Golden Audio correspondance.

[Mojo]

But, if you do drive the tweeters with an appropriate amount of power up around 1 GHz- how can you possibly determine whether they are radiating sound, i.e., acoustic energy, at that frequency when there is no Earthly instrument capable of detecting it?

"Sound" is pretty much defined as pressure waves in air (or a comparable gas). With increasing frequency, does it reach a point at which it is impossible for the air molecules to move fast enough to propagate the wave?

 

[Ducky]

"Sound" is pretty much defined as pressure waves in air (or a comparable gas). With increasing frequency, does it reach a point at which it is impossible for the air molecules to move fast enough to propagate the wave?

Well technically it's not an accoustic sound at all at that frequency. Anything generating a signal at that frequency by definition is broadcasting. I agree you can't measure accoustic air pressure at that wavelength, but technically it's a radio emission. Saturn is putting them out naturally, as noted by the recordings on the NASA website, but to hear it they transposed it down 44 times to become audible.

So I return to my original conclusion, this HAS to be broadcasting radio waves by definition.

Though I suspect it doesn't actually do anything unless it's a device to transpose audio signals into gHz and broadcasting them.

 

[scotth]

Well technically it's not an accoustic sound at all at that frequency. Anything generating a signal at that frequency by definition is broadcasting. I agree you can't measure accoustic air pressure at that wavelength, but technically it's a radio emission. Saturn is putting them out naturally, as noted by the recordings on the NASA website, but to hear it they transposed it down 44 times to become audible.

So I return to my original conclusion, this HAS to be broadcasting radio waves by definition.

Though I suspect it doesn't actually do anything unless it's a device to transpose audio signals into gHz and broadcasting them.

Regardless of the freqency, it has to be and EM wave to be a radio broadcast.

If it is a mechanical vibration, it is sound rather than radio waves.

Ultrasound machines use sound in the multi MHz range, for example

Having said all that, it is unlikely in the extreme that their device mechanically vibrates in the GHz range. But, I cannot rule it out.

 

[CaveDave]

AAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EDdamnit, there is STILL confusion rampant on this thread!

Electromagnetic radiation and sonic radiation are NOT the same phenomena!

It doesn't matter the frequency, it's apples versus pomegranites!

Pay attention:

Regardless of the freqency, it has to be and EM wave to be a radio broadcast.

If it is a mechanical vibration, it is sound rather than radio waves.

Ultrasound machines use sound in the multi MHz range, for example

Having said all that, it is unlikely in the extreme that their device mechanically vibrates in the GHz range. But, I cannot rule it out.

Sonic waves (phonons) can (theoretically) exist from zero Hertz up to infinite Hertz.

Electromagnetic waves (or photons) can (theoretically) exist from zero Hertz up to infinite Hertz.

These are only comparable in a limited way as they both are waves and follow certain rules for wave propagation.

Amplifiers don't care what the usage (radiator) will be, nor do transmission lines, just the bandpass function and linearity matter. Radio and audio are THE SAME according to the same frequency.

You might call GHz SONIC waves "microwaves" since they would have extremely small wavelengths, but they WOULD NOT affect an all band receiver except to VIBRATE it.

These "speakers" are almost certainly bunk since sonic waves at these frequencies probably don't travel more than fractional inches in air at STP, and "audio" amps and sources don't output anything in this range.

Several posters have made these points in various ways, and yet the confusion continues!

Please STOP THE MADNESS!


Dave

 

[Jyera]

I understand Fowlsound as saying ...

Broadcast of Signal is regulated.

Thus it is about Signal Broadcast, not specifically EM (electromagnetic) broadcast.

While Radio Broadcast usually means EM Radio Wave Broadcast.
However Radio could also imply "Radio Programming".

Would you call a box, sitting on your desktop that looks like a FM Radio, and is "outputing" "Radio-like" BBC news, but uses sonic waves to receive digital data from a sonic broadcasting station, a Radio? Man on the street would call it Radio.

Internet Radio Station do not use Radio wave.
But certainly qualify as content broadcast.
To be able to use sonic waves to do broadcast would certainly benefit from regulation to prevent conflict. or if it is used by the spy to do sonic data transmission, I bet there would be reason to impose some restriction to creating a receiver or transmitter.

Is export of Military Sonar is restricted?

Coming back to topic, if it is about Broadcast Regulation. Checking the regulation should solve this.

 

[scotth]

AAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EDdamnit, there is STILL confusion rampant on this thread!

Electromagnetic radiation and sonic radiation are NOT the same phenomena!
Dave

That is EXACTLY what I said if you read my post a little more carefully.

Sound is mechanical vibrations, radio wave (light) is EM vibration and it doesn't matter one lick what the frequency is, they aren't the same.

So, the FCC should not care one bit about 1GHz sonic vibrations as they don't regulate sound wave, only radio waves.

 

[Paulhoff]

The problem is that the speakers are BS, do not work, period, and we are writing about them and getting upset. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it.

Paul

 

[scotth]

The problem is that the speakers are BS, do not work, period, and we are writing about them and getting upset. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it.

Paul

Can't argue with that. The are certainly BS, and do not work.

Even if they did what they said, it wouldn't make any difference that could be heard and might even be dangerous.

 

[CaveDave]

That is EXACTLY what I said if you read my post a little more carefully.

Sound is mechanical vibrations, radio wave (light) is EM vibration and it doesn't matter one lick what the frequency is, they aren't the same.

So, the FCC should not care one bit about 1GHz sonic vibrations as they don't regulate sound wave, only radio waves.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was quoting you to emphasize your post as an example of those who had tried to correct the confusion, hence the "pay attention" preceding your quote. (I was trying to tell some of the others to pay attention, if not to me, then to you and certain others who have it right)

If there is any doubt that these posts (mine, yours, and others) have fallen on deaf ears, inspect this post:

Thus it is about Signal Broadcast, not specifically EM (electromagnetic) broadcast.

While Radio Broadcast usually means EM Radio Wave Broadcast.
However Radio could also imply "Radio Programming".

Would you call a box, sitting on your desktop that looks like a FM Radio, and is "outputing" "Radio-like" BBC news, but uses sonic waves to receive digital data from a sonic broadcasting station, a Radio? Man on the street would call it Radio.

Internet Radio Station do not use Radio wave.
But certainly qualify as content broadcast.
To be able to use sonic waves to do broadcast would certainly benefit from regulation to prevent conflict. or if it is used by the spy to do sonic data transmission, I bet there would be reason to impose some restriction to creating a receiver or transmitter.

I find it absolutely unbelievable how many falsehoods those few lines contain.

If I am upset at all, it is over the fact that even with repeated corrections of misunderstandings of physical facts, some posters STILL confuse EM and sonic (mechanical) waves.

Dave

 

[scotth]

Sorry CaveDave... yup, I totally missed your intent.

I thought you were holding me up in disagreement. I was scratching my head thinking, "What, we are saying almost exactly the same."

We're on the same page, now.

 

[Ducky]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was quoting you to emphasize your post as an example of those who had tried to correct the confusion, hence the "pay attention" preceding your quote. (I was trying to tell some of the others to pay attention, if not to me, then to you and certain others who have it right)

If there is any doubt that these posts (mine, yours, and others) have fallen on deaf ears, inspect this post:


I find it absolutely unbelievable how many falsehoods those few lines contain.

If I am upset at all, it is over the fact that even with repeated corrections of misunderstandings of physical facts, some posters STILL confuse EM and sonic (mechanical) waves.

Dave

Thank you for the correction. To be clear I was assuming that these were emitting EM (thus broadcasting) because it would be the only way these actually did anything of value toward supporting their claims. I realise that was a wrong assumption to have.

How then would we go about testing this device? A blinded listening test would only bring the "Your hearing is fallable" argument, so having specific evidence would be the goal.

 

[Ducky]

browser freak out. dup post.

 

[scotth]

Thank you for the correction. To be clear I was assuming that these were emitting EM (thus broadcasting) because it would be the only way these actually did anything of value toward supporting their claims. I realise that was a wrong assumption to have.

How then would we go about testing this device? A blinded listening test would only bring the "Your hearing is fallable" argument, so having specific evidence would be the goal.

Well, their stated theory of operation is obviously a steaming pant load.

But,

With Ultra Tweeters installed, the audio system produces a wider frequency bandwidth, lower noise floor, more "air," and lower distortion.

, is clearly a testable statement.

All of these parameters are easily measurable with test equipment, except "air". If it fails to improve those measurements, it is a demonstratable rip-off.

 

[Paulhoff]

Check Randi's home page.

http://www.randi.org/jr/081205another.html

The Tweeter is in the this weeks Commentary

Paul