"Arny Krueger"
"Phil Allison"

** Dunno what you are on about - Doppler is a linear phenomenon,
not some kind of distortion product. It is simply the result of a
moving source creating longer or shorter wavelengths in the air than
it would if stationery.

Oh, you are so completely and totally wrong!


** Go **** yourself - Arny.

You have nothing even faintly sane to say and you are acting like a maniac.


Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional
frequencies that were not part of the original signal.


** The Doppler effect is however a linear phenomenon.

( snip idiotic, gratuitous insults form a raving maniac )


Doppler is the result of relatively motion between the transmitter and
receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the
receiver.


( snip idiotic, gratuitous insults form a raving maniac )



Shame that dumb spectrum analysers cannot tell the difference
between minor amounts of AM and very narrow FM with a high index
figure - that fact has cast doubt over practically all the test
results that are claimed to show Doppler shift in the sound coming
from woofers.

It's not the analyzer's fault, its the fault of the people setting up the
analyzer and interpreting the results.


** Ridiculous gobbledegook - Arny's fake analogy posted below makes my
point for me.


Phil, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Take the guns away, you
save a fair number of lives because it's harder to kill someone without a
gun, but there would still be lots of murder.



** So Arny is now a looney gun freak as well as an all round, manic lunatic
these days.


Tell me Arny - who had the bad news from the medicos ???




............. Phil

"Arny Krueger"
"Phil Allison"

** Dunno what you are on about - Doppler is a linear phenomenon,
not some kind of distortion product. It is simply the result of a
moving source creating longer or shorter wavelengths in the air than
it would if stationery.

Oh, you are so completely and totally wrong!


** Go **** yourself - Arny.

You have nothing even faintly sane to say and you are acting like a maniac.


Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional
frequencies that were not part of the original signal.


** The Doppler effect is however a linear phenomenon.

( snip idiotic, gratuitous insults form a raving maniac )


Doppler is the result of relatively motion between the transmitter and
receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the
receiver.


( snip idiotic, gratuitous insults form a raving maniac )



Shame that dumb spectrum analysers cannot tell the difference
between minor amounts of AM and very narrow FM with a high index
figure - that fact has cast doubt over practically all the test
results that are claimed to show Doppler shift in the sound coming
from woofers.

It's not the analyzer's fault, its the fault of the people setting up the
analyzer and interpreting the results.


** Ridiculous gobbledegook - Arny's fake analogy posted below makes my
point for me.


Phil, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Take the guns away, you
save a fair number of lives because it's harder to kill someone without a
gun, but there would still be lots of murder.



** So Arny is now a looney gun freak as well as an all round, manic lunatic
these days.


Tell me Arny - who had the bad news from the medicos ???




............. Phil

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:56:22 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

Yeah, I'm hoping for citations that provide a complete
theory for the effect from which the result of any driving
point velocity or pressure can be predicted. There is no
good reason why this doesn't exist except possibly for one.

I'm puzzled why you're unconvinced by an argument from
Terman, rotating vectors and such like. Doesn't the diaphragm
itself contain enough information (for a fixed listener?)

Everything is really subjective to this point without the
requisite separation of variables.

So, ignoring the side arguments of audibility and testing
procedures, is your quest located at the diaphragm-air
translation?

Thanks,

Chris Hornbeck

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:56:22 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

Yeah, I'm hoping for citations that provide a complete
theory for the effect from which the result of any driving
point velocity or pressure can be predicted. There is no
good reason why this doesn't exist except possibly for one.

I'm puzzled why you're unconvinced by an argument from
Terman, rotating vectors and such like. Doesn't the diaphragm
itself contain enough information (for a fixed listener?)

Everything is really subjective to this point without the
requisite separation of variables.

So, ignoring the side arguments of audibility and testing
procedures, is your quest located at the diaphragm-air
translation?

Thanks,

Chris Hornbeck

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:13:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional
frequencies that were not part of the original signal.

Doppler is the result of relatively motion between the transmitter and
receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the
receiver.

Exactly right. I think what's confusing about FM is that it
*doesn't* require a "non-linear" (in the usual common useage)
term. No kinks or bends in the in-vs-out curve.

It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM!

Chris Hornbeck

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:13:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional
frequencies that were not part of the original signal.

Doppler is the result of relatively motion between the transmitter and
receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the
receiver.

Exactly right. I think what's confusing about FM is that it
*doesn't* require a "non-linear" (in the usual common useage)
term. No kinks or bends in the in-vs-out curve.

It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM!

Chris Hornbeck

"Chris Hornbeck"
"Arny Krueger"

Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional
frequencies that were not part of the original signal.

Doppler is the result of relatively motion between the transmitter and
receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the
receiver.


Exactly right.


** The two paras are in direct contradiction.

Hornbeck would have done well in Orwell's 1984.




............ Phil

"Chris Hornbeck"
"Arny Krueger"

Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional
frequencies that were not part of the original signal.

Doppler is the result of relatively motion between the transmitter and
receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received by the
receiver.


Exactly right.


** The two paras are in direct contradiction.

Hornbeck would have done well in Orwell's 1984.




............ Phil

Depends on the speaker. I think the Hill devices had a sheet of plasma
in a magnetic field, and by shifting the magnetic field you could move
the plasma forward and back and thereby move air with it. But I do recall
another device that relied on changing ionization.

There was no magnetic field. The plasma was produced by RF excitation, and the
audio signal AM modulated it.

Dr. Hill told me that he had assumed the same as everyone else -- that the
plasma varied in volume with the modulation and "pushed" the air. He claimed
that a study of the thermodynamics of the system showed otherwise.

Depends on the speaker. I think the Hill devices had a sheet of plasma
in a magnetic field, and by shifting the magnetic field you could move
the plasma forward and back and thereby move air with it. But I do recall
another device that relied on changing ionization.

There was no magnetic field. The plasma was produced by RF excitation, and the
audio signal AM modulated it.

Dr. Hill told me that he had assumed the same as everyone else -- that the
plasma varied in volume with the modulation and "pushed" the air. He claimed
that a study of the thermodynamics of the system showed otherwise.

What is it with you two? When I make ad-hominem attacks on Arny, at least
they're global metaphysical/philosophical attacks.

What is it with you two? When I make ad-hominem attacks on Arny, at least
they're global metaphysical/philosophical attacks.

Carey Carlan wrote:

Your argument assumes that the microphone diaphragm moves the same extent
during recording as the speaker does during playback.

Another way of pointing out that it wouldn't be a linear
phenomenon. If it were it would scale with everything else.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Carey Carlan wrote:

Your argument assumes that the microphone diaphragm moves the same extent
during recording as the speaker does during playback.

Another way of pointing out that it wouldn't be a linear
phenomenon. If it were it would scale with everything else.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

William Sommerwerck wrote:

In the case of lightning, isn't it the thermal expansion
of the air that causes the sound of thunder?


Yes, but it isn't what makes an ion speaker speak. :-)


Yes, it is. Ask Dr. Hill.

Don't know him. Did he write the working principle up?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

William Sommerwerck wrote:

In the case of lightning, isn't it the thermal expansion
of the air that causes the sound of thunder?


Yes, but it isn't what makes an ion speaker speak. :-)


Yes, it is. Ask Dr. Hill.

Don't know him. Did he write the working principle up?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

William Sommerwerck wrote:


I, too, dislike appealing to authority. But I've met Dr. Hill, talked with him
at length, and he's no dummy. Ionic speakers do NOT work by "pushing" the air in
front of them. The sound is a PV = nRT effect, where changes in temperature
produce pressure changes.

Dr. Hill also developed what he called a "toaster woofer," nichrome wire strung
around a heat-resistant form. He claimed that the reason toasters hum could be
used to reproduce sound. I never saw a demo, though.

The clasic ionic speaker is the "flame speaker" to which a
HV signal is placed across the flame. That is an
electrostic and not a thermal drive. If he found a way to
modulate the temperature of air that rapidly somehow with
RF, which is typically just the means of stripping off the
electrons to ionize it, then that's really something. I
just don't believe it until I see a more in depth justification.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

William Sommerwerck wrote:


I, too, dislike appealing to authority. But I've met Dr. Hill, talked with him
at length, and he's no dummy. Ionic speakers do NOT work by "pushing" the air in
front of them. The sound is a PV = nRT effect, where changes in temperature
produce pressure changes.

Dr. Hill also developed what he called a "toaster woofer," nichrome wire strung
around a heat-resistant form. He claimed that the reason toasters hum could be
used to reproduce sound. I never saw a demo, though.

The clasic ionic speaker is the "flame speaker" to which a
HV signal is placed across the flame. That is an
electrostic and not a thermal drive. If he found a way to
modulate the temperature of air that rapidly somehow with
RF, which is typically just the means of stripping off the
electrons to ionize it, then that's really something. I
just don't believe it until I see a more in depth justification.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message


On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:13:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional
frequencies that were not part of the original signal.

Doppler is the result of relative motion between the transmitter
and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received
by the receiver.

Exactly right.

Thank you.

I think what's confusing about FM is that it
*doesn't* require a "non-linear" (in the usual common useage)
term. No kinks or bends in the in-vs-out curve.

The usual terminology has something to with Doppler not being dependent on
component properties (other than location!) that change with changes in the
signal.

It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM!

And given that relative motion is vector quantity...

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message


On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:13:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional
frequencies that were not part of the original signal.

Doppler is the result of relative motion between the transmitter
and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received
by the receiver.

Exactly right.

Thank you.

I think what's confusing about FM is that it
*doesn't* require a "non-linear" (in the usual common useage)
term. No kinks or bends in the in-vs-out curve.

The usual terminology has something to with Doppler not being dependent on
component properties (other than location!) that change with changes in the
signal.

It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM!

And given that relative motion is vector quantity...

"Phil Allison" wrote in message


"Chris Hornbeck"

"Arny Krueger"

Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional
frequencies that were not part of the original signal.

Doppler is the result of relative motion between the transmitter
and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received
by the receiver.

Exactly right.

** The two paras are in direct contradiction.

Please explain.

"Phil Allison" wrote in message


"Chris Hornbeck"

"Arny Krueger"

Doppler is nonlinear distortion. It creates signals at additional
frequencies that were not part of the original signal.

Doppler is the result of relative motion between the transmitter
and receiver, causing shorter or longer wavelengths to be received
by the receiver.

Exactly right.

** The two paras are in direct contradiction.

Please explain.

If he [Dr. Hill] found a way to modulate the temperature
of air that rapidly somehow with RF, which is typically
just the means of stripping off the electrons to ionize it,
then that's really something.

He didn't "find" a way to do it. It turns out that that's the way an ionic
speaker (such as the Ionovac) works.

If he [Dr. Hill] found a way to modulate the temperature
of air that rapidly somehow with RF, which is typically
just the means of stripping off the electrons to ionize it,
then that's really something.

He didn't "find" a way to do it. It turns out that that's the way an ionic
speaker (such as the Ionovac) works.

Arny Krueger wrote:

[snip]


enjoy! ;-)

Wish I could, a few of them sound like they could be
contenders. Do you have these CD's, Arny.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Arny Krueger wrote:

[snip]


enjoy! ;-)

Wish I could, a few of them sound like they could be
contenders. Do you have these CD's, Arny.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Phil Allison wrote:

"Bob Cain"


Ok. The false assumption is that the pressure wave created
by a piston is proportional to its acceleration. It isn't;
it's proprotional to the piston velocity.

** You have evidence ????

Better than that, I have a proof by the principle of
reciprocity (not at all the same as analogy since it only
considers the actual system in question.) If you missed it,
I'll be happy to repeat it.

Didn't I explain what a linear system is in a prior post?

** No interest to me or anyone else what YOU decide the laws of nature
are.

Ummm, don't know what to say to that. It's not just what I
believe, it is the agreed definition within the entire field
of linear systems. It's in lotsa books, textbooks.

Nothing that produces "frequencies" that aren't in what's
driving it is linear.

** Pure gobbledegook.

Pure and unadulterated truth, like it or not.


Try defining your terms in a consistent and familiar manner.

Try doing some study so I don't have to hand feed you the
fundamentals and then argue with you about them.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Phil Allison wrote:

"Bob Cain"


Ok. The false assumption is that the pressure wave created
by a piston is proportional to its acceleration. It isn't;
it's proprotional to the piston velocity.

** You have evidence ????

Better than that, I have a proof by the principle of
reciprocity (not at all the same as analogy since it only
considers the actual system in question.) If you missed it,
I'll be happy to repeat it.

Didn't I explain what a linear system is in a prior post?

** No interest to me or anyone else what YOU decide the laws of nature
are.

Ummm, don't know what to say to that. It's not just what I
believe, it is the agreed definition within the entire field
of linear systems. It's in lotsa books, textbooks.

Nothing that produces "frequencies" that aren't in what's
driving it is linear.

** Pure gobbledegook.

Pure and unadulterated truth, like it or not.


Try defining your terms in a consistent and familiar manner.

Try doing some study so I don't have to hand feed you the
fundamentals and then argue with you about them.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Chris Hornbeck wrote:


Exactly right. I think what's confusing about FM is that it
*doesn't* require a "non-linear" (in the usual common useage)
term. No kinks or bends in the in-vs-out curve.

It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM!

Chris, you've said this a couple of times. Which of the
references, that I haven't yet looked at, analyzes it in
those terms?


Bo
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Chris Hornbeck wrote:


Exactly right. I think what's confusing about FM is that it
*doesn't* require a "non-linear" (in the usual common useage)
term. No kinks or bends in the in-vs-out curve.

It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM!

Chris, you've said this a couple of times. Which of the
references, that I haven't yet looked at, analyzes it in
those terms?


Bo
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:56:22 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:


Yeah, I'm hoping for citations that provide a complete
theory for the effect from which the result of any driving
point velocity or pressure can be predicted. There is no
good reason why this doesn't exist except possibly for one.

I'm puzzled why you're unconvinced by an argument from
Terman, rotating vectors and such like. Doesn't the diaphragm
itself contain enough information (for a fixed listener?)

As I said in another post, I have missed that reference.
Could you give it again, please.

Everything is really subjective to this point without the
requisite separation of variables.

So, ignoring the side arguments of audibility and testing
procedures, is your quest located at the diaphragm-air
translation?

Precisely. I seek a general theory of what happens there
and how it results in the propegation of a sound wave. I
think it's simple and we already have it. I've stated it
(again today in response to George Perfect in Mike Rivers'
Doppler thread) but it doesn't admit of anything like
"Doppler distortion."


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:56:22 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:


Yeah, I'm hoping for citations that provide a complete
theory for the effect from which the result of any driving
point velocity or pressure can be predicted. There is no
good reason why this doesn't exist except possibly for one.

I'm puzzled why you're unconvinced by an argument from
Terman, rotating vectors and such like. Doesn't the diaphragm
itself contain enough information (for a fixed listener?)

As I said in another post, I have missed that reference.
Could you give it again, please.

Everything is really subjective to this point without the
requisite separation of variables.

So, ignoring the side arguments of audibility and testing
procedures, is your quest located at the diaphragm-air
translation?

Precisely. I seek a general theory of what happens there
and how it results in the propegation of a sound wave. I
think it's simple and we already have it. I've stated it
(again today in response to George Perfect in Mike Rivers'
Doppler thread) but it doesn't admit of anything like
"Doppler distortion."


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote:

Precisely. I seek a general theory of what happens there
and how it results in the propegation of a sound wave. I
think it's simple and we already have it.

For the most part we have a pretty good notion. There are some boundary
areas with the very small objects that are a little doubtful (and Juha
Backman's paper on compression-induced distortion effects in microphones
is an example), but wave propagation was pretty well-explored by the
last turn of the century.

I've stated it
(again today in response to George Perfect in Mike Rivers'
Doppler thread) but it doesn't admit of anything like
"Doppler distortion."

The Doppler issue isn't one of wave propagation at all, it's an issue
that results from the breakdown of reciprocity, where the motion of the
speaker to produce a given wave in air is different than the motion of
the microphone diaphragm that picked it up.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Bob Cain wrote:

Precisely. I seek a general theory of what happens there
and how it results in the propegation of a sound wave. I
think it's simple and we already have it.

For the most part we have a pretty good notion. There are some boundary
areas with the very small objects that are a little doubtful (and Juha
Backman's paper on compression-induced distortion effects in microphones
is an example), but wave propagation was pretty well-explored by the
last turn of the century.

I've stated it
(again today in response to George Perfect in Mike Rivers'
Doppler thread) but it doesn't admit of anything like
"Doppler distortion."

The Doppler issue isn't one of wave propagation at all, it's an issue
that results from the breakdown of reciprocity, where the motion of the
speaker to produce a given wave in air is different than the motion of
the microphone diaphragm that picked it up.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:13:42 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

Yes, it is. Ask Dr. Hill.

Don't know him. Did he write the working principle up?

He means Dr. ** Hill. He's got a daytime TV show that probably
gets around to the topic sometimes.

Chris Hornbeck

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:13:42 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

Yes, it is. Ask Dr. Hill.

Don't know him. Did he write the working principle up?

He means Dr. ** Hill. He's got a daytime TV show that probably
gets around to the topic sometimes.

Chris Hornbeck

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:30:08 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM!

Chris, you've said this a couple of times. Which of the
references, that I haven't yet looked at, analyzes it in
those terms?

My Kyper _FM Simplified_ is out on loan, but should be back soon,
and I can give you a better pointer.

But for a heavy math guy like you, the Terman-level description
might be even better. His 1947 3rd ed. of _Radio Engineering_
chapter 9 section 5 has two equations applicable:

9.6 gives a description of instantaneous amplitude of a wave as
a function of angular velocities and frequencies, and

9.9 gives the Bessel function of the first kind expansion for the
sum of the two angles.

Chris Hornbeck

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:30:08 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

It's constructed completely out of rotating vectors. PFM!

Chris, you've said this a couple of times. Which of the
references, that I haven't yet looked at, analyzes it in
those terms?

My Kyper _FM Simplified_ is out on loan, but should be back soon,
and I can give you a better pointer.

But for a heavy math guy like you, the Terman-level description
might be even better. His 1947 3rd ed. of _Radio Engineering_
chapter 9 section 5 has two equations applicable:

9.6 gives a description of instantaneous amplitude of a wave as
a function of angular velocities and frequencies, and

9.9 gives the Bessel function of the first kind expansion for the
sum of the two angles.

Chris Hornbeck

"Bob Cain"
Phil Allison wrote:

Ok. The false assumption is that the pressure wave created
by a piston is proportional to its acceleration. It isn't;
it's proprotional to the piston velocity.

** You have evidence ????

Better than that, I have a proof by the principle of
reciprocity (not at all the same as analogy since it only
considers the actual system in question.) If you missed it,
I'll be happy to repeat it.


** You have no proof - only your own a mad ideas.

Speaker cones reach their greatest velicities at low frequencies and large
excursions while making the same SPL as at higher frequencies with lower
velocities.


** Dunno what you are on about - Doppler is a linear phenomenon, not
some kind of distortion product. It is simply the result of a moving source
creating longer or shorter wavelengths in the air than it would if
stationery.


Didn't I explain what a linear system is in a prior post?

** No interest to me or anyone else what YOU decide the laws of
nature
are.

Ummm, don't know what to say to that. It's not just what I
believe, it is the agreed definition within the entire field
of linear systems. It's in lotsa books, textbooks.


** You are seriously misquoting them.


Nothing that produces "frequencies" that aren't in what's
driving it is linear.

** Pure gobbledegook.

Pure and unadulterated truth, like it or not.


** Proof by wild assertion saves much time - shame it is worthess.



.............. Phil

"Bob Cain"
Phil Allison wrote:

Ok. The false assumption is that the pressure wave created
by a piston is proportional to its acceleration. It isn't;
it's proprotional to the piston velocity.

** You have evidence ????

Better than that, I have a proof by the principle of
reciprocity (not at all the same as analogy since it only
considers the actual system in question.) If you missed it,
I'll be happy to repeat it.


** You have no proof - only your own a mad ideas.

Speaker cones reach their greatest velicities at low frequencies and large
excursions while making the same SPL as at higher frequencies with lower
velocities.


** Dunno what you are on about - Doppler is a linear phenomenon, not
some kind of distortion product. It is simply the result of a moving source
creating longer or shorter wavelengths in the air than it would if
stationery.


Didn't I explain what a linear system is in a prior post?

** No interest to me or anyone else what YOU decide the laws of
nature
are.

Ummm, don't know what to say to that. It's not just what I
believe, it is the agreed definition within the entire field
of linear systems. It's in lotsa books, textbooks.


** You are seriously misquoting them.


Nothing that produces "frequencies" that aren't in what's
driving it is linear.

** Pure gobbledegook.

Pure and unadulterated truth, like it or not.


** Proof by wild assertion saves much time - shame it is worthess.



.............. Phil