Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 49

Thread: Scalar Technology

  1. #16
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Ok I'll share, skip to bottom of posting if you want to get to the good stuff fast.

    Quote Originally posted by Barbarella View Post
    Thanks for the vote of confidence.

    It probably goes against the grain here, but as far as I'm concerned, scalar waves don't exist outside the internet! I know there are pages and pages out there describing what they are supposed to do, using convincing scientific terms, throwing in real well-known scientific giants like Maxwell and Tesla. And although my background has been boringly conventional regarding the use of radio waves, I have never seen a proper, peer-reviewed paper on the generation and use of scalar waves, let alone how they are detected.
    If you do find such a paper, do share it.

    Peer-review processes can sometimes filter out papers that are perfectly valid because they happen to be found disagreeable by the "priesthood" tasked with deciding which papers to publish. That is a valid reason to be careful with conventional "science".

    Quote Originally posted by Barbarella View Post
    That's not to say there is no unknown physics to be discovered - of course there is - but the term "scalar" is used all over these sites without any accurate definition. One minute they appear to be are referring the AC discoveries of Tesla, the next it's some vague connection with zero-point energy - which. incidentally, hasn't been confirmed beyond doubt yet.

    If you google "scalar wave detection" it returns just magnetic field or radio-wave detectors. "Scalar wave generators" returns the same sort of stuff, including Tesla coil experiments.

    BTW, Tesla was a genius, but his Tesla coil invention is only a high-voltage AC transformer. They are real and there are many amateur hobbyists who make very impressive ones - they can be modulated with music! Very impressive but not a scalar wave in sight - well there wouldn't be would there!
    So indeed it may be a high-voltage AC transformer. The music modulation is done by transforming a signal with "unconventional" input frequencies. The standard 60hz (or 50hz for others outside the US) is a base frequency that happens to industry standards.

    Tesla's interesting application of the tesla coils may be using a specific frequency tuned to "one or more natural earth vibrations". After you watch about 5 minutes of the material I share below perhaps it may become clear why his invention is not merely an "AC transformer".
    Quote Originally posted by Barbarella View Post
    Sorry to be such a wet blanket, but unless someone can point me towards a respectable scientific paper describing scalar waves, I'm inclined to say it's just all woo-wwo. If such things existed they really would be very widely used.

    Babs


    Aragorn, this is a link with that t parameter queued to exactly where I think the video is important in this thread... That is why I am not using the video tool here.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtAQdxowpYA&t=35m33s


    Dreamtimer shared another very interesting link in reply to this in another thread.

    PS

    The introduction lasts about 5 minutes or so... Harald Krautz Vella explains it so well IMO.
    Last edited by lcam88, 1st February 2016 at 16:31. Reason: Post Script

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st February 2016), Dreamtimer (1st February 2016), Elen (1st February 2016)

  3. #17
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,241
    Thanks
    88,440
    Thanked 80,969 Times in 20,255 Posts

    Cool

    Color emphasis mine...

    Quote Originally posted by Barbarella View Post
    It probably goes against the grain here, but as far as I'm concerned, scalar waves don't exist outside the internet!
    Nope.







    Kerry Cassidy and Project Camelot are that way...



    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Barbarella (1st February 2016), Dreamtimer (1st February 2016), Elen (1st February 2016), lcam88 (1st February 2016)

  5. #18
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    One more link, where Mr Vella goes into the construction of a scalar wave, a HowTo or introduction into the concept of things scalar.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtAQdxowpYA&t=29m53s

    PS the host who is questioning Mr Vella really doesn't do the man justice!
    Last edited by lcam88, 1st February 2016 at 17:05. Reason: clarifications

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st February 2016), Dreamtimer (1st February 2016), Elen (1st February 2016)

  7. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    19th March 2015
    Posts
    131
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 589 Times in 129 Posts
    Thanks for the videos. I watched from your time settings. Well maybe Mr Vella is a genius, or maybe bull s**t baffles brains. I couldn't make any sense of it.

    "The vibration of the field is a sine [wave] is at right-angles to propagation" What? Does he mean the E field or the H field which are at 90 degrees to each other? He's right about two EM waves in anti-phase to each other do cancel out. But that's it. There is nothing left, despite what he says, unless he can measure it for us. To extend his description logically, two waves in-phase do add to each other, but nothing more.

    I don't know what kind of music studio he's worked in, but I wish he'd explained more about his little box that removes all acoustic resonance. He could make a fortune!

    Then came mention of free energy, though it doesn't look like he's cracked it. Enough I think. Sorry.

    The brave interviewer tried his best to get to the 'facts', but he was obviously out of his depth.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Barbarella For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st February 2016), Dreamtimer (1st February 2016), Elen (1st February 2016)

  9. #20
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Fair enough. In reference to the only questions you actually asked above, quoted...

    Quote Originally posted by Barbarella
    "The vibration of the field is a sine [wave] is at right-angles to propagation" What? Does he mean the E field or the H field which are at 90 degrees to each other?
    Why should it matter whether we specify the E field or the H field? (I presume that the H field is a magnetic component)

    Did you consider "The vibration of the field" may have meant to be expressed as "The amplitude of the field" in the quote you reference? Could that better satisfy the idea being conveyed?

    Could you agree that amplitude, as measured, is a component of a wave that is always perpendicular to propagation? Could you also agree that during cancelation events, where anti-phases cause cancelation, we specifically observe amplitude cancelation? Have you taken the time to observe that amplitude cancelation in nature, for example in water waves, does not [always] result in energy cancelation? Why should EM be different?

    Irony apart, Mr Vella is certainly not a genius, but he does strike me as quite a good observer. I don't know how you can tell he cares about that "fortune", at least notice enough fixation on fortune to make mention of it anyway. I thought he taking a dig at how scientific theory and well established acoustic practices are contradictory.
    Last edited by lcam88, 1st February 2016 at 18:41. Reason: double posting fixed & snip over-cooking

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st February 2016), Barbarella (1st February 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd February 2016), Elen (1st February 2016)

  11. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    19th March 2015
    Posts
    131
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 589 Times in 129 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Fair enough. In reference to the only questions you actually asked above, quoted...

    Why should it matter whether we specify the E field or the H field? (I presume that the H field is a magnetic component)

    Did you consider "The vibration of the field" may have meant to be expressed as "The amplitude of the field" in the quote you reference? Could that better satisfy the idea being conveyed?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Could you agree that amplitude, as measured, is a component of a wave that is always perpendicular to propagation? Could you also agree that during cancelation events, where anti-phases cause cancelation, we specifically observe amplitude cancelation? Have you taken the time to observe that amplitude cancelation in nature, for example in water waves, does not [always] result in energy cancelation? Why should EM be different?
    I have observed total cancellation of radio waves coming via different paths. When they cancel out completely, they cancel out completely. This can be observed, measured. Any residue means there is incomplete cancellation, because the phase relationship is not precise enough to cancel.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Irony apart, Mr Vella is certainly not a genius, but he does strike me as quite a good observer. I don't know how you can tell he cares about that "fortune", though, at least notice enough fixation on fortune to make mention of it anyway.

    I thought his comment was a dig at how things observed in acoustics contradicts scientific theory.
    Well if he can prove scientific theory is wrong, by demonstration, I'm sure the music industry will beat a path to his door. Removing all resonances in an acoustic sound studio is an expensive and time-consuming process.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    We at least are in agreement one one thing: BS does baffle brains.

    I get the feeling we are going to agree to disagree on most all else of this. <shrug/> Thanks anyway.

    But IF, by some off chance you are here to play let's try something slightly different.

    I think we will make the most progress, if you are really interested in such an idea, directly tackling what seems to be your pet peeve: Free energy.

    So you don't believe in free energy. What is wrong with the idea of solar energy or wind energy?
    I believe 'free energy' i.e. that which is obtainable outside the current understanding of physics, is very likely possible. Possibly already achieved but kept hidden for the time being for all the usual reasons. I just get peeved at claims of this free energy being obtained, but never actually demonstrated by people doing this. Would they like to borrow my husband's multimeter? From what I've seen most FE experimenters wouldn't even know how to use it properly or understand its limitations.

    OK, so main stream science pooh-poohs it. Just get some university to push past that and just do it. I knew students that would love prove their 'superiors' wrong! Let's not confuse "free energy" with so-called renewable energy. One is demonstrated to deliver the goods...

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    I don't think you will will disagree with the notion that those words are part of a strategy to discourage progress and/or original thinking by means of ridicule or ad hominem attacks to discredit whoever. That is the BS point that baffles the brain. Are you intact enough to move past it?

    Indeed solar energy can easily described as "free energy", just like anything else even more exotic, especially before solar panels where conceptualized.

    I mean how absurd!... Gathering energy from sunlight using such magic panels must be pure "fantasy". The catholic church had great qualms with an idea that the planet was indeed round... and that there may be a different center of the universe.

    Surely we are passed all of that now in the year 2016, right?
    This could be an interesting discussion...

    Babs

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Barbarella For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st February 2016), Elen (2nd February 2016), lcam88 (1st February 2016)

  13. #22
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,241
    Thanks
    88,440
    Thanked 80,969 Times in 20,255 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Barbarella View Post
    [...] He's right about two EM waves in anti-phase to each other do cancel out. But that's it. There is nothing left, despite what he says, unless he can measure it for us. To extend his description logically, two waves in-phase do add to each other, but nothing more. [...]
    That is correct. I am a musician. I play the electric guitar, which is an instrument that produces its electric sound by way of electromagnetic induction, and the electromagnetic transducers are commonly referred to as pickups. An electric guitar can have either one, two, three, or in some cases, even four pickups, commonly with a means to switch on the pickups either individually or in combinations — when pickups are selected together, it is usually per two, because with three or even four pickups sounding together, the sound tends to get a bit thick and muddy, although some guitars do offer that option as well in the name of versatility.

    The most prevalent configuration among guitars from all manufacturers is a two-pickup setup, with one pickup sitting near the bridge (the "bridge pickup" or "treble pickup") and the other one sitting near the end of the fingerboard (the "neck pickup" or "rhythm pickup"), although the world's bestselling-ever solid-body electric guitar is still the Fender Stratocaster, which in its standard configuration has three single-coil pickups, wired to a five-way pickup selector switch — two-pickup Stratocasters exist as well, but they are less common.

    There are two main types of electromagnetic guitar pickups: single-coil and humbucking, although some single-coil pickups actually are humbucking — i.e. hum-cancelling — but with the appearance, form factor and sound of a single-coil pickup.

    The humbucking pickup is the most interesting one in the particular context of the discussion we're currently having, because it is essentially comprised of two single-coil pickups wired together in series and electrically 180° out of phase — i.e. one bobbin has the windings going "the other way around". This means that the inevitable 50- or 60-cycle electromagnetic interference — i.e. the hum — picked up by each bobbin will be out of phase as well, and that the phase-inverted hum signal is thus added to the "upright-phased" hum signal, cancelling out the hum.




    The way an electromagnetic guitar pickup works is as follows... The pickup sits underneath the strings, and contains either one or two bobbins, either with magnetic pole pieces inside of them, pointing at the strings, or with a magnet blade inside of them, or with iron pole pieces, which connect to a magnet bar underneath the bobbin(s). The strings are magnetically susceptible — they are usually made from either steel, nickel, or a steel-and-nickel alloy — and when the string vibrates, the back-and-forth motion of the string is pulling the magnetic field, and as such, distorting it. This generates an alternating current inside the bobbin, because the windings of the bobbin also run through that electromagnetic field.

    Now, as I've explained higher up, the two coils comprising a humbucking pickup are wired together in series and 180° out of phase — i.e. the windings of the secondary bobbin go "the other way around" — and as such, the hum from the primary coil completely cancels out the hum from the secondary coil, provided that both coils have an equal amount of windings with identically gauged wire of the same material.

    Normally, that would then also have the same muting effect on the actual guitar sound. However, this problem is annihilated by having the magnetic field emanating from either bobbin be 180° out of phase as well — i.e. one bobbin will have its pole pieces emanating the north pole of the magnetic field toward the strings, and the other bobbin will have its pole pieces emanating the south pole of the magnetic field toward the strings. As such, while the electric signal is then 180° out of phase, the opposed magnetic polarity will cause the actual guitar sound from the two individual coils to be in phase again, and the sound from the primary coil is then added to that of the secondary coil.







    Humbuckers do sound "fuller" and "rounder" than single-coil pickups, because the two bobbins and their respective magnetic windows correspond to slightly different harmonic nodes of the vibrating string, which — because the coils are connected in series — makes the overall sound "fatter" and the initial attack a little "buttery" sounding, whereas single-coil pickups on the other hand tend to have a strong "bite" and more string-to-string articulation. This is one of the reasons why they still retain their popularity, although pickup makers have then also been looking for ways to cancel the hum of those pickups as well.

    The principle of a hum-cancelling single-coil pickup is similar to that of a traditional humbucker, except that in a hum-cancelling single-coil pickup, the secondary coil sits underneath the main coil instead of next to it, and it does not contain any magnets. As such, it only serves as a dummy coil for neutralizing the 50- or 60-cycle hum from the main coil by adding the phase-inverted duplicate from the dummy coil to it, while only the main coil contains magnets and thus acts as an electromagnetic transducer, picking up the vibrations from the strings.


    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Barbarella (1st February 2016), Bob (1st February 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd February 2016), Elen (2nd February 2016), lcam88 (1st February 2016), Zebowho (1st February 2016)

  15. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    19th March 2015
    Posts
    131
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 589 Times in 129 Posts
    Thanks. That's a very clear description of the workings of an electric guitar pick-up.

    I'm surprised hum can be such a problem - but appreciate how it's overcome. Studio microphones (even those working on similar principles to a magnetic guitar pick-up) overcome hum by using balanced cables, usually shielded against extraneous magnetic mains fields, although if properly balanced this shouldn't be necessary! I would have thought a microphone signal was 10 to 20 dB below that provided by a guitar pick-up and anything that worked for a mic would be more than adequate for a guitar. You live and learn.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Barbarella For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st February 2016), Elen (2nd February 2016)

  17. #24
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Barbarella:

    Thanks for playing. I do appreciate it.

    Your comments are much better received by me than where those of the prior posting. Pardon over-cooking things, if that bothered you at all.

    I'm going to reply to thinks out of order if you don't mind. Hopefully I will be able to ask some good questions.

    Quote Originally posted by me
    Irony apart, Mr Vella is certainly not a genius, but he does strike me as quite a good observer. I don't know how you can tell he cares about that "fortune", though, at least notice enough fixation on fortune to make mention of it anyway.

    I thought his comment was a dig at how things observed in acoustics contradicts scientific theory.
    Quote Originally posted by Barbarella
    Well if he can prove scientific theory is wrong, by demonstration, I'm sure the music industry will beat a path to his door. Removing all resonances in an acoustic sound studio is an expensive and time-consuming process.
    Indeed. Dreamtimer once posted a video of an "acoustic hall" that was semi-spherical (half a sphere) in shape with the helmholz right in the middle of the floor. I imagine having the proper shaped studio was expensive as it required a building built to spec.

    I don't think Mr Vella is really interested in proving anything to the scientific community. And, personally, even viewing all information the way he as delivered it, I think the law of thermodynamics is sound. But...

    The nature of theory is exactly that it is waiting to be challenged, to be revised or thrown out. To be thrown out would be an honorable end to the lifecycle of a scientific theory that has done its "job" well. Rejecting a poor theory is progress insofar as it stimulated new concepts, observations and reasonings that dated it.

    If Mr Vella does indeed make any moves to prove anything it will likely be up to a committee to decide. However, the trend has been to ignore accepting any challenges to "established" theories thus carrying a presumption they are sound. That is a real problem, theory presumed true, even in face of evidence to the contrary, a scientific community satisfied by that is no different from a religion.

    Quote Originally posted by me
    Could you agree that amplitude, as measured, is a component of a wave that is always perpendicular to propagation? Could you also agree that during cancelation events, where anti-phases cause cancelation, we specifically observe amplitude cancelation? Have you taken the time to observe that amplitude cancelation in nature, for example in water waves, does not [always] result in energy cancelation? Why should EM be different?
    Quote Originally posted by Barbarella
    I have observed total cancellation of radio waves coming via different paths. When they cancel out completely, they cancel out completely. This can be observed, measured. Any residue means there is incomplete cancellation, because the phase relationship is not precise enough to cancel.
    Ok.

    Water wave analogy, if your instruments measure amplitude, they too, completely cancel out. If you measure a residue, you can also say that it was incomplete cancellation, that the two waves where not perfect opposites. And as long as you depend on your instrument to measure wave amplitude, measurements taken by that instrumentation would lead an observer to the incorrect conclusion that the energies have been cancelled as well.

    To solve the problem someone may design a new instrument that measures longitudinal flow, or that attempts to somehow determine what the energy state of the system is.

    EM is more difficult for two reasons, the energy in an EM wave is associated with frequency rather than amplitude. As soon as you observe the amplitude of such a canceling system, all equations that measure frequency and thus energy also are presumed to be cancelled.

    Could you comment on why or why not such a presumption is reasonable?

    Here are mine:

    The essence of any theory of scalar waves rests on that presumption being untrue. I am not familiar enough with Maxwells original equations to comment on them beyond to say that they also did not accept such a presumption. Mr Vella elaborates a magnitude of some kind for each point in space. An ether perhaps?

    In 1887 the Michealson-Morley experiment was designed in a way that attempted to prove or disprove the existence of the ether, the theoretical substance that was thought to be the medium that light propagates through. The conclusion of that experiment was that the ether did not exist, there have been several revisions to the experiment that attempted to reexamine that conclusion that yielded rather similar results.

    And indeed if you accept the conclusions there it would seem that self-propagation is a viable answer. But it may also simply be that we do not understand enough about electro-magnetics and energy in general to easily identify the flaws in the Michelson Morley experiment.

    The issue can be boiled down to whether we should create a whole new theory that the rest of the energetic universe can follow and that our nature does not. That question was exuberantly answered with a resounding yes! Queue black hole theory, dark matter theory, and dark energy theory. Imagine that, 99,7% of the known universe cannot be measured! How absurd!

    Then suddenly our inability to measure energy in a system where EM waves are perfectly cancelled each other out is not far fetched at all.

    If you accept the conventional dark energy/matter ideas, we may conclude simply that we know the energy is there, we just can't measure it. OK move along, no more need to try. Case closed its someone elses problem now.

    If you challenge the conventional dark energy/matter ideas, you still are left scratching your head, is the energy there or not? If we cannot measure it, does that mean our instruments are somehow not sensitive to it? Is there something worth researching in our concept of neutral? Are there other manifestations of energy that are worth examination?

    That is where I am at. I find having questions to be more comforting than having all the answers. Mr Vella says some very curious things that indeed leads to interesting questions.

    Quote Originally posted by Barbarella
    I believe 'free energy' i.e. that which is obtainable outside the current understanding of physics, is very likely possible.
    The underlined word is a tricky thing. It implies the acceptance of something without any solid evidence; it implies faith.

    To a certain extent all theories have some aspect of faith in them, they purport a hypothesis which all scientists would be obliged to accept as "challengeable". Ie that they may be untrue. So they are a demonstration of faith insofar as evidence does not arise that would show such faith to be misplaced.

    I think defining energy is a good place to start.

    The capacity to perform work is an engineering definition if memory serves.

    But that doesn't satisfy the requirements of physics because innate in the definition is the presumption that work and even energy are already known and specific. While examining physics to presume we already know the specifics is very much the same nominating current theory as "unchallengable".

    Perhaps a better definition would be: a potential between two different states.

    Please do elaborate where you can, I certainly might be wrong with my definition.

    I will indeed elaborate what I mean:

    A state is simply what is in its current configuration as it may exist in any single moment. For example, a car being in neutral is a state of the car different from being in park. Perhaps there is energy between those two states insofar as there is potential (perhaps the car is on a hill) where the dynamic of one against the dynamic of the other is energetic.

    If any work can be performed from the potentials is really an engineering issue once the dynamics of the potentials are unknown.

    So free energy in solar energy, is only a potential between material and light. In the wind energy example, it is the potential between two moving bodies, the ground vs the air.

    I will go so far as to say that when something appears to break the law of thermodynamics, it is only because we do not properly understand the energy dynamics sufficiently and unexplained factors of the dynamic influence the results we see. In our thermodynamic model we need only include the "open" or unexplained aspect of the system to find the law true. Once those aspects are studied, "free energy" is understood better not as breaking the law of thermodynamics, but to be free as in beer for those who know how "to build a windmill, or solar panel".

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st February 2016)

  19. #25
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Thanks Aragorn.

    Do you know if a magnet is part of the string where they pass over the pick-ups? Then vibrations in the string would induce a current in the pick-ups... By an large guitar strings are pretty elastic (compared with violin strings). Do you know if longitudinal or tortional vibrations are also picked up?

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st February 2016)

  21. #26
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,241
    Thanks
    88,440
    Thanked 80,969 Times in 20,255 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Thanks Aragorn.

    Do you know if a magnet is part of the string where they pass over the pick-ups? Then vibrations in the string would induce a current in the pick-ups...
    Well, as I explained, that is how an electric guitar pickup works — at least, when we're talking of a genuine electric guitar, as opposed to an electrically amplified acoustic guitar, because those use piezo-electric contact transducers underneath the bridge, and they pick up mechanical vibrations in the (commonly wooden) base of the bridge, rather than magnetic vibrations.

    So yes, the string passes through the magnetic field — we call this the "magnetic window" of the pickup — and the vibration of the string causes rapid fluctuations in the magnetic field in opposite directions, perpendicular to the direction of the pole pieces. These fluctuations in the magnetic field induce an alternating electric current on the wire of the bobbins, and that is your electric guitar signal.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    By an large guitar strings are pretty elastic (compared with violin strings). Do you know if longitudinal or tortional vibrations are also picked up?
    Well, an electric guitar is a system. The thicker the strings — i.e. the bigger their mass — the more tone they provide. However, even the wood types used and the construction of the guitar — e.g. whether the neck is attached by way of screws, or glued into the body, or running all the way through the center of the body, or whether the guitar has functionally resonating cavities or not — and the shape of the bridge and the tailpiece, all make a difference in how the guitar sounds.

    The vibrations of the strings are also transmitted into the body and neck of the guitar via the bridge and the frets — or the nut, for open strings — and after having been altered in their harmonic content by the bridge, the frets, the fingerboard and the body of the guitar, these vibrations travel back onto the strings, and as such also affect the vibration of the strings themselves. And this is something that the pickups definitely do register as well.

    If you for instance take a Gibson ES-335 (which is a semi-hollow-body guitar) and a Gibson Les Paul Traditional (which is a solid-body guitar), and you mount the same pickups on both guitars, and you put the same type and gauge of strings on them, both of them tuned in standard tuning and at concert pitch, then the sound will definitely be different.

    Both these guitars have the same scale length of 24.75", so the string tension would be the same. They both also have a glued-in neck made of mahogany, and a fingerboard made of rosewood. But their construction is different, and there may even be differences in the wood types used for the body. The ES-335 has a solid center block — made of maple, I think — while the rest of the body is made from laminated wood, glued together around that center block like a box. The Les Paul Traditional on the other hand has a solid body made of mahogany, but with a maple top — i.e. the front of the guitar, which faces the audience. The ES-335 will sound "bigger" — i.e. the resonant frequency range will be a bit wider — but it will lack some of the midrange punch of the Les Paul Traditional.

    For most part however, what the pickup itself registers are the displacements of the strings along the sideways amplitude, perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field. The amplitude of the displacement along the axis of the magnetic field — i.e., with the guitar lying flat on a table, the up and down motion of the strings as they vibrate — is detected only in negligible amounts, but does not result in the generation of sound. It only effects minute fluctuations in volume.

    The height of the string above the pole pieces does however play a role in the nature of the sound as well, and when the string sits too close to the pole pieces, then there's a very real risk of the magnetic pull affecting the string vibration in such a way that the guitar starts sounding flat during the more powerfully picked passages. Lowering the pickup (or raising the strings) too far will cause the signal to become less strong, and will thus result in a volume drop. However, it does tend to allow for more clarity in the higher harmonics. There isn't really any set rule on what the distance should be between the pole pieces and the strings, because the magnet strength may vary between different pickup types, and there's a little room for play on account of getting one's preferred sound.

    Now, that which you refer to as "torsional vibrations" — which I interpret as being the elasticity of the strings — does indeed translate into snappier sounding strings and better note definition for strings under higher tension than for strings under lower tension. So yes, in a way, it all does play a role, albeit that I can't really say whether these nuances are detected by the pickups directly, or whether they are the result of the interaction of the string vibrations with the guitar's construction, which would then be registered by the pickups only indirectly because of the effect of these interactions on the way the string vibrates above the pickups.

    What does make a difference, however, is the placement of the pickups underneath the strings. The pickup near the bridge will sound brighter because of the higher tension of the string near its anchor point, whereas the pickup near the neck will sound rounder and deeper due to the string having more elasticity at that point of its length. The amplitude of the vibration is also bigger over the neck pickup than over the bridge pickup due to the elliptic nature of the string vibration, which is why the bridge pickup picks up less sound than the neck pickup, which most guitar makers will then compensate for by giving the bridge pickup more windings than the neck pickup, so that both pickups produce an equal volume of sound.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Barbarella (2nd February 2016), Bob (1st February 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd February 2016), lcam88 (2nd February 2016)

  23. #27
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,241
    Thanks
    88,440
    Thanked 80,969 Times in 20,255 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Barbarella View Post
    Thanks. That's a very clear description of the workings of an electric guitar pick-up.

    I'm surprised hum can be such a problem - but appreciate how it's overcome. Studio microphones (even those working on similar principles to a magnetic guitar pick-up) overcome hum by using balanced cables, usually shielded against extraneous magnetic mains fields, although if properly balanced this shouldn't be necessary! I would have thought a microphone signal was 10 to 20 dB below that provided by a guitar pick-up and anything that worked for a mic would be more than adequate for a guitar. You live and learn.
    Well, the wiring inside the guitar itself and the cable from the guitar to the amplifier are not of the balanced type, although many — but not all — modern amplifiers do have a balanced line-out connector for hooking the amplifier up to a mixer by way of a D.I. box, rather than having to put microphones in front of the speaker cones. Well, the latter is still done quite a lot, actually — sometimes mixed with the sound as it comes through a balanced line-out cable — in order to create an ambient effect in the sound.

    And unfortunately, the guitar amplifier itself is a huge source of that very electromagnetic interference which generates hum. Other such sources of interference are stage lights, dynamos, generators, rheostats, et al. Many guitarists actually prefer the hum of a genuine single-coil pickup, because they feel that it makes the sound more "authentic", and they feel that the hum-cancelling versions of those single-coil pickups don't do justice to the original sound of a vintage single-coil pickup.

    The development of the first humbucking pickups took place in the 1950s, and although there is some contention as to who actually invented them, it was Gibson that filed a patent for the humbucking pickup designed by Gibson engineer Seth Lover in 1955. The Gibson PAF ("patent applied for") pickup was however not introduced on any Gibson guitars right away. The first Gibsons to feature those pickups were the Les Paul Goldtop and the Les Paul Custom in 1957, while the less expensive Les Paul Special and Les Paul Junior retained the P-90 single-coil pickups.

    The popularity of the humbucker pickups was however not specifically due to their hum-cancelling property, but rather due to their very specific rich and full sound, which proved very useful in rock 'n' roll first, and in progressive rock, blues and jazz later. (Single-coil pickups on the other hand have always been the preferred choice for country & western guitarists because they have more "twang", although you will find them in many other musical genres as well.)

    Musicians are an odd breed.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Barbarella (2nd February 2016), Bob (1st February 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd February 2016)

  25. #28
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    23rd December 2013
    Posts
    938
    Thanks
    2,656
    Thanked 5,320 Times in 939 Posts
    Thank you everyone for giving life to this thread. I will admit that my poor health does not give me the energy I need to read everything shared but I will read everything shared here - in time. I wanted to include these notes - to give food for critical and lateral thought processes. At the end of the article - supplied via an internet link in the opening post - is a list and it is invaluable as a research tool.

    Scalar waves are also known as: Tesla Waves, longtitudinal EM waves, teleforce, Radiant Energy, energetics, gravitic waves, electrogravitational waves, free-energy, zero-point energy, zero-vector EM waves, electromagnetic quantum energy, vacuum field energy, aether/ether-energy,magnetic travelling waves, electrostatic/magnetostatic waves, waves of pure potential.

    The above list alone creates questions for me as I engage in critical thought processes. Why so many names? This would surely have made research very difficult for a person with limited scientific experience - yes? So many names/references - is this an attempt to obscure the truth?

    The below link will take readers to an article from a scientific journal titled: Journal of Scientific Experiments dated 2001. It was not difficult to locate and I thought it might help this thread to keep chugging along.
    http://www.intalek.com/Index/Project...rWave_meyl.pdf

    Here's to learning and to keeping the lines of communication open and flowing in all directions. Much Peace - Amanda

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Amanda For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (2nd February 2016), lcam88 (2nd February 2016)

  27. #29
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    14,610
    Thanks
    70,673
    Thanked 62,025 Times in 14,520 Posts
    Hi Amanda. My initial feelings are that the number and variety of names reflects that this is a new area that is being worked on. It's fun to go back to the early days of aviation and see what things were called. This discussion has been informative and interesting and that is always good to see. I will look at your link.

    Aragorn, when my son took guitar lessons I would sometimes sit in and I would talk to his teacher who was also a friend. This man was building guitars and writing his own guitar teaching methodology book. He taught me some things about how guitars are built. Your postings are very interesting to me in many ways. Thanks for explaining the twang in country guitars. I always wondered about that. (and didn't ask)

    Guitars are scaler weapons...

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (2nd February 2016)

  29. #30
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    I never thought you to be such a guitar guy.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    Now, that which you refer to as "torsional vibrations" — which I interpret as being the elasticity of the strings
    Torsional vibrations, is a moment of spin along the string. If you pluck a thick string with a finger, the way the string slides off creates a moment of torque where by the string twists slightly. This twisting oscillation is what I mean by "torsional vibration"; I suppose it may be picked up, I really don't know. It depends on the magnetic properties of the string I suppose.

    The instrument I am more familiar with is a violin, certainly torsional vibrations are a part of it's sound. The rosen ladened horse hair that is the part of the bow that makes contact with the strings certainly cause torsional as well as transversal vibrations in the strings. Being that violin strings are much less elastic (they hardly stretch once they are installed and tuned) I expect the torsional aspect of string vibration plays a bigger role in the sound produced.

    Barbarella:

    Here is a link to an interesting device I would like to propose for measuring hypothetical scalar potential (moment of energy) produced by an EM cancellation event.

    If you are interested I'll elaborate.

    PS

    Amanda, thanks for mentioning radiant energy above.
    Last edited by lcam88, 2nd February 2016 at 11:21.

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (2nd February 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd February 2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •