoustic guitar WITH sound board as "amplified" (vs. one without a sound board being unamplified). The sound board is "amplifying" in the sense that it is converting the mechanical vibration of the string into louder sound waves. Amplify in this case means only to make louder. It does not mean, however, that extra energy is added (or created) in order to do so. It is simply energy conversion from one form into sound.
3) What "results" do you want addressed? I have said I am willing to discuss further. I'm waiting for you to bring something up. Like I have said, resonance is really neat. But it also has never been shown to create energy, so I am not sure what aspect you want to discuss. I'm also not sure what you would become suspicious of.
You asked a question in the subject of this thread. I have answered it as best I can (as have several others). This was in the spirit of helping you learn the answer to your question. No other "ulterior motive".
M.
-
Hello Mon,
First, although it pisses me off that you can't see what I am talking about,
I am thankful that there is 1 person out of all here will talk about this.
Thanks Mon !
2 Things...
1. I was wondering if you knew what Tesla was going to do with Wardencliff?
I propose that ultimately there were going to be 2 towers on opposite sides of the globe.
And Tesla planned on building a Resonant Electromagnetic Standing Wave between the two.
The antinodes of these waves is where you could tune into the energy (like a radio).
2. There is a common physics experiment.
It involves a Speaker... and a Tube with a hose connected to a Water Reservoir. (see below)
This is what you do.
A. Start Speaker at a single tone.
B. Adjust Water Reservoir to vary water in Tube.
C. Stop when you hear a loud sound (resonance is occurring)
Ok analyze what is happening.
Quite simply, before resonance a small wave enters the tube... a small wave leaves the tube.
after resonance a small wave enters the tube... a large wave leaves the tube.
I could make a picture... I don't think I have to.
The point is... when a small wave gets turned into into a large wave amplification has occurred.
I am sure you would have no problem with this definition if there was an electric amplifier involved.
The Observer.
-
Observer,
I'm not sure a second tower would be necessary, or if a multitude of towers would. Sometimes I wonder if it was just to be as simple as transferring energy between two coils, like a transformer without a core, but at a distance. So any coil tuned to the correct frequency would be able to pick up power if within reasonable range of the tower. But then again I wonder if the frequency he was working with was attempting to use the Earth itself as part of the resonant circuit, effectively increasing the range as well.
Here is the thing with Resonance: You only get out what you put in. Resonance is simply a way of trapping the first impulse of an energy wave somewhat and then adding the second and third to it. So it actually takes time to build up. Usually this is so fast that you do not notice it. It is like if you yell into an echo canyon. Then when the echo comes back you yell again. So the echo and your second yell add together to produce a louder volume. But only on that second cycle. The first wave was not louder. And the energy of the second louder yell + echo is no greater than the two individual ones.
Set up and tune any resonant system, including your latest water chamber one. Turn it off and let everything settle. Now turn it on and accurately record the results (so that you can see the first dozen or so cycles stretched out). You will find that the sound starts with a low volume, as if the resonant system is not there. It then builds with every cycle to a maximum amplitude where the losses equal the energy added each cycle. This is the case with the acoustic guitar as well. Each note actually builds in volume from the initial pluck as the resonant "echos" reinforce it.
You can increase the voltage of an electrical signal by using a transformer. Voltage goes up, but current goes down. Also, you can trap an electrical signal in a resonant tank circuit and let it build up tremendous amounts of energy. But in the end, the energy in the circuit is never more than the sum of the energy in each cycle that was input. These effects are analogous to what you see with your experiments with acoustic resonance. Energy is not created. It is only stored up and released at a larger amplitude. With the case of the guitar you trade volume for sustain. IE, if you do not bleed the energy in a plucked string by making sound, it will ring longer (the electric guitar). Bleed the energy in the plucked string to make sound (the acoustic guitar), and it will ring for shorter.
"Amplification" does not have to mean an increase of energy. Adding energy is only one way to amplify a sound or signal. Amplify has several meanings, and one is simply to "make louder". This can be accomplished many ways. It can be as simple as adding a sound board element to convert mechanical vibration into sound waves. It can be more complex, by adding resonant elements that reinforce each cycle and build the volume similar to the echo canyon example. The authors use correct but different meanings of the word "amplification" throughout those Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately you have to grasp which definition of "amplification" the author means with each use from context.
Thought experiment: Which will ring longer, an electric guitar string or an acoustic guitar string if both are in a vacuum?
M.
-
When you observe the experiment with the water level above,
It is imperative to think about what is going on.
1. A small portion of the sound waves from the speaker interact with the tube.
2. When Resonance occurs... yes the wave energy builds up in a short time.
This is however negligible because the speaker can go for a long time.
3. The Fact is that small waves enter the tube... and large waves leave the tube.
4. The simplest physics there is states waves of larger amplitude posess more energy than the same wave of smaller amplitude.
It is completely obvious that the sound has been amplified to an impartial observer.
The Observer
-
Hello,
I had never really looked at the Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory much til it snowed the other day.
In the the First Post ! the basis of the theory is stated.
The Lee-Tseung theory predicts that both gravitational and electron motion energy can be Lead Out
via Pulse Force at Resonance on oscillating, vibrating, rotating or flux change systems.
Wow... Forced Resonance... my Passion !
Now I know there is at least 1 other person who hears the Acoustic Guitar as I do. ;o)
If you are wondering, I think that an Acoustic Guitar is Louder and rings Longer than and Electric.
Actually I know this... One of the few apparently !
Looks like Lee-Tsueng is a bit farther than me on the path of investigating Resonance.
As I am to the point... of just pointing at the extra energy due to Resonance and thinking " hmm."
With Great Appreciation I Thank Lee, Tseung and the other Brilliant Chinese who have investigated this.
The Observer
-
I haven't followed this thread for awhile, so please forgive me if what I say is redundant with what's already been posted.
Among guitar builders, there's the recognition that one can easily overdrive an acoustic guitar made from inferior tone woods. That is, the guitar's volume will not increase past a certain point as the force of a strum increases. The resonance of a plywood and/or poorly braced top breaks down at a certain strumming force. Conversely, a sitka spruce top that has 12 or more quarter-sawn (straight) grain lines per inch that is well-braced (e.g. on a good Martin - even a 000 model, Larrivee, Gibson or Lowden) will project an unbelieveable volume of sound the harder you strum. This sound has an amazing ability to cut thru the noise of a crowded pub during a performance - think about Robert Johnson playing his acoustic blues in noisy crowded bars and actually being heard: pre-plywood guitar days, probably a handmade instrument.
Here's the connection to this thread (I hope):
Mondrasek notes that:
This is the case with the acoustic guitar as well. Each note actually builds in volume from the initial pluck as the resonant "echos" reinforce it.
The way I see it, The Observer's "aha" about Lee-Tseung's forced resonance has its important merits that tie in here as well, allowing us to observe the functioning of a guitar to show us the way to what some call overunity.
I'd like to take this a step further in noting Dr. Stiffler's insistence that "pinging" electricial impulses off the spatial energy lattice will allow additional energy to be "cohered" from the energy sea in which we live. In fact, frequency is key in many inventions drawing on the ambient energy in all things and around us. Think about Keely vibrating a circle of set frequency tuning forks around a plate of water, which is made to release a tremendous amount of energy as frequencies build thru "resonant echoes," "forced resonance."
As a related side note, it is interesting that some recording studios like to have an Ovation guitar on hand. The fiberglass body cuts out a lot of harmonics, producing a more pure tone for the recording engineer who's struggling with too many harmonics in an acoustic signal. But might the ovation's "purer" sound reduce the energetically exciting quality of a guitar's sound? This is one reason why altho' digital recording might be more tonally precise, it will never match the warmth of the old analog recording on vinyl and analog tape. But I digress...
Understanding the mechanics of a well-built guitar can help us better understand the pathway to overunity, I believe. A high-end guitar will have Sitka Spruce bracing - very light and very strong (strong enough for airplanes - remember Howard Hughes' "spruce goose") to support the top that moves with resonant echoes from the back and sides. It would be interesting to see whether crystalline resins within the top's wood cell structures release electrical impulses in piezoelectric fashion in an acoustic guitar that has reached the proper frequency for doing so. Can an acoustic guitar vibrating at the proper frequency release electrity? Does it not just figuratively, but literally electrify the air? Is it an accident that European violin maker Antonio Stradivari might have ground up obsidian and put it into his varnishes to make his instruments sound better? Is there a piezoelectric effect in better acoustic instruments that makes their sound richer, fuller and brighter?
Anyway, I leave a few points to ponder, hoping to build on those already posted -
resonant echoes
forced resonance
frequency and pinging
piezoelectricity
Might all these converge to help point us more accurately toward what some would call "overunity?"
I hope that something I've said might help move the ball a few inches down the field.
B
-
Hey Mon.
1. Forget about the Acoustic only experiment...
This is a true statement...
Same string...Same Strum... Acoustic String vibrates longer than Electric String.
I have tested this.
2. The point is when they state unamplified... logic dictates that it is being compared to an amplified guitar.
Why this makes no sense is that they state an acoustic guitar is unamplified.
Observer,
I'm a professional guitar player, you're statement is untrue. You need to amplify both and listen. The accoustic will stop ringing well before the electric because the body is absorbing the energy. Your ears are deceiving you as you cannot hear the continued sustain of the electric guitar when unamplified - but it's still there and carries on for much - much - much - much longer. It's not even close.
This is why when you play an accoustic, you can use much more percussive like strumming action and the sound is very stacato (volume spikes). If you play an electric guitar the same way it's a wall of noise and difficult to identify the individual strums because the sustain is just so much greater.
The amplifier attached to the electric guitar cannot make the sustain itself, it's only picking up the vibrations of the string over the pickup. The continued sustain you hear when amplified is the continued sustain of the string vibration itself. The accoustic when amplified does not have any noteable increase in sustain (basically sounds the same as when unamplified).
Hope this helps bring some clarity.
-
Spoondini,
Thankyou for you interest in this.
If you do amplify the Electric... that sound from the amp cannot reach the string...
otherwise you will cause a feedback loop which will force the string to ring longer.
Like when a rock star holds the guitar close to the speaker to make a note ring longer.
My guess is this is the situation you are talking about.
The electric guitar must be unplugged, or unconnected to an amplified output.
Now I say the Acoustic Chamber does Amplify the string's wave, hense a feedback loop is created.
This is why the Acoustic rings longer. ;o)
Seriously.... Haven't you ever picked up an unplugged Electric Guitar at a party and wanted to show off?
And found there isn't a chance anyone is going to hear you?
My question to you is How does the Resonant Chamber of an Acoustic Guitar work to produce a louder sound?
Regards,
The Observer
-
Observer,
Of course I recognize that an unplugged electric guitar is quieter than an accoustic guitar. Where I disagree is that the string vibrates for a shorter amount of time(it's actually much longer, I just compared - but both instruments were plugged in to make a direct comparison).
What you need to recognize about hearing is that it's much like vision. When you watch tv, you see one continuous moving picture and not the individual frames. Sounds are also in 'frames' determined by the wavelength (frequency) and the amplitude (height of wave) is volume. Visualize tha sound as a wave... You only hear anything at the highpoints and there essentially silence at the low points. You don't perceive the silent moments because middle A is 440 cycles/second, just like you don't see the individual frames when you watch a cartoon.
If I take wave and bounce it off something which is an even mutiple of it's wavelength (makes the wave come back directly on top of itself) you get resonance. The amplitude of the wave doubles so you hear it at twice the volume, but remember the periods of silence are identical in each direction, but you only perceive the increased volume. Another wave bounced off a target which is not an even multiple of the wavelength does not superimpose upon itself does not double in amplitude (or resonate) but it has less silent time (half as much) but this is not perceived by the ear, just quieter.
In this simplistic example, both waves can carry the same amount of energy, one is just perceived as louder but with non perceivable longer periods of silence.
This is what the body of an accoustic guitar does for the exact same strings. The sound bounces around inside the body to resonate but if you could perceive it, there are longer periods of silence, no additional energy is created. The sound is just organized differently. And this effect does 'suck' the vibration out of the strings and into the body of the guitar making the string stop vibration much quicker.
Does this help?
-
Observer,
Of course I recognize that an unplugged electric guitar is quieter than an accoustic guitar. Where I disagree is that the string vibrates for a shorter amount of time(it's actually much longer, I just compared - but both instruments were plugged in to make a direct comparison).
What you need to recognize about hearing is that it's much like vision. When you watch tv, you see one continuous moving picture and not the individual frames. Sounds are also in 'frames' determined by the wavelength (frequency) and the amplitude (height of wave) is volume. Visualize tha sound as a wave... You only hear anything at the highpoints and there essentially silence at the low points. You don't perceive the silent moments because middle A is 440 cycles/second, just like you don't see the individual frames when you watch a cartoon.
If I take wave and bounce it off something which is an even mutiple of it's wavelength (makes the wave come back directly on top of itself) you get resonance. The amplitude of the wave doubles so you hear it at twice the volume, but remember the periods of silence are identical in each direction, but you only perceive the increased volume. Another wave bounced off a target which is not an even multiple of the wavelength does not superimpose upon itself does not double in amplitude (or resonate) but it has less silent time (half as much) but this is not perceived by the ear, just quieter.
In this simplistic example, both waves can carry the same amount of energy, one is just perceived as louder but with non perceivable longer periods of silence.
This is what the body of an accoustic guitar does for the exact same strings. The sound bounces around inside the body to resonate but if you could perceive it, there are longer periods of silence, no additional energy is created. The sound is just organized differently. And this effect does 'suck' the vibration out of the strings and into the body of the guitar making the string stop vibration much quicker.
Does this help?
it "sucks" it out... LOL
how do you plug in an acoustic guitar? if you plug it in, it is not acoustic anymore, but electric...
to make a direct comparision of what? apples to oranges?
-
All of my accoustic guitars have pickups in the bridge and mics in the body. For plugging into a pa system. The reason for comparing both amplified is because you simply can't hear how long the electric guitar string vibrates without amplification. Figured I'd make an even comparison of sustain. The 'sucking' effect is because the body of an accoustic will rapidly absorb the sound(vibration) of the string. It's not a hard experiment to replicate.
-
All of my accoustic guitars have pickups in the bridge and mics in the body. For plugging into a pa system. The reason for comparing both amplified is because you simply can't hear how long the electric guitar string vibrates without amplification. Figured I'd make an even comparison of sustain. The 'sucking' effect is because the body of an accoustic will rapidly absorb the sound(vibration) of the string. It's not a hard experiment to replicate.
so you are suggesting an amplified hollow body resonator to amplified solid body resonator comparision is apples to apples? and you are comparing sustain by how long you can hear with your ear? ::)
-
The proper way to experimentally test this is to amplify both instruments, but monitor (if desired) via headphones.
Then set a VU meter (monitoring the input level on a mixer for eg.) such that an open-stringed strum hits 0dB peak and time how long it takes the VU level to decay down to -60dBu or -40dBu or so. Compare the two times.
You will most likely see that the electric solid-body guitar sustain is much longer than the acoustic's.
.99
-
The proper way to experimentally test this is to amplify both instruments, but monitor (if desired) via headphones.
Then set a VU meter (monitoring the input level on a mixer for eg.) such that an open-stringed strum hits 0dB peak and time how long it takes the VU level to decay down to -60dBu or -40dBu or so. Compare the two times.
You will most likely see that the electric solid-body guitar sustain is much longer than the acoustic's.
.99
that is not a proper test. how does turning an acoustic guitar into an electric one make for an apples to apples comparision? by amping an acoustic it becomes electric and therefore no longer acoustic... this is obvious. furthermore, you need a picking method that inputs a precise and repeatable amount of energy, as well as a listening method that involves more than a VU meter and your eyes or headphones and your ears.
-
The proper way to experimentally test this is to amplify both instruments, but monitor (if desired) via headphones.
Then set a VU meter (monitoring the input level on a mixer for eg.) such that an open-stringed strum hits 0dB peak and time how long it takes the VU level to decay down to -60dBu or -40dBu or so. Compare the two times.
You will most likely see that the electric solid-body guitar sustain is much longer than the acoustic's.
.99
Only thing I did differently was used a speaker (15 w horn, wedge monitor) to monitor the sustain. Was using a mixer with a visual db level. Of course set input to 0 db on the input for both as you would normally do setting the trim on any input. Ovation accoustic via DI box, BC Rich Mockingbird through a PODXT heavy distortion setting. As long as you don't have the accoustic pointing directly at monitor there are no noteable feedback issues. In this case both were laying on the floor and I plucked the thin E's simultaneously. Can hit the solo button to view each independently. Accoustic sustain is over within a couple of seconds. You can go take a shower and come back and the electric is still going strong (only a slight exageration). Hell, if I forget to unplug/mute my axe during a set break at a gig and somebody bumps the guitar on it's stand, it will make sound until I get up there to mute it. Accoustic's don't do that unless a feedback loop is created. Granted the mockingbird is as solid body as they come, heavy, neck through, made for sustain. Actually it is well know the heavier/more solid an electric guitar is, the more sustain it creates, but it probably makes it even quieter when unplugged.
-
spondini,
That may not be a valid test if the distortion was placed before the mixer input.
Both should be clean with no compression or any processing at all.
Also, monitoring over speakers will still impart some feedback (adding sustain) to the acoustic, so it's best to use headphones. In fact, monitoring the audio is not even necessary for this test, because we are relying on the VU meter to indicate the sustain to -60dB. We simply time this and compare.
.99
-
that is not a proper test. how does turning an acoustic guitar into an electric one make for an apples to apples comparision? by amping an acoustic it becomes electric and therefore no longer acoustic... this is obvious. furthermore, you need a picking method that inputs a precise and repeatable amount of energy, as well as a listening method that involves more than a VU meter and your eyes or headphones and your ears.
DrunkCaptain,
You're obviously out of your element here, and because of your brazen attitude towards folks, I'm not even sure why I read and am responding to your post, but alas, I'll answer your questions in good faith.
This particular test as I understand by the last few posts, is to determine which guitar has the longest sustain, the acoustic, or the solid-body electric. Are we in agreement?
Now, amplifying the acoustic's piezo pickup or mic signal does not alter the guitar's ability to sustain it's sound, provided an acoustic feedback loop is not present, and we eliminate this by either not acoustically monitoring at all, or by doing so only over headphones.
The same goes for the solid-body electric guitar.
So we are using a visual instrument that measures "volume units" to indicate when the level has dropped from 0dB down to some chosen level such as -60dBu (almost dead quiet).
A precise picking method would be ideal, but with a few practice tries, for an experienced guitarist it would not be difficult to consistently achieve a 0dB peak strum for each test. However, as a way to increase the likely-hood of accurate readings, 3 or 4 strums/timings could be tried then averaged out to minimize this error.
The precision will only be a factor if after a few tests it is obvious that the two guitars have a very close sustain time to -60dB. Chances are however the two will be quite different, and if demonstrated consistently as such, the small error in strum energy differences can be ignored.
.99
-
DrunkCaptain,
You're obviously out of your element here, and because of your brazen attitude towards folks, I'm not even sure why I read and am responding to your post, but alas, I'll answer your questions in good faith.
This particular test as I understand by the last few posts, is to determine which guitar has the longest sustain, the acoustic, or the solid-body electric. Are we in agreement?
Now, amplifying the acoustic's piezo pickup or mic signal does not alter the guitar's ability to sustain it's sound, provided an acoustic feedback loop is not present, and we eliminate this by either not acoustically monitoring at all, or by doing so only over headphones.
The same goes for the solid-body electric guitar.
So we are using a visual instrument that measures "volume units" to indicate when the level has dropped from 0dB down to some chosen level such as -60dBu (almost dead quiet).
A precise picking method would be ideal, but with a few practice tries, for an experienced guitarist it would not be difficult to consistently achieve a 0dB peak strum for each test. However, as a way to increase the likely-hood of accurate readings, 3 or 4 strums/timings could be tried then averaged out to minimize this error.
The precision will only be a factor if after a few tests it is obvious that the two guitars have a very close sustain time to -60dB. Chances are however the two will be quite different, and if demonstrated consistently as such, the small error in strum energy differences can be ignored.
.99
it is 'wilby', that is future tense. it is not 'is' nor 'was'... ::)
to suggest you know what my 'element' is is asinine. because of your presumptuous attitude you are the only expert in your little mind. it's not as complicated as it may seem, and from your proposed test it would seem science is not your element.
yes.
amping an acoustic makes it electric, i assume you will agree with that? i hope this isn't similar to our previous discussion where it took you several posts to agree that a sim is incomplete...
if sustain is sustain then why amp the acoustic? simply put, you are not comparing apples to apples regardless of whatever semantic game you wish to play again. find a more precise method or accept the fact that your proposed test is sloppy. as proposed, your test would be fitting for the mythbusters, but far from precise science.
same goes for the solid body electric.
i am aware what a VU meter is captain obvious. how are you timing it? with a hand held stopwatch? ::)
in your apples to oranges 'test' are you using identical pickups on both guitars? or are you suggesting that all pickups are the same ::)
a precise picking method is required. no ifs ands or buts.
you seem to like to ignore what doesn't agree with your opinion quite often...
-
Pointy,
Will rerun test with both through di box, no power to speaker, just using visual meter.
Wilby,
Blah blah blah. Makes about as much sense as your posts.
-
Pointy,
Will rerun test with both through di box, no power to speaker, just using visual meter.
Wilby,
Blah blah blah. Makes about as much sense as your posts.
which word did you have trouble understanding?
-
What about the materials the strings are made of? Most acoustics use either bronze or pig gut strings. Electrics have to use steel strings so the pickups can pickup the sound. Acoustics can not use normal electric pickups, so, that is the reason for mics and piezoelectric style pickups. Have any of you tried using electric strings on an acoustic? I know one of Wilby's acoustics does, I put them on it myself. Orca! The reason? Bronze strings tune up much tighter making the strings hard to press. Electric strings may sound tinny, but, playing acoustics can give a guy hand cramps after playing a set at a gig.
When one string is plucked, all the other strings will also vibrate, adding to the overall sustain, whether you can hear them or not. The same is true for pianos and all other stringed instruments. Using a single string of the same material on both guitars plugged into a good tuner may do the trick, but, I do not suggest it, for, doing so can warp the neck from lack of tension.
Maybe Danny Ferrington has some answers for such a test. Now, which one of you virtuosos is gonna make me a youtube video of them playing "Flight of the Bumble Bee"? Not the Nuno Bettencourt version either...
-
it is 'wilby', that is future tense. it is not 'is' nor 'was'... ::)
Maybe you should try getting drunk before you post then--you'd probably sound a hell of a lot more coherent.
You're a troll dude...and it's getting really old real fast. Take off eh!
.99
-
Pointy,
Will rerun test with both through di box, no power to speaker, just using visual meter.
;)
Looking forward to the results.
.99
-
Maybe you should try getting drunk before you post then--you'd probably sound a hell of a lot more coherent.
You're a troll dude...and it's getting really old real fast. Take off eh!
.99
which words did you have trouble understanding? you should try something other than mythbusters 'science'.
i ask you to do it right (like i told tk) or tell you your 'test' is weak (like i told you about your 'sim') and you call me a troll. but yet, here you are in just about every thread offering your weak ass sauce tests as gospel (and science ::) ).
-
What about the materials the strings are made of? Most acoustics use either bronze or pig gut strings. Electrics have to use steel strings so the pickups can pickup the sound. Acoustics can not use normal electric pickups, so, that is the reason for mics and piezoelectric style pickups. Have any of you tried using electric strings on an acoustic? I know one of Wilby's acoustics does, I put them on it myself. Orca! The reason? Bronze strings tune up much tighter making the strings hard to press. Electric strings may sound tinny, but, playing acoustics can give a guy hand cramps after playing a set at a gig.
When one string is plucked, all the other strings will also vibrate, adding to the overall sustain, whether you can hear them or not. The same is true for pianos and all other stringed instruments. Using a single string of the same material on both guitars plugged into a good tuner may do the trick, but, I do not suggest it, for, doing so can warp the neck from lack of tension.
Maybe Danny Ferrington has some answers for such a test. Now, which one of you virtuosos is gonna make me a youtube video of them playing "Flight of the Bumble Bee"? Not the Nuno Bettencourt version either...
well said heair, but it's hopeless to get them to apply anything other than their mythbusters brand of science to anything.
-
Willy,
it "sucks" it out... LOL
This statement let's me know you are smarter than the average drunk.
Spoondini,
I thank you for your willingness to experiment with your guitars.
Heairbear,
When one string is plucked, all the other strings will also vibrate, adding to the overall sustain
Thankyou, Thankyou....Thankyou.
This is my very poynt.
This is what I am talking about.
A Louder Longer Sound is produced because feedback is happening and energy is stored in the system.
______________________________________________________________________________
The real question is ... Does the Acoustic Chamber Amplify Sound? YES (refer below)
Consider this simple physics experiment. (refer below)
The chamber sounds out Loudly when speaker reaches it's resonant frequency.
Best Regards,
The Observer
-
FYI, I use phos bronze on both the electric and accoustic, both 11 guage. Shouldn't be a factor. Haven't had a chance to run the second round yet. If they're close, then we can assume these 'other' factors could be influencing. If there's obviously more sustain, then these factors are probably neglible. I'll let you know by next Tues (next time I break out the sound system).
-
Here is a pic of a "Drone Harp" or guitar which utilizes the effects of "Sympathetic Vibrations" to accentuate the tones produced. Although this version is a solid body, there are acoustic versions too. One of the factors that may have been ignored or missed is the shape of the sound hole, or, sometimes F holes. If the resonant cavity has no, or, badly designed sound hole, the resonance will be affected. One of the tricks to tuning electric guitars in not so quiet places(noisy bars), you can put your ear against the solid body and hear the vibrations much more clearly. And some ask, "Why don't you use an electric tuner?" I myself can't stand tuners and hearing the tuning, in my opinion, is far better than trusting an electric device I can't hear.
-
FYI, I use phos bronze on both the electric and accoustic, both 11 guage. Shouldn't be a factor. Haven't had a chance to run the second round yet. If they're close, then we can assume these 'other' factors could be influencing. If there's obviously more sustain, then these factors are probably neglible. I'll let you know by next Tues (next time I break out the sound system).
"shouldn't be a factor" is an assumption. why not just remove that assumption right from the start instead of opening the test up to more assumptions later on as evidenced by this statement "then we can assume these 'other' factors could be influencing".
-
Spoondini,
Thanks again for your willingness to experiment.
I have been waiting for your results.
I would like to remind you that an acoustic Guitar's sound is roughly 1000 times as intense as the Electric Guitar's Sound.
A Ratio of 1000 to 1
If energy is conserved... this means that the electric should ring around 1000 times longer than an acoustic string.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My acoustic rings around 10 seconds.
It follows that the electric should ring 1000 X 10 Seconds or 10,000 Seconds.
10,000 seconds/60 seconds/min = 167 Minutes
167 Minutes/60 Min/Hour = 2.78 Hours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess the Electric String won't ring that long. (2.78 Hours)
Further, I insist The Sympathetic Vibration from the Acoustic Chamber cannot Stop the String From Ringing.
(anyone who thinks they can stop something ringing using it's natural frequency is a little Kooky)
Indeed a feedback loop is created!!!!!
Please refer to the Speaker/Tube experiment for simplicities sake.
The Volume of Water in the Tube is varied until the resonant frequency is found.
At Resonance a Loud Sound is produced... with no extra energy required.
The Observer
-
Observer,
Many apologies but I did not run the experiment last night as I should have. Not related to your theory but had a pressing issue of practicing with a 'fill in' drummer for a job next week and my mind was preoccupied with getting as much material under our belts as possible. My equipment is currently at the drummer's house and I won't see it until again until next Tues. At this time I'm still uncertain as to the results if the test is run with no external amplification and no processing. I'm pretty certain (99.9%) an electric will not ring for 10,0000 times the duration, but I'm also not sure how you came up with that intensity ratio. Could you please elaborate?
Also, as previously explained, feedback loops don't generate any additional energy with regard to sound at least. The amplitude (amplification....) of the waves increase because they stack on top of each other due to bouncing back and forth at multiples of the wavelength. The same energy is contained in waves not 'feeding back', it's just hitting more times per second. This is what happens with certain frequencies in a room (depending upon shape) when my band set's up the PA, we have to cut certain 'hot' frequencies which 'sound' louder and on the stage monitors we cut frequencies to eliminate that nasty squealing feedback. Again no energy created, just fewer bigger waves as opposed to more smaller waves on the non-feeding back frequencies.
However.... I can say that the natural feedback allows us to consume less energy. As we cut specific frequencies to generate a 'flat' sound, it reduces the overall draw on the poweramps and still 'sounds' equally as loud.
-
Observer and all, I am sorry for not reading through the entire tread, I wanted to at the beginning but its just too much so I jumped to the last posts. So if any similar points have already been brought up and proved/disproved, then again, I'm sorry :D
Now, this is just in line with what I have tried to understand for so long, steadily finding out that there is much that I didn't know or was wrong about. I had similar discussions with hansvoliven and fritz in regards to explaining the perceived increase in both amplitude and duration of the emitted sound with and without a resonator. In the end it boiled down to impedance matching, which frankly was a topic I was to inexperienced in to respond, so it stayed at that.
Now however, with gained insight from many other similar systems, based on forced oscillation and resonance, I believe I understand how it all connects, and why impedance matching alone cannot explain the phenomena of increased amplitude output from a resonantly driven oscillator.
-----------------------------------------------
So first to impedance matching.
It is crucial in the construction of a system where you want energy to be transferred through several oscillators and eventually to a load. For example in audio, transformers was used to step down the voltage so that the impedance of an eventual speaker would "seem" higher to the original source, thus causing more of the voltage drop to stay over the speaker coils instead of any resistive load elsewhere. Doing the opposite over long range power lines, the impedance of the long thin cables seemed smaller than the final destination, even if both where of the impedance without the transformer.
So this is important if we want to transmit the vibrations of a string to the air around it.
If the want the main resistance or opposition to change to be the air, and not friction or other losses, then it needs to have a larger resistance than anything else in the "circuit".
And, theoretically it can only reach a 100% efficient transfer.
---------------------------------------------------
Other attempted explanations has been that the sound is focused or that some inaudible frequencies are being limited and turned into audible ones. Both of these can be proved wrong in simple experiments where a pure sine wave is used and a very directional cone is pointing away from you.
The results are (and I have tested them) that the sound is still magnified by a very large amount, and that the direction which the cone is pointing doesn't matter the most as to how high the volume is. The equipment used was a small horn, a very small speaker (the ones you can place in the ear) and a computer program which can create sine waves and others at specific frequencies.
============================================
Now in my attempt to explain why this and much better controlled experiments would still show a big gain in the output amplitude, I see it as a completely basic result of the phenomena of resonance.
The implications are gigantic, if we can try to get our heads around the problems and results of resonance.
As a prerequisite in order to understand this better (at least for me), it is useful to investigate the function of the 2-stage oscillator, and the concept it uses. If you have done this, you will come to see that it is in fact exactly the same as an acoustic resonator, only that the vibration frequency is much lower, and instead of air resistance it uses a mechanical load.
Both resonators are exited by a small trigger signal, resulting in a new signal who's amplitude is directly proportional to the Q of the resonator times the input power.
As people working with LC circuits (tanks) know, resistive resistance in the circuit will lower the Q, minimize the oscillating energy and offer no way to exploit the huge increase in amplitude which the tank gives.
Looking at it in the acoustic wave way, the problem is that you are trying to tap the energy from the anti-node. The exactly same problem arises with springs and weights, pendulums, air pressure, and even standing sound waves. And here lies also the key:
You want to tap it at the node, at the point which the wave reflects and cause a standing wave to arise, where the motion is at a minimum, or zero if there truly existed real nodes in oscillators.
The losses you get from tapping it here is of a completely different kind than the ones you have between the nodes.
Consider an attached spring with a weight.
You steadily input energy in the form a push on the weight at the resonant frequency.
In short time the amplitude may be twice or even ten times as high as your input, but, it you then switches the input into an output by placing a physical resistance close to it (a liquid), than you will get exactly the same out as you placed inside. The losses was proportional to the velocity/amplitude and you ended up with nothing.
Now take the same spring and weight, but attach the spring itself to a load, a friction element maybe, for consistent results. What in the world has happened?
What has happened is that the losses are no longer proportional with the velocity/amplitude, but only to the displacement of the spring.
When work is done in the load, the spring moves, and the weight looses potential energy as a result. This loss is proportional to the distance the spring moves. No matter what amplitude it is running in, the losses stays the same, as long as the distance is the same.
This means that the positive work done on the resistive element is not equal to the negative work done in the oscillator, because the value of force can be whatever we want without effecting the oscillator.
I apologize for the long and maybe untidy writing, I'm not that good at writing concrete and short, but in my view this translates to all other oscillators.
If the energy input is constant, and we vary the node resistance, then the amplitude of the oscillator will be proportional to this resistance. Energy output will then be: E(out) = E(in) * R(node)
And COP would be the same except /E(in) at the end.
See, the Q controls the amplitude and is equal to R(node) - R(anitnode)
So if we want to create as an efficient oscillator as possible, then the resistance at the anti nodes (air resistance, friction and others) needs to be as small as possible, while the resistance at the nodes needs to be as high as possible, and this would be our load.
In a LC tank the load should be either in the magnetic field or in the electric field.
The rotoverter is an example of the former.
Back to the subject, in this case the load would be the air, in which we create sound waves.
A load in the anti-node would have meant that we first vibrated a string, and then used friction directly on the string to load it. I think this is why strings with higher frequencies are faster drained, because they meet a larger resistance against the air than the lower frequencies, like ac versus coils.
Also if we placed something that could absorb sound waves inside the guitar, then we would loose a lot more of the volume, not only because it is absorbed as heat inside, but because we restrict the input energy from creating standing waves, which in turn vibrate the lighter and looser top wood, giving us that extra free source of sound.
Thank you for your attention ;D
Julian
-
Greetings,
It's been awhile since I posted here.
Long story short, I have only started 2 threads here at OU.com.
Both of which pertain to what I believe are Unrecognized Sources of Energy.
1. one entitled Magnetic Permeability ... I can't find anyone talking about this !!!!! (http://www.overunity.com/4831/magnetic-permeability-i-cant-find-anyone-talking-about-this/msg101969/#msg101969)[/color]
My concern here is the fact that a "piece of iron" can magnify the magnetic field of a coil by 5000 times
... without using any extra energy. (iron has a Magnetic Permeabliity of 5000)
2. the other Why is an Acoustic Guitar so much LOUDER than an Electric Guitar? (http://www.overunity.com/7810/why-is-an-acoustic-guitar-so-much-louder-than-an-electric-guitar/msg215082/#msg215082)[/color]
My concern here is Resonance and that 2 tuning forks ring louder and longer than 1 when only 1 is struck.
Or that, an Acoustic Guitar is ~1000 times louder than an Electric Guitar (same strings, same strum)
After posting virtually every day for about 2 years (later in other threads),
and receiving Flack from both paid posters and a lot of honest members
that just couldn't see what I was talking about.. I stepped down from my soapbox.
I purposefully stopped posting more in my threads as to keep them short and to the point
for anyone who was asking the same questions as me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, the other night I listened to an interview by Kerry Cassidy from Project Camelot.
She interviewed a man named Ralph Ring who has been at this game for quite sometime.
His story is amazing and a lot of what he talked about probably goes farther than most if not all threads here.
What made me jump for joy was his statements about Magnetism and Resonance being sources of Free Energy.
In fact, he said "What they really don't want you talk about is Resonance." !!!!
Hmm, well... if you read just about any one of my posts you might get an idea as to why.
Apparently, they (Ralph's compatriots) have well organized "pods" of people around the world with free energy devices
ready to be released, when the time is right and heavy suppression from the "bad guys" won't occur.
In fact, he mentioned middle school students will be able to replicate the devices with the proper instructions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I so advise any Free Energy Researcher to listen to this.
You will be amazed and jumping for joy after listening to Ralph's story.
Here is the link to the archived version of the show ...
http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Project-Camelot-32k-021512.mp3 (http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Project-Camelot-32k-021512.mp3)
Best Regards,
The Observer
-
TO,
Once you are able to obtain some net work from a magnetic field for FREE, having the increased field from a ferromagnetic core will be of some benefit.
.99
-
@ TO, check out the MRA (Norman Wootan & Joel McClain). The basic goal is to amplify the magnetic field inside the core (like Rotoverter TV) by high Q resonator... The amplified field created by an amplified current, will result in an amplified voltage at secondary by Q times the input voltage... (Working current stay the same...) but voltage not, it come from the amplified reactive current (LC resonance at primary).
When the device is loaded and still OU (by choosing carefully the value of L, C and the load R) and loop it you get paranormal "quantic" effect, like Ali has described in his generator a few day ago, I even warning him that playing with self looped high Q resonator can be dangerous if not mastered...
But since you're a "fan" of resonant things like me, I guess you should test it also.
The Magnetic Resonance Amplifier is basically a LC in series or in parallel (L is the primary of a transformer...) in a high Q mode (high L/C and low R )...
Measurement will be simpler, to avoid error: rectified DC with True RMS multimeter will make a good job, one measure at the DC side before the inverter, and after the rectified output of the transformer, if the device is OU looping with buffer cap and a regulator will be easy...
I understand better why you make post like this: "Magnetic field can be amplified 5000 times freely"
Yeah but for producing energy and OU we must:
1) Create a resonant condition...
2) Extract the amplified energy without totally reflecting to the source...
3) For me I see only two method:
a) At C value (Transverter diode plug system)...
b) At L value (Through a transformer, like the MRA)...
Regards, SRM.