Peter Larsen wrote in message ...

snip

ionophone design

snip

Where can I find ionophones?

Peter Larsen wrote in message ...

snip

ionophone design

snip

Where can I find ionophones?

Peter Larsen wrote in message ...

snip

ionophone design

snip

Where can I find ionophones?

Peter Larsen wrote in message ...

snip

ionophone design

snip

Where can I find ionophones?

Curious wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote in message ...

snip

ionophone design

snip

Where can I find ionophones?

You can't. Someone seems to reinvent them every 12 years and promptly go
bankrupt. The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen



--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Curious wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote in message ...

snip

ionophone design

snip

Where can I find ionophones?

You can't. Someone seems to reinvent them every 12 years and promptly go
bankrupt. The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen



--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Curious wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote in message ...

snip

ionophone design

snip

Where can I find ionophones?

You can't. Someone seems to reinvent them every 12 years and promptly go
bankrupt. The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen



--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Curious wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote in message ...

snip

ionophone design

snip

Where can I find ionophones?

You can't. Someone seems to reinvent them every 12 years and promptly go
bankrupt. The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen



--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Peter Larsen wrote in message ...
The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

Peter Larsen wrote in message ...
The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

Peter Larsen wrote in message ...
The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

Peter Larsen wrote in message ...
The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

I smell the troll of RADIUM!!!!


(Lover of SB16's FM synth) wrote in message . com...
Peter Larsen wrote in message ...
The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

I smell the troll of RADIUM!!!!


(Lover of SB16's FM synth) wrote in message . com...
Peter Larsen wrote in message ...
The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

I smell the troll of RADIUM!!!!


(Lover of SB16's FM synth) wrote in message . com...
Peter Larsen wrote in message ...
The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

I smell the troll of RADIUM!!!!


(Lover of SB16's FM synth) wrote in message . com...
Peter Larsen wrote in message ...
The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

Electromagnet wrote:

[probably quoting radium troll]

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

No. Read up on the ionophone prior to asking how to circumvent what
makes it fail miserably in the marketplace.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Electromagnet wrote:

[probably quoting radium troll]

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

No. Read up on the ionophone prior to asking how to circumvent what
makes it fail miserably in the marketplace.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Electromagnet wrote:

[probably quoting radium troll]

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

No. Read up on the ionophone prior to asking how to circumvent what
makes it fail miserably in the marketplace.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Electromagnet wrote:

[probably quoting radium troll]

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

No. Read up on the ionophone prior to asking how to circumvent what
makes it fail miserably in the marketplace.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

(Lover of SB16's FM synth) wrote in message . com...
Peter Larsen wrote in message ...
The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

No, it won't. The point to the device is to use ionized
air. ANY method that ionizes the air WILL have the ozone
problem. It doesn't make any difference whether it's an arc
discharge or a laser or a nuclear bomb: once the oxygen is
disassociated and ionized, by ANY means, it is available to
recombine as o3 (ozone).

Further, an IR laser won't do it. You need something of sufficient
energy, and something of IR wavelengths is somy not energetic
enough (even a megawatt IR laser won't do: it's an issue of wavelength,
not intensity).

Beyond that, the "legendary" response virtues of the ionophone
are just that: legend. The devcie, by itself is NOT a "massless"
driver, thus cannot have the transient response claimed (but never
demonstrated, by the way). Secondly, the upper limit of response
of the actual ionized region itself is limited by the physical size
the region ionized and modulated: the larger the area (necessary
to get ANY kind of efficiency out of it), the lower the high-frequency
cutoff: you're limited by the acoustical propogation speed over the
region.

Third, to get ANY kind of efficiency out of it, you're required to
horn load the beast, and that horn (notably, throat dimensions)
pretty much trashes ANY transient advantages (again, unsubstantiated)
that the device may have had to begin with.

It's a cool science project that is utterly unsuited to the task
of broad-band high frequency reproduction. The ACTUAL measured
performance of the devices is, at best, boringly ordinary.

(Lover of SB16's FM synth) wrote in message . com...
Peter Larsen wrote in message ...
The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

No, it won't. The point to the device is to use ionized
air. ANY method that ionizes the air WILL have the ozone
problem. It doesn't make any difference whether it's an arc
discharge or a laser or a nuclear bomb: once the oxygen is
disassociated and ionized, by ANY means, it is available to
recombine as o3 (ozone).

Further, an IR laser won't do it. You need something of sufficient
energy, and something of IR wavelengths is somy not energetic
enough (even a megawatt IR laser won't do: it's an issue of wavelength,
not intensity).

Beyond that, the "legendary" response virtues of the ionophone
are just that: legend. The devcie, by itself is NOT a "massless"
driver, thus cannot have the transient response claimed (but never
demonstrated, by the way). Secondly, the upper limit of response
of the actual ionized region itself is limited by the physical size
the region ionized and modulated: the larger the area (necessary
to get ANY kind of efficiency out of it), the lower the high-frequency
cutoff: you're limited by the acoustical propogation speed over the
region.

Third, to get ANY kind of efficiency out of it, you're required to
horn load the beast, and that horn (notably, throat dimensions)
pretty much trashes ANY transient advantages (again, unsubstantiated)
that the device may have had to begin with.

It's a cool science project that is utterly unsuited to the task
of broad-band high frequency reproduction. The ACTUAL measured
performance of the devices is, at best, boringly ordinary.

(Lover of SB16's FM synth) wrote in message . com...
Peter Larsen wrote in message ...
The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

No, it won't. The point to the device is to use ionized
air. ANY method that ionizes the air WILL have the ozone
problem. It doesn't make any difference whether it's an arc
discharge or a laser or a nuclear bomb: once the oxygen is
disassociated and ionized, by ANY means, it is available to
recombine as o3 (ozone).

Further, an IR laser won't do it. You need something of sufficient
energy, and something of IR wavelengths is somy not energetic
enough (even a megawatt IR laser won't do: it's an issue of wavelength,
not intensity).

Beyond that, the "legendary" response virtues of the ionophone
are just that: legend. The devcie, by itself is NOT a "massless"
driver, thus cannot have the transient response claimed (but never
demonstrated, by the way). Secondly, the upper limit of response
of the actual ionized region itself is limited by the physical size
the region ionized and modulated: the larger the area (necessary
to get ANY kind of efficiency out of it), the lower the high-frequency
cutoff: you're limited by the acoustical propogation speed over the
region.

Third, to get ANY kind of efficiency out of it, you're required to
horn load the beast, and that horn (notably, throat dimensions)
pretty much trashes ANY transient advantages (again, unsubstantiated)
that the device may have had to begin with.

It's a cool science project that is utterly unsuited to the task
of broad-band high frequency reproduction. The ACTUAL measured
performance of the devices is, at best, boringly ordinary.

(Lover of SB16's FM synth) wrote in message . com...
Peter Larsen wrote in message ...
The idea is interesting but has all kinds of practical
problems, including usually some aspect of ozone related health hazard.

Then why can't they use IR lasers to heat the air and produce sound?
This would kill the ozone problem.

No, it won't. The point to the device is to use ionized
air. ANY method that ionizes the air WILL have the ozone
problem. It doesn't make any difference whether it's an arc
discharge or a laser or a nuclear bomb: once the oxygen is
disassociated and ionized, by ANY means, it is available to
recombine as o3 (ozone).

Further, an IR laser won't do it. You need something of sufficient
energy, and something of IR wavelengths is somy not energetic
enough (even a megawatt IR laser won't do: it's an issue of wavelength,
not intensity).

Beyond that, the "legendary" response virtues of the ionophone
are just that: legend. The devcie, by itself is NOT a "massless"
driver, thus cannot have the transient response claimed (but never
demonstrated, by the way). Secondly, the upper limit of response
of the actual ionized region itself is limited by the physical size
the region ionized and modulated: the larger the area (necessary
to get ANY kind of efficiency out of it), the lower the high-frequency
cutoff: you're limited by the acoustical propogation speed over the
region.

Third, to get ANY kind of efficiency out of it, you're required to
horn load the beast, and that horn (notably, throat dimensions)
pretty much trashes ANY transient advantages (again, unsubstantiated)
that the device may have had to begin with.

It's a cool science project that is utterly unsuited to the task
of broad-band high frequency reproduction. The ACTUAL measured
performance of the devices is, at best, boringly ordinary.

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message . com...
Further, an IR laser won't do it. You need something of sufficient
energy, and something of IR wavelengths is somy not energetic
enough (even a megawatt IR laser won't do: it's an issue of wavelength,
not intensity).

Oh. I thought any thermal expansion and contraction of the air would
do the job.
IR heats the air and the "speaker" could rely on that heat to expand
the air and subsequently contract it thus producing sound waves.
Right?

BTW Would 340 nm light have enough energy for this?

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message . com...
Further, an IR laser won't do it. You need something of sufficient
energy, and something of IR wavelengths is somy not energetic
enough (even a megawatt IR laser won't do: it's an issue of wavelength,
not intensity).

Oh. I thought any thermal expansion and contraction of the air would
do the job.
IR heats the air and the "speaker" could rely on that heat to expand
the air and subsequently contract it thus producing sound waves.
Right?

BTW Would 340 nm light have enough energy for this?

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message . com...
Further, an IR laser won't do it. You need something of sufficient
energy, and something of IR wavelengths is somy not energetic
enough (even a megawatt IR laser won't do: it's an issue of wavelength,
not intensity).

Oh. I thought any thermal expansion and contraction of the air would
do the job.
IR heats the air and the "speaker" could rely on that heat to expand
the air and subsequently contract it thus producing sound waves.
Right?

BTW Would 340 nm light have enough energy for this?

(Curious) wrote in message . com...
(Dick Pierce) wrote in message . com...
Further, an IR laser won't do it. You need something of sufficient
energy, and something of IR wavelengths is somy not energetic
enough (even a megawatt IR laser won't do: it's an issue of wavelength,
not intensity).

Oh. I thought any thermal expansion and contraction of the air would
do the job.

And precisely why is the air going to expand and contract? What do
we think the absorbtion of air is at these sorts of wavelengths
over a region small enough to make high-frequency output possible.
If you're talking 20 kHz, you better have pretty much all of your
work don in a region that's smaller than 1/2". How are you going to
make the air contract below ambient atmospheric pressure, which is
trivially done with ordinary, mundane mechanical means?

IR heats the air and the "speaker" could rely on that heat to expand
the air and subsequently contract it thus producing sound waves.
Right?

In the near infrared, the air is pretty much transparent. And
certainly, over a region extending 1/2" it's VERY transparent.
So no power is going to be transferred to the air.

BTW Would 340 nm light have enough energy for this?

340 nm is approaching ultraviolet. Where are you going to get
a source of that wavelength of sufficient power? What's the
absorbtion of air over 1/2"?

Precisely WHAT problem are you trying to solve? If it's high-amplitude
linear REproduction of high-frequency acoustical energy in a highly
linear fashion such that it can be used as a transducer covering a fairly
wide bandwidth, all this nonsense about ionophones and IR heating
of the air is a really bad idea.

(Curious) wrote in message . com...
(Dick Pierce) wrote in message . com...
Further, an IR laser won't do it. You need something of sufficient
energy, and something of IR wavelengths is somy not energetic
enough (even a megawatt IR laser won't do: it's an issue of wavelength,
not intensity).

Oh. I thought any thermal expansion and contraction of the air would
do the job.

And precisely why is the air going to expand and contract? What do
we think the absorbtion of air is at these sorts of wavelengths
over a region small enough to make high-frequency output possible.
If you're talking 20 kHz, you better have pretty much all of your
work don in a region that's smaller than 1/2". How are you going to
make the air contract below ambient atmospheric pressure, which is
trivially done with ordinary, mundane mechanical means?

IR heats the air and the "speaker" could rely on that heat to expand
the air and subsequently contract it thus producing sound waves.
Right?

In the near infrared, the air is pretty much transparent. And
certainly, over a region extending 1/2" it's VERY transparent.
So no power is going to be transferred to the air.

BTW Would 340 nm light have enough energy for this?

340 nm is approaching ultraviolet. Where are you going to get
a source of that wavelength of sufficient power? What's the
absorbtion of air over 1/2"?

Precisely WHAT problem are you trying to solve? If it's high-amplitude
linear REproduction of high-frequency acoustical energy in a highly
linear fashion such that it can be used as a transducer covering a fairly
wide bandwidth, all this nonsense about ionophones and IR heating
of the air is a really bad idea.

(Curious) wrote in message . com...
(Dick Pierce) wrote in message . com...
Further, an IR laser won't do it. You need something of sufficient
energy, and something of IR wavelengths is somy not energetic
enough (even a megawatt IR laser won't do: it's an issue of wavelength,
not intensity).

Oh. I thought any thermal expansion and contraction of the air would
do the job.

And precisely why is the air going to expand and contract? What do
we think the absorbtion of air is at these sorts of wavelengths
over a region small enough to make high-frequency output possible.
If you're talking 20 kHz, you better have pretty much all of your
work don in a region that's smaller than 1/2". How are you going to
make the air contract below ambient atmospheric pressure, which is
trivially done with ordinary, mundane mechanical means?

IR heats the air and the "speaker" could rely on that heat to expand
the air and subsequently contract it thus producing sound waves.
Right?

In the near infrared, the air is pretty much transparent. And
certainly, over a region extending 1/2" it's VERY transparent.
So no power is going to be transferred to the air.

BTW Would 340 nm light have enough energy for this?

340 nm is approaching ultraviolet. Where are you going to get
a source of that wavelength of sufficient power? What's the
absorbtion of air over 1/2"?

Precisely WHAT problem are you trying to solve? If it's high-amplitude
linear REproduction of high-frequency acoustical energy in a highly
linear fashion such that it can be used as a transducer covering a fairly
wide bandwidth, all this nonsense about ionophones and IR heating
of the air is a really bad idea.

Dick Pierce wrote:

In the near infrared, the air is pretty much transparent. And
certainly, over a region extending 1/2" it's VERY transparent.
So no power is going to be transferred to the air.

And even if there was there is the issue of cooling it fast enough for
it to contract as suggested by our questionee who has a remarkable
resemblance to radium's style. If nothing else breaks the concept, this
does. It is of course most interesting to read all the other ways it
also breaks in, thank you for carefully explaining this.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Dick Pierce wrote:

In the near infrared, the air is pretty much transparent. And
certainly, over a region extending 1/2" it's VERY transparent.
So no power is going to be transferred to the air.

And even if there was there is the issue of cooling it fast enough for
it to contract as suggested by our questionee who has a remarkable
resemblance to radium's style. If nothing else breaks the concept, this
does. It is of course most interesting to read all the other ways it
also breaks in, thank you for carefully explaining this.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Dick Pierce wrote:

In the near infrared, the air is pretty much transparent. And
certainly, over a region extending 1/2" it's VERY transparent.
So no power is going to be transferred to the air.

And even if there was there is the issue of cooling it fast enough for
it to contract as suggested by our questionee who has a remarkable
resemblance to radium's style. If nothing else breaks the concept, this
does. It is of course most interesting to read all the other ways it
also breaks in, thank you for carefully explaining this.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************