23 Jun
2022
23 Jun
'22
2:53 p.m.
david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> writes:
On 6/22/22 10:57, David Kastrup wrote:
I have no idea whatsoever. It doesn't sound too healthy to be breathing
around those things.
"David W.
Jones"<gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> writes:
Yah, I thought that a laser able to generate sound would be a bit too
strong to use around people.
Plasma speakers. Fascinating. Is there a connection between the volume
of the plasma and the frequency range it can produce? Such as, needing
a bigger box of plasma to produce bass frequencies?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220622101415.htm
If sound can be seen optically, can it be generated optically? Say, to
go with a hologram?
I was of the opinion that laser-based interferometry
microphoning off
window panes had already been standard fare of secret services for
decades. I don't think you really want to use the kind of lasers that
successfully push surfaces around.
Plasma speakers<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_speaker> are
enough of a high-energy ickiness.
I think my favorite sound-producer is still a pipe
organ in a
cathedral. :)
There is a reason you'll find no pipe organ these days that will work
when electricity fails. In times before electrification, bellows duty
was hard work.
Reed organs or their little nieces accordions are a lot more economical
with air. And lots of instruments are more economical with energy than
most loudspeakers. That isn't all surprising, given that they work with
dedicated oscillators while loudspeakers cannot afford resonances.
--
David Kastrup