Welcome to CR4 Dave.

Very interesting concept.

What exactly is the purpose for your new design?

Are you trying to make an improvement in the current audio recording technology?

Where/how can this new audio capture technology be implemented?

What are the advantages over the "standard" diaphragm microphones?

How would this type of Microphone compare to "traditional" Microphones for manufacturing/end user costs?

It seems like a very complicated design to accomplish the same task a relatively inexpensive/simple Microphone can do.

Quite Interesting... You have my attention.

Hello again, RV. I'm not sure I had a point when I came up with the idea, other than it should be superior to other microphones from a theoretical POV. We'll see if it gets there. Cheers, Dave

Hi imon2nd,

Welcome! I'm sure there will be questions.

Now, how much better will your response be? How would it compare to a piezoelectric transducer on a rigid, stationary flat plate. How does that compare with the response of the rest of the system? Will loudspeakers be able to reproduce what you will record?

From the patent, "While sound waves travel in only one direction from the source".

What would that direction be? I'm having a problem with that, unless it is outward.

I think a better wording might be... travels in ALL directions from the source. 360°

Or I suppose from the perspective of the microphone It would only be coming from the source... so it can be pinpointed to come from only one direction... until the waves begin bouncing off all nearby objects, which would cause it to come from multiple directions.

-But now I'm just Nitpicking

That's really the problem. Pros use sound intensity probes at the source to analyze sound. It decays/reflects as soon as it leaves the vibrating source.

Worked at a place that did active noise cancellation.

Cheers!

Right, RV. Sound leaves its source in all directions, but voice and musical instruments are directional, at least until the reflections kick in. Cheers, Dave

Hello, Lynn. Fact is, we don't know how much better this thing will be than any conventional mic, diaphragm or plate based. On paper, it has tremendous potential along with some serious engineering challenges making to make it tiny. I'll publish performance results as they are developed. Cheers, Dave

imon2nd,

Keep up the good work. Keep us posted. You could be on to something!

Lyn

Hello, Lyn.

Thought you might be interested to know that a few days ago we figured out how to make the non-occluded-beam mode of operation work. All of the YouTube video clips to date show the first operating mode, occluded beam; the laser passes through the center of a ribbon of moving smoke. Sound pressure waves ripple the smoke, modulate the beam and the photocell tracks that effect to output an electrical signal analogous to the sound input.

That mode works well, but as many people have pointed out, the signal created by the smoke or fog stream itself is always present as a noise floor.

Now, in the second mode of operation the ribbon of smoke is located between the sound input aperture and the laser beam. The distance from the edge of the beam to the edge of the smoke stream is very small: about 0.01 inches. Sound pressure waves impinge on the beam only when there's sound input, yielding a signal. Otherwise, the laser beam-photocell "idle" signal is unaffected, resulting in a very low noise floor in the absence of sound. We hope to have a YouTube video clip online soon to demonstrate this.

Best Regards,

Dave

Hi Dave,

That's great news. One more positive step. I'm sure we are all interested in this project's development and ultimate success.

Buy the way, I tried the Patent Office website and I couldn't get 7580533 to verify.

I Goggled it and looked at it on a free site. You gotta love those patent attorneys. They do have a way with words.

I wonder if rapid movement of the device has any influence on the position of the smoke ribbon, as a helium filled balloon moves in a closed car. Put brakes on: balloon goes backward? Maybe it's not an issue. Maybe you've already solved it, if it's a problem.

Keep us posted.

Lyn

Interesting, but what is the utility? Rescue work? Battlefield reconnaissance? It seems that outside of that lab this would be fraught with technical problems.

Good point, capper. The utility of this thing will have to be proven. We'll see. Cheers, Dave

Seems a wonderful idea to me.Just this:i found in a phisics book :max.displacement of air particles at the minimun audible power(10**-16w/cm2):10**-8 cm.Smoke is heavier,so does it change something?length wave of laser maters?.Is there any easier explanation of your invention than get into USPTO?.-

Hello, ferquiza. Yes, smoke, water vapor, glycerin fog, etc, all affect the speed of sound in air. We'll have to use DSP to compensate. I like water vapor as the medium, but it is really, really volatile. We've had trouble handling it in this app. Cheers, Dave

I can see a definite advantage to your microphone over any existing types. The elimination of a moving mass would greatly improve the quality of the frequency range. An opti-electronic system would not have any mechanical elements to degrade signal quality. It could definitely be a worthwhile mic for recordists.

Within the current spectrum of high fidelity sound, the two weak links are the microphone and the loudspeaker. They both suffer from the negative properties of mass as applied in a sound reproducing system. Theoretically, a sound curve should be a straight line. Deficiencies in reproduction causes dips and peaks on the ideal curve. These are caused by reluctance or resistance of a mass (ribbon, diaphragm) or suspension, coil, cone or ribbon of a loudspeaker.

Thanks for "getting it" Ron. You see where I'm headed with this gadget. Not there yet, but working on it. Cheers, Dave

Interesting idea but I'm not sure how it could become a practical method for recording. Just imagine a singer or musician inside a room full of smoke/fog trying to perform. It would be rather imposible. And, of course, any movement of the performer would disturb the system producing unwanted "noise". Then you should use audio filters to choose the audio components e.t.c.... ...

Goerge,

Did you watch the video? The smoke seems to be contained within a closed tube.

I'm sure imon2nd can explain.

I'm also sure that Les Paul got funny looks when he walked in with a 4x4 with guitar strings and a power cord, too. Today, electric guitars are ubiquitous.

I have no access to YouTube through my company's PC. So, I didn't see the video. If it is as you said, I suspect that there is a small sound source inside the tube to create the sound waves. (It's not possible for outside sound waves to enter the inside of the tube.) I think that it is just an experimental prototype, so they don't care about the real conditions. However, in real conditions the sound source (i.e. the musician) must be in the same room with the "fog" (i.e. inside the fog). So, it cannot be practical, no matter how good performance this "microphone" has. Unless I miss sth.

One more thing, George: there is no sound source inside the housing. The prototypes have a sound inlet hole in the side of the tubular housing. The hole is 5/16-inch in proto 1 and 1/2-inch diameter in proto 2. The hole has a very thin tissue paper cover (OK, I'll admit it; one ply of 2-ply toilet paper) to prevent fricatives and plosives from blowing the smoke stream out of the laser beam path. Cheers, Dave

Hello, George. The current prototypes are open; the smoke is dispersed out the top of the unit. In a commercial version of this thing, assuming we get there, the smoke or fog would be fully contained in a closed loop recirculating system. Alternatively, the medium could be in cartridges and a disposable filter would be used to capture "used" medium. We have tried water vapor as the medium and it does work. I think it would be harmless to vent water fog out of the mic. In any case, the amount of medium expelled is very small for any type of fog or smoke. For more details, download the patent, it's free (the copy, not a license). Best Regards, Dave

If the "fog" is contained inside a closed area (e.g. a tube) in order not to be expeled (and not needed to be produced continually) then you have to use a kind of "diaphragm" (e.g. the tissue that you used in your prototype). This should permit the sound to enter the tube and "modulate" the fog and it should, also, prevent the fog from being expeled from the tube. However, this "diaphragm" have its own bandwidth (resonation e.t.c.) and changes the original sound. And this "altered sound", finally, modulates the fog. In this way, the advantage of this microphone -which is the high bandwidth and high quality- is not valid any more. Have you thought of this???

Nevertheless, its a quite interesting project and I wish you good luck with the commercial application.

Hello?

"Hello, George. The current prototypes are open"

Hi lynlynch. The current prototype is open but in a commercial application I think that the device must be closed. Otherwise it will smoke like "chimney". I, also, suspect that the flow of the fog (e.g. whirl) may disturb the proper "modulation" producing noise. And, of course, if it is closed then it will not have to produce fog all the time. (It will produce just the proper amount of fog in the begining and it will keep it inside). So, it has to be closed. But then, there must be a kind of "diaphragm" (as I refered to my previous post) with a degradation of the performance of the microphone.

Hi GK,

I don't know enough about this thing to have an opinion, yet. I do agree that a physical barrier would have an effect. I'm just listening mostly.

Cheers.

A physical barrier may not have an effect if outside the stream parameters.

No more than a spectator...like me

You could be right. I guess it would depend on the response of the film, etc.

I'll just sit on the sidelines with you, if you don't mind the company.

George, We've run Proto One and Proto Two with open sound apertures as well as lightly covered with a "pop" screen (one ply of two-ply toilet paper), which does nothing much to attenuate sound. It only removes the puffs of air from fricative and plosive parts of speech. I imagine there will be both fully open and screened versions of this mic technology in commercial applications. In no case will there be anything that acts like a diaphragm in the core transducer area. Thanks for the best wishes, and... Best Regards, Dave

Sorry, Dave. I wrote and sent my previous post before seeing your post. (We were writing almost at the same time.) I think that the thin toilet paper doesn't keep the "fog" inside the device effectively. In the final product -probably- you have to use sth more solid (at least at your "screened version"). This will act (unavoidably) as a kind of "diaphragm". So, you have to pay attention on this material: solid enough to keep the "fog" inside the device... but not too solid, permitting the sound to enter the device (foggy area) undisturbed... (I think that you got my point)...

Best regards

George; Your point is certainly valid and is a design factor. One thing I'd like to point out is, the fog or smoke is constrained by aerodynamic factors to a small vertical flow, surrounded by "clean" air, which is also moving at the same velocity. To the naked eye, the ribbon of smoke looks almost solid and very distinct. It is relatively resistant to lateral movement due to its speed. That ribbon of fog or smoke acts kind of like a diaphragm; one with very little mass. I admit, we do not completely understand the interaction between the sound pressure waves and the smoke ribbon. The physics involved are complex. The principal mechanism of modulation may differ with laser wavelength versus particle size. Best Regards, Dave

I am still in doubt about the same: if two peaks of power of the light beam have double frequency than light signal,course, the lengthwave related and its relation with the stream column displacement, both in same order of magnitude, determines, i guess,a high noise level.Not distorted signal but noisy.Is posible solve this problem in case it is as i think, using diferents beams or spliting the same and many known tricks commonly used in electronics.But is this the case? Am i wright?.In a different order of questions:need to be laser light? need to be monocromattic light? need to be coherent light? what is "DSP"?

Hello, Ferquiza. Yes, the light must be coherent and monochromatic: a laser. We're using a red laser at a wavelength of 650 nm. The smoke/air stream is rippled or sequentially compressed by sound pressure. That scatters the laser beam. Yes, the noise floor is high because the smoke is somewhat chaotic within the laminar flow. The good news is, the noise is "white." Presently, we have 6 dB of noise and 36 dB of signal above that. We expect to improve this tremendously over the next year. Bear in mind, we have only completed one prototype and are working on the second. DSP = Digital Signal Processing; a field I have worked in for 26 years. Stay tuned. We'll be producing a video this week in which I will disassemble Prototype Two and discuss the various features and problems of each component. Best Regards, Dave

Hi imon2nd,

You should add a mirror or two, then your invention would be magic (operation with smoke & mirrors) . Just don't let the smoke out - that's how resistors die.

-S

Hello, StandardsGuy.

Whoops, we did let some smoke out. That would explain a few things.

About the mirrors--I'm sure you know they are inside the laser unit. We try not to mention them for the obvious humor that would result.

Best Regards,

Dave