New Invention To Revolutionize Low Frequency Acoustics

[michaell]

Here is a, brand new, idea that promises to revolutionize low frequency acoustics, not in ten years from now, but hopefully by next year.

The idea is to use something called "negative-stiffness" (google it!) to create a product that is twenty times more compliant (compressible) than gas (air), thus making it possible to either absorb, or reflect, a staggering twenty times more low frequency sound

E.g. it can be designed to absorb twenty times more than the high quality bass traps of today, because bass traps are generally limited by the compliance of an enclosed body of air that must contract and expand. Resonators use resonance to increase these contractions and expansions, however this product can be as affective as a resonator, but on all frequencies simultaneously.

Also when placed between floating panels, inside of hollow ceilings or walls (or floors), its high compliance will completely isolate the panels from each other, i.e. it can cause a two-inch gap to become as effective as a forty-inch air gap (this can correspond to giving you an extra 26dB efficiency, which could otherwise only be achieved by making the wall twenty times heavier).

Another unique feature of this invention is that, unlike a wall, it can reflect the low frequency sound without needing to fill up an entire plane, i.e. it can help block the low frequencies from going out the window or doorway, without actually blocking the window or doorway, the reason for this is that it uses low impedance to reflect the sound, while walls use high impedance, and since the sound takes the path of least resistance the sound will be attracted to it and then get reflected, where as a wall will simply cause the sound to be attracted to the window or doorway which have the lower impedance. This is also why this product works so well with walls, because when they are combined they create an extreme impedance mismatch which results in extreme reflection.

SO WHAT'S IT MADE OF? The final product will comprise a negative-stiffness mechanism that cancels the stiffness of air inside of a container, or bladder made from thin materials (which have a high young's modulus), the internal air pressures need never go above 0.1 psi so it can be made thin and light,

However, unlike most negative-stiffness mechanisms, the negative-stiffness mechanism used for this invention passes all the criteria: it’s very quiet, very precise, very durable, and very light. This, as well as other critical features that make the idea practical, are patent pending.

Note that negative stiffness works great for the above mentioned applications, but it remains impractical for use in sealed sub woofer boxes (i wasted half a year trying to make it practical).

This product may also be in high demand on aircrafts, because it can be made very light weight (it can also allow for light wall panels) and it can accommodate slow pressure changes in a unique way.

Although this product can be as effective as active noise canceling equipment, its parts are very simple, and it may function on its own for a lifetime without needing a battery charge, i.e. it may use several microwatts.

All of the problems have already been solved, e.g. how the final product will handle barometer, and temperature, changes, as well as problems arising from the fact that air in an adiabatic process is stiffer than air in an isothermal process.

I do not have the financial resources to bring this idea to market, so I am trying to get this idea out there, so if you happen to know someone with an advanced degree in acoustics that may corroborate my claims please bring it to their attention, and if this person works for a major company, perhaps sound related or aircraft related, that would be even better.

Best regards,
Michael

[Soundman2020]

Hi. Please read the forum rules for posting (click here). You seem to be missing a couple of things!

Your claims are strange, and fly in the face of acoustic theory. If you have a published paper about this, please provide a link. If you don't have a published paper, then you should! Without solid peer-reviewed science, I very much doubt that anyone would be interested in providing financial backing for a material or device that apparently defies the laws of physics.

- Stuart -

[michaell]

Hi Stuart,

You say my claims fly in the face of acoustic theory, and defy the laws of physics.

Your words have peaked my curiosity, and i am begging you to please tell me why you say that.

Please point out a few flaws in my, perhaps seven hundred word, description, and i will offer a sincere apology for misleading the good people of this forum.

sincerely,
Michael

[Soundman2020]

please tell me why you say that. ... Please point out a few flaws

Well, the way science works is NOT that anyone questioning your claims is required to show why you are wrong, but rather the onus is on the one MAKING the claim to show that the claim is right!

So I don't think I'll be going into great detail with why I think your claims are dubious, especially when you don't provide enough information to support them. Rather, as I said in my first post: If you have a duly researched white-paper that details how your invention works, then please post it. If you do not have such a paper, then you should write one: without that, nobody is going to take you seriously. If you want to patent your invention (assuming it is even patentable, and assuming that you live in a country which does register and protect patents), then the very first thing you'd have to do is to describe it in sufficient detail, showing the principles of operation. That said, it's interesting to note the the device does not have to be practical in order to obtain a patent, nor does it have to actually work in real life! That's not a requirement for obtaining a patent (hence, so many patents for perpetual motion machines...). But the patent application does at least have to include a statement of how the device works, a claim about what it is supposed to achieve, a claim about how it differs substantially from other similar devices, and a diagram showing the rough outline of the parts and how they are claimed to work. So please at least post that.

The claims I would question (without needing to go into any detail, since I'm not making the claims: you are), include:

1) "E.g. it can be designed to absorb twenty times more than the high quality bass traps of today," First, define what it is you are measuring! "Twenty times more" of what? Power? Energy? Frequency range? Money? Something else? Are you really claiming that your device provides damping of room modes that is 26 dB greater than the current best designs?

2) " thus making it possible to either absorb, or reflect, a staggering twenty times more low frequency sound" Well, that one doesn't pass the smell test: A thick concrete wall r steel plate is pretty darn good at reflecting about 100% of the incident sound: you are claiming that your device can do 26 db BETTER than that... in other words, it would have to reflect MORE sound than is incident on it. I'd like to see that. So if I aim 1 watt of acoustic energy at it, I will get MORE than 2 watt of acoustic energy coming back? Is that the claim? That's what it looks like, from what you said.

3) "because bass traps are generally limited by the compliance of an enclosed body of air that must contract and expand." Not true. SOME types of bass trap work on the principle you describe, yes. Others do not. You seem to be confining the term "bass trap" to only refer to the types that you want to compare your device to.

4) " this product can be as affective as a resonator, but on all frequencies simultaneously." So if it is NOT a bass trap and is NOT specifically tuned to bass frequencies, then what use would it be in a studio, as an acoustic device? As an acoustic designer, I want devices that I can tune to deal with specific issues in the room. A device that absorbs 26 dB better than anything else, but across the entire spectrum, is pretty useless. It might be great for someone who need to build an anechoic chamber, but is pretty pointless for typical studio applications.

5) "its high compliance will completely isolate the panels from each other, i.e. it can cause a two-inch gap to become as effective as a forty-inch air gap" You are implying that your device needs no internal damping at all, purely because the compliance is so high. So where does the energy go then? You claim that your device absorbs rather large amounts of energy, yet it is not damped, so please explain what it does to the energy that it absorbed, and what the absorption mechanism is.

6) "this can correspond to giving you an extra 26dB efficiency,". In simple terms, you are claiming that I could take a typical two-leaf studio wall, with each leaf consisting of drywall mounted on a stud frame with suitable insulation in the cavity. I measure the isolation, note that it is providing 60 dB TL across the spectrum of interest. I then remove the insulation (since it isn't necessary, and in any case is taking up the space where your device will be), I install your device, and when I measure the TL again, you say it will now be 86 dB? That's an outrageous claim, so it will require outrageous evidence to support it. Yet, you provide none.

7) "it can help block the low frequencies from going out the window or doorway, without actually blocking the window or doorway, " If I understand that claim correctly, you are saying that the wall in the above example would continue to provide 86 dB TL even if it has a door in it, and the door is OPEN? Or if I remove the door completely, leaving an empty doorway? That's an even more outrageous claim, since you are claiming magical properties for your device. How would it prevent sound from traveling through an open hole?

"it uses low impedance to reflect the sound," Explain. What type of impedance are we talking about? Lower than that of empty air? How would your device create such a low impedance "force field" (my term, since I can't think of any other way to describe what you are claiming) in the empty doorway? This is getting into the realms of "Beam me up, Scotty"...

9) "since the sound takes the path of least resistance the sound will be attracted to it and then get reflected" That simply makes no sense. Even assuming that it was physically possible to "attract" sound towards your device, if the device then "reflects" all of that sound back where it came from, then it has achieved nothing! It would be acting as a perfect reflector, but a perfect reflector cannot have both the "low impedance" that you claim creates some kind of suction field to "attract" sound towards it, and also have very high impedance, which is necessary to reflect the sound back. This is like claiming that you have invented special water that is both wet and dry at the same time, or a new light bulb that creates darkness by attracting all the light in the room to itself, then sending that same light back into the room again! It doesn't even make sense.

10) "where as a wall will simply cause the sound to be attracted to the window or doorway which have the lower impedance." Say what? Please explain in what way a normal wall causes sound to be "attracted" to the window. What is this "attractive" property that you are talking about? What physical mechanism causes sound to be "attracted" by some objects, but not by others?

11) "The final product will comprise a negative-stiffness mechanism that cancels the stiffness of air inside of a container, or bladder made from thin materials" So you are not using the more common "buckled beam" system to create your negative stiffness? That implies you are using thin-shell elements: So how do you solve the issue of instability? And how do you create the tension that would be needed?

12) "this invention passes all the criteria: it’s very quiet, very precise, very durable, and very light. " You forgot the most important ones: low cost, ans simplicity of installation. Even if your device does work as advertised, in order to be attractive to studio builders, it would have cost roughly the same as the materials and techniques we currently use. It could even be more expensive, within reason, if it produces savings in other aspects. Eg, if it can produce a studio wall that provides 70 dB TL with superior low frequency isolation, and takes up the same space as a traditional wall, then it would still be attractive even if it cost twice as much. Ditto if it could fit into a quarter the thickness of a traditional wall and still provide the same isolation. But if the cost is higher than that, I don't see it being attractive. It would also need to be simple to install, something like RSIC clips, or batts of semi-rigid insulation: something that the typical DIY builder or your average contractor can install easily and fast.

13) "This, as well as other critical features that make the idea practical, are patent pending." So it is already patented? What are the patent numbers?

14) "it may function on its own for a lifetime without needing a battery charge, i.e. it may use several microwatts." So it requires electrical power? What for? The negative stiffness systems I am aware of are all passive: You need power to install them initially (set the tension, attach them, etc.), but after that, nothing.

15) "as well as problems arising from the fact that air in an adiabatic process is stiffer than air in an isothermal process." Which confirms what I already suspected; you do not use any damping at all internally in your device.


The most interesting thing you said here, is that you already have patents for this device. Please post the patent numbers here, so we can look at that, and see what you are actually talking about.


- Stuart -

[michaell]

Wow, where do i start?

First of all when you file a provisional application with the patent office you can immediately claim patent pending and if you then file a patent it will only get published eighteen months after the original date, i filed several provisional applications, but they include some details that i don't want to make public yet.

Perhaps your first mistake is in thinking that just because it doesn't make sense to you, it wont make sense to people with an advanced degree in acoustics, that is why my first post clearly states that i am asking for help reaching the latter.

As far as your first question, i mean that it can do the job of twenty bass traps. I don't think that that requires a leap of the imagination. As far as you asking if i'm talking about power or energy, i'm not even going to answer that.

As far as your second question, i was hoping that your common sense would tell you that i meant blocking as a result of reflecting.

As far as your third point, i'm not sure which ones you are referring to, but the ones that are removed from the wall usually make you lose the space anyways, and if they are really better then why are the other ones so popular.

As far as your fourth question, the inertia of its surfaces and of the surrounding air make it increasingly less effective as the frequencies go higher then say a hundred Hz, but that is very much effected by its size and possibly its resonant frequency, remember i said it only deals with the low frequencies, which happen to be by far the hardest frequencies to deal with.

As far as your fifth question, the device can be designed with damping means to serve as a bass trap, and with less or no damping means when used for reflecting, i.e. blocking the low frequencies. Where does the energy go, it gets reflected back into the room. Answer me this, if the second panel isn't compelled to vibrate just because the first panel is vibrating then how can the energy transfer from the first panel to the second panel.

As far as number six, I am only concerned with the very low frequencies, and they are by far the hardest to block, everybody knows that to block those you need lots of mass, and the mass is not there to absorb but to reflect.

Number seven, for it to work the devices must be exposed to the air, i.e. they can't be in the wall. How does it work? imagine this, as the high pressure phase of a large wave arrives, the devices quickly shrink just enough to suck out a significant portion of the pressure around them.

Eight, do you know what defines mechanical impedance, impedance is defined by two properties: 1) mass, 2) stiffness. Increase the mass of a medium and you increase its impedance, increase the stiffness of a medium and you increase its impedance, don't care what it's made of, and any time you have an impedance mismatch, whether mechanical or electrical, you get a reflection.

Nine, Its interesting that you say that you need a higher impedance for reflection, this invention is clearly a paradigm shift for people in acoustics. To be clear this product on its own is actually quite poor at reflecting, it only becomes a great reflector when combined with walls, due to the extreme impedance mismatch. As far as attracting a wave, you can't do it from a distance, but if you are within a quarter wavelength you can.

Ten, the wall pushes it off with a bit of a pressure buildup and it's forced out the window, yes i know that suction is not a real thing.

11) Oh there are many more ways to create negative stiffness, e.g you can even create negative stiffness using noncircular gears, even magnets. The stiffness of the air provides the stability, it connects to the movable walls of the container.

12) As far as reflecting, it may be more practical for aircrafts.

13) It hasn't been published.

14) it needs to handle things like barometric change differently, because those forces are a lot greater than acoustic forces.

15) some do, some don't, it can also use a small mechanical damper, like a small shock absorber connected alongside the negative stiffness mechanism.


Michael

[Soundman2020]

As far as your first question, i mean that it can do the job of twenty bass traps.

Considering that in most studios the entire rear wall and half of the front wall is devoted to bass trapping, are you saying that you can accomplish the same in something the size of a doorway? Are you saying that I could replace an entire Superchunk bass trap with something the size of a shoe-box? That's actually laughable, for anyone who understands what bass traps do in a control room...

As far as you asking if i'm talking about power or energy, i'm not even going to answer that.

Why? Because you don't know the difference? Can you even explain what a sound level meter is measuring then?

i was hoping that your common sense would tell you that i meant blocking as a result of reflecting.

"blocking" and "reflecting" are not the same thing, acoustically. You mean you didn't know that?

As far as your third point, i'm not sure which ones you are referring to, but the ones that are removed from the wall usually make you lose the space anyways, and if they are really better then why are the other ones so popular.

Your response confirms what I suspected: you have no experience at all with bass traps in studios, and don't even understand why we use them, or why we use different types, or even what the different types are. Yet we are supposed to believe that you know enough about them anyway to claim that your device will beat all others?

the inertia of its surfaces and of the surrounding air make it increasingly less effective as the frequencies go higher then say a hundred Hz,

Then it won't be much use for bass trapping or modal damping or dealing with SBIR in typical studios, since those issues commonly occur all the way up to much higher frequencies. Right now I'm working on tuning one room where there are 8 specific issues between 37.5 Hz and 223 Hz. Your device would only be able to treat three of those. Your device would have been unable to do the job that the simple device in the early stages of this thread did:

http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 68&start=0

(That's a different case: not the same studios as the 375 Hz - 223 Hz issues).

but that is very much effected by its size and possibly its resonant frequency, remember i said it only deals with the low frequencies,

No you didn't. What you actually said is " this product can be as affective as a resonator, but on all frequencies simultaneously." "deals with low frequencies only" is certainly not the same as "all frequencies simultaneously".

only deals with the low frequencies, which happen to be by far the hardest frequencies to deal with.

Please be aware that you are talking to someone who designs recording studios for a living, where you are on a forum that has over 23,000 members, a large number of whom have built their own studios successfully, and dealt with bass problems successful. It's hardly necessary to highlight simple stuff, such as what you mentioned here. That's sort of like telling your car mechanic "The pistons in the engine go up and down, you know. I thought I should tell you that"....

Answer me this, if the second panel isn't compelled to vibrate just because the first panel is vibrating then how can the energy transfer from the first panel to the second panel.

What exactly does that have to do with damping? You do know that damping in an MSM system does not prevent the transfer of energy across the cavity, right?

As far as number six, I am only concerned with the very low frequencies, and they are by far the hardest to block, everybody knows that to block those you need lots of mass, and the mass is not there to absorb but to reflect.

Engine. Pistons. Up and down. ... You should probably read up on the principles of studio walls, to learn how they successfully attenuate transmission without needing anywhere near as much mass as Mass Law says. Hint: they do not have that much mass, and they do not reflect all of the energy back into the room. And they do, in fact, absorb some of the energy (or is it power? ) And they do it across the entire spectrum (at various levels in different regions, of course), not just the low end.

Number seven, for it to work the devices must be exposed to the air, i.e. they can't be in the wall

So they are no use at all for isolation? They only work as bass traps?

imagine this, as the high pressure phase of a large wave arrives, the devices quickly shrink just enough to suck out a significant portion of the pressure around them.

I'm aware of the principles of negative stiffness, yes, and how it is achieved. You do seem to be describing a buckled-beam device on a spring....

and any time you have an impedance mismatch, whether mechanical or electrical, you get a reflection.

On the other hand, you claimed that "it uses low impedance to reflect the sound". Yet you now claim that it does NOT use low impedance, but rather HIGH impedance, in order to create an impedance mismatch. So which is it? Does it "use low impedance to reflect sound"? Or does it use higher mass and higher stiffness to get that impedance mismatch, as you seem to be claiming now?

So I'll repeat my question, since you conveniently avoided answering it: "What type of impedance are we talking about? Lower than that of empty air?"

Its interesting that you say that you need a higher impedance for reflection,

You just said the same thing: "Increase the mass of a medium and you increase its impedance, increase the stiffness of a medium and you increase its impedance, don't care what it's made of, and any time you have an impedance mismatch, whether mechanical or electrical, you get a reflection." If the impedance of your device is low, similar to that of air, then BY DEFINITION it will not cause much reflection due to impedance mismatch, since the mismatch won't be large enough.... Are you saying that the impedance offered by your device is substantially LOWER that that of air? Is this a vacuum based device, where you have a much lower air pressure inside the device than out? In order to have any useful effect acoustically, the impedance of your device would have to be either substantially lower than that of air, or substantially higher than that of air. So which is it? I'll make the question even easier for you: Does your device have more than twice the impedance of air, or less than half the impedance of air?

To be clear this product on its own is actually quite poor at reflecting,

On the other hand, you claimed that "unlike a wall, it can reflect the low frequency sound without needing to fill up an entire plane,". Which leads to yet another contradiction: it's common knowledge that, in order for an object to be able to reflect a sound wave, the dimensions of the object must be at least as large the wavelength. And since the frequencies that are commonly problematic in studios have wavelengths that measure in the dozens of feet, comparable to the dimensions of the walls themselves, please excuse me for doubting that your device can accomplish what you say it can, when you claim it "does not need to fill up the entire plane" "unlike a wall". I don't care what it is made of, or how it works, if it is substantially smaller than the wavelength it is supposed to deal with, then it will NOT deal with that wave. Plain and simple. Not even if you make it from unicorn tail hairs, or pixie dust.

This is a rather glaring contradiction: You claim that if is poor at reflecting by itself and "only becomes a great reflector when combined with walls", yet you also claim that "unlike walls it can reflect the low frequency sound". So which is it? Can it reflect low frequency sound by itself, or can it not do that unless a wall is present? And can it affect waves that are larger than itself, or can it not do that (with or without a wall)?

this invention is clearly a paradigm shift for people in acoustics

As I said: outrageous claims require outrageous proof. So far, you have offered none.

As far as attracting a wave, you can't do it from a distance, but if you are within a quarter wavelength you can.

I'm fascinated by this concept of "attracting sound"! Please explain the ACOUSTIC mechanism by which that can be achieved. And please don't tell me it's something as simple as edge diffraction.... that would be rather disappointing.

In any event, you claim that your device can suck sound from a distance of 1/4 wave away, so let's consider that 37.5 Hz issue I'm working on right now: You are saying that you could place your device anywhere in the room, and it would fully absorb this problem from a distance of 7 feet or less? So I could put the device on the ceiling, 7 feet away from the back wall, and it would effectively reduce the intensity of that frequency by as much 26 dB BETTER than the device I already designed for that? Is that your claim?

yes i know that suction is not a real thing.

Now you are contradicting yourself! You just said : "As far as attracting a wave, you can't do it from a distance, but if you are within a quarter wavelength you can". Is there a difference between "attracting a wave" and "sucking a wave" towards you? Why is it possible to attract a wave, yet not possible to suck a wave?

Oh there are many more ways to create negative stiffness, e.g you can even create negative stiffness using noncircular gears, even magnets.

But they all work on the same basic principle: bi-stable normally, with instability at the "snap through" or meta-stable point. There's no secret to the concept. The problem is in balancing the system to remain stable around the snap-through point, which by definition is unstable. It can be done, yes: I'm not arguing with that. I'm questioning how you have achieved that, and which of the methods you are using. Not because I want to copy it, but because I'm skeptical that you have achieved what you claim to have achieved. Outrageous claims, and all that....

The stiffness of the air provides the stability, it connects to the movable walls of the container.

Which once again implies that the impedance of your device must be significantly LOWER than the impedance of air... and I'm having a hard time believing that, unless it is vacuum based.

12) As far as reflecting, it may be more practical for aircrafts.

So it is not applicable to recording studios? Which sort of leads me to ask; Why are you promoting it on a forum that is dedicated to recording studios? (PS: contrary to popular journalism, the plural of "aircraft" is not "aircrafts": the plural is "aircraft". Just like sheep, deer, swine, fish, and many other words, the plural is the same as the singular; no added "s". In some countries do ignorant writers do get confused about this, but the correct form has no "s". One aircraft, one thousand aircraft. Technically, it's a long-stem noun, and therefore takes no "s").

Basically, you continue to contradict yourself with each successive post, you provide no explanation nor proof of concept, you offer no explanations, equations, results, white papers, or test reports and we are supposed to just take your for for it that you have single-highhandedly achieved a "paradigm shift" in acoustics, that allows bass traps to perform 20 times better, or perform the same but in 1/20th of the volume, can be placed anywhere in the room as long as it is within a 1/4 wavelength of where the problem frequency can be detected, that has impedance lower than that of air, that reflects perfectly, and achieves a whole other range of magical feats? So please excuse me if I remain more than just a little skeptical...

And one more thing: this is the third and final time I will ask you to
read the forum rules for posting (click here). Don't expect further response from forum members if you refuse to follow the rules, like everybody else has to.


- Stuart -

[michaell]

Sorry, I don’t have time to continue this childish conversation, I found more inviting channels to help push this idea forward.

All I will say is:

One of your many mistakes is that you are confusing pressure with stiffness, they are two very different things, and this product being twenty times less stiff than the air will offer about 4.5 (square root of 20) times less impedance.

Thank god for people who found the time to get a science education, and who don’t let personal issues cloud their judgment.

[Soundman2020]

True to form, as expected... Wanna-be inventors and scammers always bail out of attempting to prove their outrageous claims as soon they can no longer keep up the pretense of actually knowing what they are talking about, or having a product that works. When the name-calling starts, and they have to keep on back-tracking, and "correcting" earlier "mistakes" in their claims to support their scam, it's pretty easy to see what's going on. I've seen this same thing play out with other bogus inventors: the "perpetual motion" guys are a hoot! At least they don't give up so easily, and do try to string you along more fervently. They are far more entertaining. (I recall having a forum debate with one of those guys for many months, where he absolutely insisted that "F=MA" is scientific proof that when you accelerate a force, it creates negative mass...)

In reality, there are already several "negative-stiffness" acoustic products on the market, and they already work, demonstrably, so even the title of this thread is incorrect: there's nothing "new" nor "revolutionary" about this invention, and clearly no patent either. Not even a working prototype...

One of your many mistakes is that you are confusing pressure with stiffness,

Nope! That's kinda hard to do. (And I'm also not confusing "crazy" with "genius"...) In fact, I rather think it was you that made this error, in your very first paragraph: "The idea is to use something called "negative-stiffness" ... to create a product that is twenty times more compliant (compressible)". If I'm not wrong, you do seem to be equating "stiffness" with "pressure" there. And yet you accuse ME of doing that? "Projection" is another favorite response from bogus inventors: As soon as one points a mistake in their diatribe, they spin that around and project it back at you, desperately attempting to make it appear that THEY never said it, but YOU did... Go figure...

But I'll be generous here: Maybe you actually do have a device that works as you claim, so let's see the proof. Build a working prototype bass trap that works as you claim, is about the size of a shoe-box as you claim it can be, and outperforms a normal Superchunk bass trap or acoustic hanger trap as you claim it does, and can be placed up to 7 feet away from where such a trap would typically be located as you also claim. Once you have done that, (and not before!) please feel free to post again on this thread. And provide photos of the device, in operation. But do make sure that you also include the complete report from the reputable independent acoustic test facility where you have it tested, and showing that it does, indeed, perform the way you claim it performs.

When you post that, I'll happily eat my words.

In fact, let's simplify the challenge, so you have a better chance of being able to comply: Instead of shoe-box size, it can be as large as typical airline carry-on bag, with a volume of about one tenth that of a typical superchunk, and it doesn't need to work at a distance of 7 feet from the typical location: lets make that 5 feet. But we do still need the lab rest reports, showing that it exceeds the performance of a full-size superchunk trap by 26 dB when tested according to ASTM procedures. In fact, lets make it just 10 dB! Not 26 db. As long as your "invention" exceeds the performance of a superchunk by 10 dB across the entire low end of the audio spectrum (from 20 Hz to 200 Hz), that's enough.

(My guess is that this thread will remain silent and empty of such a post from you, for a very, very long time. Probably about the same time as the first working perpetual motion device actually does work . . . )

Thank god for people who found the time to get a science education, and who don’t let personal issues cloud their judgment.

Thank you very much! I do appreciate that recognition, and the blessing. (Although "God" should be spelled with a capital "G".)

this product being twenty times less stiff than the air will offer about 4.5 ... times less impedance.

I assume you actually meant SPECIFIC acoustic impedance? But I'll let that miss-step slide for now... So your claim is that the specific acoustic impedance of your device is around 90 MKS rays? And that the speed of sound waves passing through it will be around 1,500 M/S? And that's why it will be twenty times more effective than any other bass trap? Interesting...

I found more inviting channels to help push this idea forward.

Let me guess: a perpetual motion machine forum?


(Now watch for the "clever" come-back: these types are so predictable...)

(PS: Your absolute refusal to follow the forum rules for posting WILL get you banned, you know.... you have one last chance to fix that...)


- Stuart -

[michaell]

You already know I’m right, you are just trying to entertain your members by creating an argument.

You claim that 'In reality, there are already several "negative-stiffness" acoustic products on the market', show me one.

[Soundman2020]

.
.
.
.
I have tried three times already: I will give this just one more try, then I'm giving up:
.
.
.
.

READ THE forum rules for posting (click here). You are still missing something!


Blatant disregard for the rules and disrespect for authority does not bode well for a successful product....

you are just trying to entertain your members by creating an argument.

Really? Do you think that highly of your false claims that you imagine the entire forum is watching your thread with bated breath, just waiting for the next exciting installment? Truth is: nobody cares. Of the roughly 23,000 members on this forum, about ten are following your thread. So just a bit less more than a hundredth of one percent... If I wanted to entertain the members, I would draw their attention to this thread: www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20471 where REAL acoustic treatment was put to proper use, and the stunning results seen there were achieved. That one is being followed by several HUNDRED members. Or this thread: http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 68&start=0 or this thread http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... =1&t=14147 or this one, which has over half a million views. Your thread is absolutely insignificant, and of no interest at all for the overwhelming majority of forum members. They recognize a scam when they see one.

You already know I’m right,

Nice try! You should try out for Comedy Central. The half-dozen people who are following your thread already saw through that, since the above posts clearly demonstrate the contrary.

You claim that 'In reality, there are already several "negative-stiffness" acoustic products on the market', show me one.

Well gee, that's not hard!

https://www.minusk.com/content/in-the-n ... ml?azonano

It appears that your patent is unlikely to be granted.... If, indeed, you ever actually applied for one. On the other hand, it actually is possible to get a patent for a device that absolutely, totally, positively, cannot possibly work! https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070246939A1/en , https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050173996 . So maybe you will be able to get a patent, after all . . .


- Stuart -

[michaell]

Wow, if you don’t see the difference between this product and my idea then we are not even on the same page, this product cancels the stiffness of an internal spring, it deals with the air stiffness by simply not sealing it in (not to mention it has too much mass).

While professors in acoustics are showing interest in it, you are arguing with me, clearly the gap between the educated and uneducated is greater than I thought (although you would make a pretty good spell checker).

I am clearly wasting my time on your forum, so if you prefer I remove all my posts, I can do so within a few days.

[Gregwor]

Michaell,

Why don't you just post your location and such as every other active member has on the forum?

And maybe link us to another forum where professors in acoustics are showing interest.

We all want your device to exist, but your refusal to cooperate with the forum posting rules (add your damned location!) is ultimately preventing further conversation (yes, Stuart's hard a$$ remarks are conversation). The few members that actually are following this thread will be ripped from the knowledge obtained just from reading your bickering! I wasn't aware of any negative stiffness products. This is very interesting stuff so please, fill out your profile and instead of fighting with Stuart, have a healthy conversation and provide some more information as he has requested.

Greg

[Soundman2020]

Don't feed the trolls, Greg. That's clearly what he is. There is no "invention", there are no "professors", no "patent", no "research", no specifications, and the only intention is to aggravate and distract. Hence, his infantile refusal to follow the rules. Hence my refusal to play his game. I'll give him another 24 hours, then that's it.


- Stuart -

[michaell]

Hey,

I am trying to delete all my posts,

Why is your system not letting me delete my posts??

?

[michaell]

12