Resonance Circuits and Resonance Systems

[lancaIV]

Do you think that this "5 Million contract" object will become more effective and cheaper than :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=11&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19860304&CC=US&NR=4574161A&KC=A#


let us see and seeing the pizza prices falling

Sincerely
             OCWL

[Belfior]

the pizza deal was a separate one like I said the post. The new idea was the light-electric-sound conversion

[lancaIV]

the pizza deal was a separate one like I said the post. The new idea was the light-electric-sound conversion

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

wmbr
             OCWL
   

[Low-Q]

Here is another advantage that can be had by adding more drivers to increase efficiency and does this apply elsewhere with other devices, motors, etc....

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

The first pic shows this in a graph.

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Its real.   

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

Mags

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


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


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


Vidar

[Magluvin]

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


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


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


Vidar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mags