FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Guest: Milo Wolff - 'Drifting in a Universe of Waves'
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> TreeIncarnation Audio Shows
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7773

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:09 pm    Post subject: Guest: Milo Wolff - 'Drifting in a Universe of Waves' Reply with quote



Special Guest:
Milo Wolff - 'Drifting in a Universe of Waves'
http://quantummatter.com/

Milo Wolff is a visionary, original thinker. Now retired from work on the Apollo missions,
his Wave Structure Theory of Matter envisions a universe built on waves --with not a
particle in sight. It's a simplifying idea gaining ground on the Internet, while largely
ignored by particle-based mainstream string theorists.

What's more, his conception of the underlying universal structure, unites Quantum and
Relativistic physics interpretations. It also features an in/out wave concept and mirror
reflection --both of these are also key aspects of our work on TreeIncarnation.com

A must interview guest!

Audio Mp3
Click to Play or
Right-Click to Download
DSL mp3
http://www.treeincarnation.com/audio/TreeIncarnation061219a.mp3

Dialup mp3
http://www.treeincarnation.com/audio/TreeIncarnation061219.mp3


Show Graphics
http://www.treeincarnation.com/audio/milowolff.htm


Last edited by Fintan on Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:10 pm; edited 9 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the mind boggles not so much as it goes boiyoiyoiyoiyoing ! Smile ..more fantastic stuff, Fintan and Wolff

i need to polish up my mind a bit to take all this stuff in...but i might, just might have something that feels like it may be an insight to share, now, i base this upon broad ignorance, but...you and Milo Wolff were discussing the nature of space...

i have sometimes wondered about this myself, with the scientific 'problem' of the 'expanding universe', and the lack of matter - giving rise to 'dark matter' theories...i'm not too convinced by dark matter, or parallel universes/extra dimensions in the 'commonly' understood sense - but as i say i base that on ignorance (not that ignorance is always a bad thing) - trying to grasp the mainstream theories of strings and things never worked for me, i kept having the following 'thoughts'...gravity supposedly pulls things in toward a body of great mass, and this might link into the wave structure of matter discussed in the audio...if 'stuff' is based on the culmination of two opposing waves (think i get that - and hope i paraphrase it adequately), then could mass be one 'wave', and lack of mass be another ? ...by which, i mean that if 'somethingness' attracts, then why not 'nothingness' repels - therefore you don't need dark matter (?!) - and the massive and mostly empty space between planets, systems and galaxies, is pushing all the 'stuff' together, as much as the 'stuff', is pulling things inward

for me this makes sense also of this big bang business, one big bang is getting back to single-creation religion-type-thinking again in my humble opinion, but a constant series of mini-bangs, like the bubbles in a pan of boiling water, now that makes sense - i have this (uneducated) theory that just as much as a lot of 'something' confined can make big bangs like a nuclear weapon utilising critical mass, then maybe, a large expanse of nothingness can give rise to the conversion/creation/re-something-or-othering of energy or matter, by the natural effect of critical nothing, or critical lack-of-mass ?

never typed this up before, and i might be totally redundant, or incredibly stupid mentioning it, or not, or both Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Such a small world, isn't it? It's so cool that you guys have hooked up. Milo Wolff's work has been a great interest of mine for 2 years, and I had the honor of having a nice long conversation with Milo on the phone a while back. His work, and the work of his proponet Geoff Haselhurst, have both been a great influence on my own thought.

The M-branes collapsing toward each other that you describe Fintan, and Milo's In/Out Waves, they do seem to me different ways to describe the very same thing.

I haven't even listened to the audio yet, but I had to quickly write in, just to express my excitment at the meeting of 2 minds I highly respect for their independance, sharpness, and orginality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, I've listened to the first show. Really enjoyed it.

Although Fintan and Milo are definitely coming at metaphysics from 2 different starting points, there's a lot of agreement and overlap. That's why I'm looking forward to learning more about your system, Fintan, to compare and contrast the 2, as I'm much more familiar with Milo's at this point.

This could be a matter of semantics, but I wanted to point out a correction. Fintan you seemed to suggest that Milo's Wave Structure of Matter theory suggested instantaeous, faster than light communication (you used the orbit of the earth around the sun as an example), but my understanding is that this is not his view. As he mentioned the speed of light changes, but on the whole the change in velocity is not a lot, and certainly the speed of light does not go so fast that energy can be tranferred (ie. information sent) from the sun to the earth instantly. The sharring of information is continuous within the Hubble radius (ie. in a ball 28 billion light years across, all the waves are talking to each other) and hence all matter interpenetrates all matter within that sphere. This is the mind blowing thing (for me) in Milo's system: each electron is 28 billion light years wide! But it's the dense center of the electron that's 'substantive' and can be measured, and has a very small width. So this really changes your thinking. You don't have a sun over there, and an earth over here; although their centers are at a distance, they actually interpenetrate each other if you take into account the whole wave pattern. We usually refer to these things as objects and their fields, but this unifies those ideas a lot more: the 'object' is the dense wave centres, and the 'field' is the less dense part of the waves -- they are just 2 different aspects of the same wave pattern. This interpenetration is the 'non-locality' aspect talked about in QM, and a lot of people in the 80s started calling it 'holographic'. But this is not to say all energy exchanges are instant. Non-locality, yes, faster than light, no.

On the political front, I've been asking myself for quite sometime why the establishment is so resistant to Milo's incredibly sane ideas. Of course, instituitions tend to be conservative by nature and are slow to change, but I wonder if there is more to the resistance. The editors of Wikipedia have even recently REJECTED an entry on the Wave Structure of Matter, citing something about that it was not from published work, despite Milo having published a paper explaining his ideas in a PEER REVIEWED scientifc journal (Physics Essays) in the early nineties. It seems very anti-wikipedia, and I wonder if there isn't an active campaign out there to supress these sorts of ideas. If more scientists thought in this way would free energy be close behind? Is it greed, or is it plain fear of anything that moves us to the next level?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hope nobody minds me hogging the thread, but I have been studying Milo's work for a while and I wanted to respond to your thoughts, Matt. As with most of the topics on breakfornews.com, it takes some unlearning to really start to listening to truly new ideas (that's where ignorance can help!). Concepts like space, mass, and gravity have to be imagined in a new way to really grasp the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) theory.

Space, in Milo's system, is full. For most of history this full space was called the Ether or Aether, but that term has become passé among scientists (which is why Milo shys away from it, I think). So the matter waves are waves of something, not waves of nothingness, and the distance between planets are not empty (quite the opposite). Matter is a primary substance vibrating. This primary substance is continuous, smooth, and rigid (like a tightly stretched string on an instrument, except in 3D). So the primary substance vibrates in place. When you walk across the room, this is an apparent motion, just as a tidal wave moving across the Pacific is not a section of water traveling across the ocean, it is a wave front that's moving. The energy is what moves across the room, not the substance. Imagine, as an analogy, that you are a deep sea creature made of water, and are therefore unaware of the water. You'd likely label the water 'nothing' or 'empty'.

Matt wrote:
...if 'stuff' is based on the culmination of two opposing waves (think i get that - and hope i paraphrase it adequately), then could mass be one 'wave', and lack of mass be another ?


That would not fit the atomic physic's definition of mass. What is mass, anyway? In the quantum world, high mass and high frequency are different names for the same thing. Imagine a high frequency wave -- the wavelengths are short, or the wave crests are bunched together. Where the Ether is more compressed like this, we call that a 'mass'. In that definition, there is no such thing as anti-mass. You may have heard of anti-matter (yeah, that stuff used to power the Enterprise on Star Trek), and in WSM it's understood that anti-matter are matter waves that are 180˚ out of phase with matter (bring them together, and they cancel each other out, setting all the amplitudes to zero and annihilating everything like the dance of Kali!) Milo has played with the idea that anti-matter has the opposite gravity to matter, and has imagined in order for this to work some galaxies are anti-matter, some are matter, but this is an impossible theory to test at this point.

What about gravity? This is hard to explain without animated pictures, but there is no 'attraction', 'pushing' or 'pulling' in matter wave terms. These are more descriptions of how gravity feels to us subjectively. First you have to understand that these matter wave patterns are enormous. As I said above, every electron is estimated to be 28 billion light years across. So your own body is that big too (put that in your pipe and smoke it!). Try to imagine that your body is not an isolated thing in empty space, but that it first forms from the vibrations of the very fabric of the Universe billions of light years away (from your center). These vibrations literally move like collapsing spheres. These are the 'In-Waves'. When these collapsing onion skins reach the center, they become denser (ie. the amplitude, or compression, is much greater at this point. This is labeled the 'particle' on the atomic level). So you're standing on planet Earth, and gravity is holding your feet onto the planet....at least that's the conventional way of thinking about it. In WSM, your body FIRST passed through the Earth on the underside in the form of In-Waves, and because they had to travel through other dense wave centers (the planet) to get there, those subtle waves were affected and slowed down. The In-Waves that are also your body originating from deep space on all the other sides were not slowed down. With each pulse of these waves, your body in the direction of your feet has a harder time getting to you because it has to pass through a planet! It feels like you are being pulled down, but mechanically your body is being 'redrawn' with each pulse more slowly on one side than on the others.

Matt wrote:
for me this makes sense also of this big bang business, one big bang is getting back to single-creation religion-type-thinking again in my humble opinion, but a constant series of mini-bangs, like the bubbles in a pan of boiling water, now that makes sense


I hope physicist's can break out of this 'certainty' they have about the Big Bang. It is little more than a religious belief. We can't be sure about what happened on September 11, 2001, but we're 'certain' about 14 billion years ago? Yeah, right. I'm not saying that I'm just as certain it's incorrect, but let's call a spade a spade -- it's a mythological cosmology like any other, not that much different from other religions that are 'certain' about the origins of the Universe. It's based on a hell of a lot of assumptions that could easily be incorrect.

I believe this story has been posted by others on the forum in another thread, but I'll repeat it. The short version of the Big Bang Theory is this: Hubble recorded in his observatory that the spectral lines from starlight of other galaxies on a spectrometer where shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. The further the galaxy, the further the lines were shifted. He did not observe 'the universe expanding', all he observed was the shift of spectral lines. Most conclused that this is a Doppler effect, and hence meant most galaxies were moving away from us, BUT THIS INTERPRETATION COULD BE WRONG. Even Hubble himself was careful and referred to the 'apparent velocity' of other galaxies. Einstein at the time preferred the steady state model of the universe, and postulated an anti-gravity force to keep the universe from collapsing. Also at that time in the 1920s, the Catholic priest and physicist Lemaître, in what one can argue was an attempt to reconcile Christianity and physics, came up with the 'primal-atom' theory of the expanding universe that had a single origin point of creation. He was able to convince Hubble and Einstein that his ideas solved their problems, that what Hubble observed was an expanding universe, and that Einstein did not need an anti-gravity force. It was much later around 1950 that Sir Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang Theory" as an insult, as he put forward perfectly plausible theories for 'mini-bangs', very much just as you say Matt, and argued that heavy elements could be formed in supernovas (not all at once at a Big Bang, as is the orthodoxy today).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Urbanspaceman wrote:
Space, in Milo's system, is full. For most of history this full space was called the Ether or Aether, but that term has become passé among scientists (which is why Milo shys away from it, I think). So the matter waves are waves of something, not waves of nothingness, and the distance between planets are not empty (quite the opposite). Matter is a primary substance vibrating.

...thanks for the thoughtful reply, Urban

yep, i was talking from the fish point of view...by 'nothing' i was not labouring under the certainty that simply because it looks empty, it is

Matt wrote:
...if 'stuff' is based on the culmination of two opposing waves (think i get that - and hope i paraphrase it adequately), then could mass be one 'wave', and lack of mass be another ?


...aha, that was just something i threw in...a metaphor...i just like the idea of the idea that if stuff pulls (in our experience/broadly understood terminology), why not not-stuff pushes ? Shocked


'antimatter' seems awfully kooky to me, just a latter day turtle on which to rest the laws of physics

Urbanspaceman wrote:
every electron is estimated to be 28 billion light years across. So your own body is that big too (put that in your pipe and smoke it!). Try to imagine that your body is not an isolated thing in empty space, but that it first forms from the vibrations of the very fabric of the Universe billions of light years away (from your center).

...brain say 'boiyoiyoiying' again Very Happy ...and i did put it in my pipe, but it was a bugger to light

Urbanspaceman wrote:
I hope physicist's can break out of this 'certainty' they have about the Big Bang. It is little more than a religious belief. We can't be sure about what happened on September 11, 2001, but we're 'certain' about 14 billion years ago? Yeah, right. I'm not saying that I'm just as certain it's incorrect, but let's call a spade a spade -- it's a mythological cosmology like any other, not that much different from other religions that are 'certain' about the origins of the Universe.

...yeah, one big old bang just does not fit, it's got to be wrong, speaking from an instinctive standpoint
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7773

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:05 pm    Post subject: Part 2 - Milo Interview Reply with quote

Part 2 - Milo Interview

I have combined the Milo interviews
Part 1 and Part 2 into one audio show.
(Skip the first 25 minutes if you heard Part 1)

Go to the first post, where the links now
play the full interview.


Last edited by Fintan on Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:32 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

matt wrote:
...aha, that was just something i threw in...a metaphor...i just like the idea of the idea that if stuff pulls (in our experience/broadly understood terminology), why not not-stuff pushes ? Shocked


Okay, I think I see. I think you're on the right track that the not-stuff still does something, because there is no truly empty space. But the distinction between stuff/not stuff is the object/field, not the in/out waves. The in/out waves give us the stable matter, basically a standing wave. It's like if I wave one end of a skipping rope, and you wave the other at the same rate, you get a wave that stands in place. Milo's model of the electron is like a 3D version of that.

matt wrote:
'antimatter' seems awfully kooky to me, just a latter day turtle on which to rest the laws of physics


Seems kooky, I agree, but antimatter is not theoretical like the Big Bang or dark matter. Positrons (anti-elections) are used in medical scans (PET scans= Positron Emission Tomography).

matt wrote:
...brain say 'boiyoiyoiying' again ...and i did put it in my pipe, but it was a bugger to light


My brain's original reaction was more like wha...boiywhooooopflibidiflibidiflibidikerding!

matt wrote:
...yeah, one big old bang just does not fit, it's got to be wrong, speaking from an instinctive standpoint


I have the same feeling. It's seems very limiting that the universe would not be constantly creating. If the universe were a person, it would be like having this burst of creativity and then laying around for the rest of your life. But feelings aside, how would we verify that in a scientific way? The Big Bangers are way too confident in their evidence. What kind of empirical test could one come up with to prove the universe even had a beginning? I'm reminded of a story I heard about the Buddha, who apparently could search his memory backward through previous lifetimes, and was able to go back many millions of years. If Fintan is right about our immortality, this would not be an impossible human feat. Perhaps if that became a wide spread ability in the future, scientists could search the memory of the universe backward, seeing how far back they could go and if they ever got to a beginning.

boiywhooooopflibidiflibidiflibidikerding!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 847
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Suppose there was a perfect mathematical system? Which operated at infinite frequency, and which did have these perfect characteristics, but you can't quite achieve them, and that de-composes from that mathematical 'Cantion perfection', de-composes into what we observe. Which is the 'less than perfect' sphere; which is the approximate point -- and not the perfect point -- and there's an underlying mathematics that may in some way de-compose to product the observed result, from these 'infinities'."
~Fintan Dunne, Milo Wolff interview

It sounds like you beginning to describe an iterative system.



What is apparently an edge of the Mandelbrot set -- could it actually represent a boundary between possibility and impossibility? Being a structure whose apparent detail and apparent structure only becomes progressively visible as we 'dig deeper' -- what we are looking at in interative space is the mathematically intregal concept of time.

Look at the Mandelbrot Set (not too closely, thar be dragins, and don't try to pick it up, it's really really sharp.). Think for the purposes of my romp, of its interior -- called 'the lake' -- as impossibilities; and everything outward from its apparent-edges, as possibilities. The trivial definities, those places you could place your finger 'safely' away from the apparent-edge.

Note that in order to represent the figure as a 'closed shape' in two dimensions (the Z-axis being the integral iteration), the image is typically plotted with mirror symmetry over the Y-axis. A sensorial convenience that is asthetically pleasing -- and yet it might also represent a real barrier, such as your paradigm of the mountain reflected on the still surface of a lake. This perfect mirror symmetry is the intrinsic result of the product of two negatives being the same as two positives.

But then again -- as we see the apparent-edges 'growing' away from the lake, placing one's finger on some surrounding spot does not necessarily save us from getting a nasty Mandelbrot-cut, such as would be certain if we touched it along the very edge. For we can 'see' -- even from the few iterations we have explored thus far, that these apparent-edges extend away from the lake; but who is to say how 'far' from the edge they might extend, in some 'other' context? Could one dare to draw, with a mathematical crayon, a 'circle' around the Set, and say this Bug does not cross it? Perhaps one could not, though we are safe from injury only in the iterative sense: for the Set's apparent-boundary could only 'approach' our finger in an astronomically distant level of iteration (far beyond that which we've explored via computer, for example). To us, an almost eternally distant future. But in a context where probability and time are mutual coefficients to something else,

A complete certainty in the far distant future is merely an extremely unlikely possibility at this moment.

A complete certainty in the moment is a complete impossibility ever before, forever after.

Intuitively I feel we are somehow riding on these boundaries represented by this transformation. A map if you will; would we ever be able to locate ourselves on it? The Mandelbrot's edge, of infinite complexity (so long as you have the time to explore it). We are thinking systems, conceptualizing systems, generalizing systems; in striving for relevant generality, in striving for observable specificy, pursuing an enquiry over time.

We see natural laws and harmonic effects that seem to 'resonate' with the cantata of prime integrals, but this is as convenient an illusion as the 'assumption' that matter has substance. Matter is not the integral dancer, it is the dance around the integral.

The points of charge in our universe -- the proton, the electron -- are singularities that are approachable but not arrivable in our Universal context. Because they are like little 'Julias', Julia sets are projections of Mandelbrot from a particular point of edge, a taffy-like 'fold' or 'inversion'. We can push these things around, but just as the Earth does get pushed (slightly) away from us as we leap into the air -- they are opposing us too. Along the boundary of possibility and impossibility. We are riding along the infinitesimal boundaries of certainty.

Another word for the edge of the Mandelbrot set? What I call the 'boundary between possibility and impossibility'?

Occam's Razor. Wield it but don't actually touch it, it's really really sharp. But so are we.

Non-Integral Universe construction set:


___
Do not operate heavy machinery while trying to make sense of my flapdoodle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, it's now official - you guys are light years beyond me in intelligence.

My brain glazed over about 5 minutes in, when the "obvious" mental picture of the "many small waves becoming one large one" failed to materialize twixt my synapses.

I gave it a shot, but I don't have a clue what any of this is about. Is there a Lower Level I could be banished to for a while until my mental testicals drop a few more inches? Shocked

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 847
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Okay, it's now official - you guys are light years beyond me in intelligence.

Well I'm pretty sure I've broken several sciences, sprained the English language, popped a few metaphors and twisted the Universe into a not. The moderns will chide me, the Greeks a-gawk at me. But those handsome troglodytes surrounding the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey would worship, then whack me with a femur and sit down to lunch, in that order. Probably my best bet.

There is intelligence -- raw ability, whether it is ever used or not. There is cleverness -- the ability to do something, or one observing others doing something that is surprising, whether it will ever be enlightning in the end (to one) or not. Then there is just plain smart -- more of a hands-on metric of observable results. The concert pianist's mind and hands are clever, but with one finger we could eventually poke out that concerto. Magicians' hands are amazing until we glimpse the secret, then our wonder takes a pedestrian turn for cleverness and skill.

A clever person can assemble the perfect brick house; a smart one adds a doorway, or stands outside while building it. Just tossing darts blindfolded to yelps of pain around me, trying to find the bullseye by empirical trial.

___
For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like.
~Abraham Lincoln
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 847
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A communiqué from the front lines in the battle against dissonance caused by inharmonic partials. hibberts.co.uk also has interesting information on bell science.

Quote:

Example Harmonic Bell shapes and profiles

HARMONIC BELLS
DESIGN, CARILLONS, ORCHESTRAL BELLS and HANDBELLS

Australian Bell has invented a series of bells with harmonic overtones. These are currently being patented in Europe and the USA. Harmonic bells have the clearest pitch salience yet achieved in any bell or other tuned percussion instrument, and can be played in any musical key without dissonance caused by inharmonic partials.

The largest harmonic bell yet cast is a little over one tonne, with a diameter of 1.2 meters and a fundamental frequency of 73 Hz (D2, almost 2 octaves below middle C). The smallest is a handbell just 80mm in diameter with a fundamental frequency of 2488 Hz (D#7, just over 3 octaves above middle C).

HARMONIC BELL DESIGN

Harmonic bells have been designed for use in four contexts:carillons, large bell installations, orchestral bells, and handbells.

The harmonic bell was designed using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) with shape optimisation. The first stage of the design process was to find bell shapes that vibrated with only circumferential modes within the range of partials to be tuned. Circumferential mode frequencies remain approximately evenly spaced for a wide range of shapes, and so could be tuned to a harmonic series. If a bell had any mixed modes interspersed amongst the circumferential modes it can only be tuned harmonicially by tuning the mixed mode to the same frequency as one of the circumferential modes. This leads to one partial sounding much louder than the surrounding partials which disturbs the pitch salience. Such a bell is also very difficult to tune.

Bell shapes with only circumferental modes in the first 7 partials were found by increasing the stiffness of the form to axial vibration through increased cone angles and increased wall thickness toward the crown of the bell. Typically, harmonic bell walls taper to thinner walls at the mouth of the bell. Once the approximate shape of the bell has been found, shape optimisation was used to fine tune the frequency of each mode to the harmonic series. The bell can then be scaled to tune given that frequency is inversly proportional to size (eg. twice the size vibrates at exactly half the frequency).

However one shape cannot be used for the entire frequency range described above. For example, scaling the wider angle bell to C6 (two octaves above middle C) would result in impossibly thin walls. Since the frequency of circumferential modes can be increased by reducing the circumference, the cone angle is decreased and the wall taper increased to arrive at the generally thicker and higher pitched harmonic bell shown below. For larger bells a convex curve can also be used to stiffen the axial modes.

___
Children are dancing long before they discover there is anything that is not music.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> TreeIncarnation Audio Shows All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.