"Musical", high-voltage, low-amperage sparks.

Hi:

I wonder if a diaphragm-less loudspeaker could use a mechanism similar
to a stun gun. The spark from a stun gun does not produce any
perceptible heat in close proximity because -- despite being a 100,000
volts -- the power is not enough to raise temperature sufficiently to
burn the skin.

That being said, the stun gun does make sound when it sparks. I assume
that an equipment similar to the stun gun could be engineered so that
it could produce sparks that would cause the intended sound [e.g.
speech or music]. The sparks can be modulated by the audio signal,
thereby reproducing the sound.

If an high-voltage, low-amperage electric current of 1,000 Hz frequency
is passed through air, a 1,000 Hz tone will result.

In my previous post, I was erroneously reffering to this type of
speaker as "plasma". I am now aware that the speaker I am describing is
not "plasma" because it does not use the high-power required to produce
plasma. Rather it uses high-voltage, low amperage "lightning" to
reproduce sound within the air itself. The frequency and wattage of the
electric current passing through the air is determined by the frequency
and ampitude of the audio signal.

Potential advantages, I can see, are higher-frequency response and
greater tolerance for loud volumes and clipping that would rupture or
burn speakers with diaphargms. This loudspeaker I am describing also
has advantages over actual plasma speakers [e.g. ionophone].

For example, this loudspeaker:

1. Does not produce ozone
2. Does not require ionizations of gases
3. Does not require a supply of its own gas [e.g. helium required by
plasma speaker]
4. Does not require drastic changes in temperature to produce sound
5. Does not consume large amount of power like plasma speakers do


Thanks,

Radium

 

You have absolutely no clue as to how any of this works, do you?

You can't create intelligible audio through sparks; the sound you
hear from a spark is essentially a miniature version of thunder, the
audible result of the air being ionized ("blowing up," in crude terms)
in the spark's path. Further, producing a continuous stream of
sparks at any significant power level has the most definitely
unwanted side effect of generating TONS of radio-frequency
interference; go look up "spark transmitter" to begin to gather the
semblance of a clue.

Tell you what - you try that and let us know how it sounds.

Wrong on both counts. What do you think a visible
spark IS, if not the result of the ionization of gasses?

I was wondering when you'd be "gracing" us with
another inane question. Too bad it wasn't a much, much
longer wait.

Bob M.

 

Ditto.

 

double-ditto

(I gotta give 'im credit, though - At first glance, he seems to be
posing quasi-sane questions. It isn't until you "start paying attention"
that the sanity-meter cringes and falls unconcious.)

 

You don't really need to pay attention. Just do a quick Google search and
you will quickly find that Radium is a well-recognized troll in numerous
usenet newsgroups.