DIY Water Audio Oscillator - How to Make a bowl of Water "Sing"

[Matthew DeBlock]

http://youtu.be/KVb_mEVzEks
DIY Water Audio Oscillator - How to Make a bowl of Water "Sing"

After convincing water to dance a couple times I decide it was time to teach it to sing. Electro chemical water based electronics are fun!!! and easy DIY :D

Full details : http://dscript.org/diy-oscillator-making-water-sing
Many more DIY experiments/projects on my Youtube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/freedscript

DISCLAIMER: water and electricity are fun, but still not exactly the safest combination. I take no responsibility for the results of your actions if you decide to try these yourself ;)

[Richie Cyngler]

This is really really cool.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Connected Community HackerSpace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to connected-community-h...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/connected-community-hackerspace/325d20b5-afed-4974-ac85-a2f5f09d2417%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
Richie

www.glitchpop.com

[Clifford Heath]

Cute, but (sorry to play the curmudgeon again) it's not a water oscillator. The motor is the oscillator, the water cell just converts rotational motion into a varying current.

An oscillator has a net (or loop) gain with a positive feedback path that causes it to oscillate. In the case of the motor the commutator is the switching element, which routes current through the windings to create motion that drives the switches; which closes the loop. The gain and phase of the feedback is adjusted to give continuous rotation.

There is no such feedback loop involving the water.

--

[Matthew DeBlock]

YAY.. a semantics challenge!!!!!

And Oscillator is a device desined for oscillation

This is a water oscillator in that water is one of the components of the oscillator

The waters chemical properties are responsible for the oscillation (otherwise there would be no wave)

an at the very least, the water, being the medium means one could also call this a "water based oscillator" as opposed to a "silicon based oscillator"

you are restricting the word "oscillator" more that it has to be. a string can be oscillator yet a string needs outside power. The oscillator itself does not technically need to include power gain or source.

I believe you are using the VERY VERY strict definition of "electronic oscillator" within an electrical engineering perspective.

 sure it is a motor oscillator, I currently have some ideas how to remove the motor.. after that i will try to remove all moving parts, but that will be hard.

I will concede it a is "electro-mechanical  water based oscillator" ;)

but I refuse to drop the water, that is one of my themes, to try an build electronics and electrical component equivalents with as much water and as little standard components as possible. (yes i know there is alot of loss, but that loss is larely converted into chemical fuels (acids/bases, hydrogen/oxgen))

I think I am doing well, got quite a few, and never used a transistor (ok.. i did use some relays ;) in a few, and there is probably a transistor in my laser)

In case you are wonderin how on earth this could ever be useful.. think a 100 years with nano tech ;)

after all, you are just a water based computer like me and everyone else ;) (gain is only achieved between neurons in the form of ions and neurotransmitters through water"

don't wanna sound defensive.. just having fun.. I love debate :D

(and sorry if I rant)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Connected Community HackerSpace" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/connected-community-hackerspace/sqI8aG1tJXk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to connected-community-h...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/connected-community-hackerspace/CAPnXPY3TYLqpy%3DnV1w55KnmnBtv1AbGimS0cEtyAiVKmocrULA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Clifford Heath]

On 08/07/2013, at 10:30 AM, Matthew DeBlock <vast...@gmail.com> wrote:
> YAY.. a semantics challenge!!!!!

Would you rather discuss syntax? Personally I find "meanings" more interesting.

> And Oscillator is a device desined for oscillation

No, it's designed *to create* oscillation… very important distinction.

> This is a water oscillator in that water is one of the components of the oscillator

No, it isn't. It is no component of the oscillator. it is a component of
a signal chain that converts battery power into an audible signal.
It has no involvement in the creation of that signal.

> The waters chemical properties are responsible for the oscillation (otherwise there would be no wave)

No, they aren't. Not at all, not in the slightest.
The hydraulic device is actually a crude frequency
multiplier, and is interesting as such, but it's not an
oscillator.

> you are restricting the word "oscillator" more that it has to be.

No, I'm not.

> The oscillator itself does not technically need to include power gain or source.

Yes, it does. To sustain oscillation in the face of the laws of thermodynamics
(entropy) requires gain to replace the energy which is lost on each cycle.

> I believe you are using the VERY VERY strict definition of "electronic oscillator" within an electrical engineering perspective.

Did I mention electronics? I don't believe I did.

The Tacoma Narrows bridge was an oscillator. No electronics there.

A home plumbing problem called "water hammer" is an oscillator,
and in fact it is truly a water oscillator. Water pressure provides
the energy, and variation in water flow interacts with a tap valve
an the mechanical characteristics of the piping to create and sustain
an oscillator.

Your experiment in no way involves the water in creating the oscillator.

> sure it is a motor oscillator, I currently have some ideas how to remove the motor.. after that i will try to remove all moving parts, but that will be hard.
> I will concede it a is "electro-mechanical water based oscillator" ;)

The water is irrelevant to the oscillation, because it forms no part of
the feedback loop which sustains the amplitude of the oscillation against
entropic losses.

> but I refuse to drop the water, that is one of my themes,

By all means experiment with water to make circuits. You can make some
amazing things with water-based circuits. But please do educate yourself
about what the common circuits are called, and why they have those names,
before mis-using them.

> to try an build electronics and electrical component equivalents with as much water and as little standard components as possible. (yes i know there is alot of loss, but that loss is larely converted into chemical fuels (acids/bases, hydrogen/oxgen))

You can build water-based analogs of all electronic components; capacitors,
resistors, bipolar transistors, FETs, even inductors, etc. Not too difficult, though
the high viscosity of water (analogous to resistance in electricity) makes it hard
to produce good circuits.

> I think I am doing well, got quite a few, and never used a transistor (ok.. i did use some relays ;) in a few, and there is probably a transistor in my laser)
>
> In case you are wonderin how on earth this could ever be useful.. think a 100 years with nano tech ;)
> after all, you are just a water based computer like me and everyone else ;) (gain is only achieved between neurons in the form of ions and neurotransmitters through water"

"water based computer": Just because there's water physically present
in brains doesn't mean that water flow or pressure plays any part in the
processes of thought. The only role that water flow plays is in the vestibular
mechanism of the inner ear; and there it functions as a sensor, not a piece
of computing apparatus.

> don't wanna sound defensive.. just having fun.. I love debate :D
> (and sorry if I rant)

I'm not going to try to educate you if you resist it. I love debate too, and
will happily tell you how to create the above devices. But only if you
appear educable.

Clifford Heath.

> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/connected-community-hackerspace/CACWJ1t95BW82CvdcsgsWgay06tS2XZ0EWpYt%2BzHhVW60tNwdug%40mail.gmail.com.

[Darren Freeman]

On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 08:30 +0800, Matthew DeBlock wrote:
> YAY.. a semantics challenge!!!!!

Or you don't know what you're talking about, and someone is trying to be
helpful.

I was thinking the same thing as Clifford, but I figured that you
wouldn't want to hear it.

> This is a water oscillator in that water is one of the components of
> the oscillator

You've built a water-based record player. The chopper wheel contains a
recording of a sound, and the water takes part in replaying it.

Had you cut a record with a sine-wave on it, I don't think that many
people would agree that playing this on a turntable constitutes building
an oscillator.

The electronic equivalent of your machine would be "direct digital
synthesis", in which a D/A converter is fed by a look-up table that is
clocked by an oscillator. In your case, the motor functions as the
clock, and the wheel functions as the look-up table. Water only takes
part in converting one type of signal to another via a look-up table.

> I will concede it a is "electro-mechanical water based oscillator" ;)

You should further concede that it's not an oscillator :P

Have fun,
Darren
>

[Andy Gelme]

hi All,

This is pretty informative.

But, please try to convey the same information in a less confrontational
way.

Otherwise, we will lose the good parts in an overwhelming flurry of
personal slights.

Just the strength of a good explanation should be sufficient.

Focus on the ball, not the player.

--
-O- cheers = /\ /\/ /) `/ =
--O -- http://www.geekscape.org --
OOO -- an...@geekscape.org -- http://twitter.com/geekscape --

[Matthew DeBlock]

Obviously alot of hardcore EE guys here. hehe

you tone is a little insulting, I do know what an EE oscillator is. and yes perhaps playin a record is a good analogy for this version.

but the system can be reduce to a smaller, faster spinning motor and a single "spoke/hole" and no more record analogy is possible.

The fact that i have to use a disc with many holes as opposed to one, is because with my specific hardware on hand i was unable to produce enough hertz for audio (friction a cheap motor and hack design were holding it back. this design was to overcome the friction barrier without buying a better motor)

again, I am currently tryin to remove the motor.

if I do it with valve that opens and closes would be more inclined to call it an oscillator? (currently tryin to design a DYI valve capable of that frequency, but it is hard to do under water with the extra pressure)

ill concede it is not an "oscillator" if you concede if we argee the meaning here is an oscillator is "only electronic devices, capable of producing an oscillating signal, without the use of moving parts" (technicall crystal oscillators have movin parts)

..and all oscillator have overall loss, there is outside power put into the system.

..and all oscillator consume some power to create their oscillations (transistors, capacitors inductors, all have mechanical equivalents)

Why do the EE guys think they own the word "oscillator"? :P hehe

it existed long before we discovered electricity ;)

notice a search for "oscillator" in wikipedia results FIRST in mechnaical oscillators, and later can be refined to mean "electronic oscillator"

hope my tone is not "agressive" but I honestly feel we have spun into a sematics debate over the meanin of the word oscillator.

shall we bein definin the word?

got these from dictionary.com

i choose definition 2 is both cases ;)
 (I wil concede clearly the most common usgae is now the EE defintion)

os·cil·la·tor

⃕

[os-uh-ley-ter] Show IPA

noun

1.

Electronics. a circuit that produces an alternating output current of a certain frequency determined by the characteristics of the circuit components.

2.

a device or machine producing oscillations.

3.

a person or thing that oscillates.

oscillator  (ˈɒsɪˌleɪtə)
— n
1.	a circuit or instrument for producing an alternating current or voltage of a required frequency
2.	any instrument for producing oscillations
3.	a person or thing that oscillates

>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Connected Community HackerSpace" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/connected-community-hackerspace/sqI8aG1tJXk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to connected-community-h...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/connected-community-hackerspace/1373245108.30791.31.camel%40buffy.sunnydale.

[Darren Freeman]

On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 09:19 +0800, Matthew DeBlock wrote:
> you tone is a little insulting, I do know what an EE oscillator is.
> and yes perhaps playin a record is a good analogy for this version.

Again, Clifford and I are only trying to explain something to you that
you clearly don't understand. On my part, no insult is intended.

> but the system can be reduce to a smaller, faster spinning motor and a
> single "spoke/hole" and no more record analogy is possible.

Not true. A record player is not limited to playing high frequencies, it
can also play a single cycle per revolution of the record.

> if I do it with valve that opens and closes would be more inclined to
> call it an oscillator? (currently tryin to design a DYI valve capable
> of that frequency, but it is hard to do under water with the extra
> pressure)

If the valve is driven by a signal that originates with the water, then
yes, I might call it an oscillator.

> ill concede it is not an "oscillator" if you concede if we argee the
> meaning here is an oscillator is "only electronic devices, capable of
> producing an oscillating signal, without the use of moving
> parts" (technicall crystal oscillators have movin parts)

Not true. A vibrating string is a damped harmonic oscillator. But
because it is damped, it is not, on its own, a device capable of
sustained oscillation. (I.e. a device called an "oscillator" for short.)

Whereas a string instrument that is being played with a bow, is a
mechanical oscillator. The energy input allows it to sustain the
oscillation while providing useful power output into the air. You could
build a machine with a continuous belt in place of the bow, and it could
then excite a sustained oscillation for as long as a motor drives the
belt.

> Why do the EE guys think they own the word "oscillator"? :P hehe
>
> it existed long before we discovered electricity ;)

I'm also a physicist :P

> notice a search for "oscillator" in wikipedia results FIRST in
> mechnaical oscillators, and later can be refined to mean "electronic
> oscillator"

(Because Wikipedia is a reliable source of knowledge.)

> hope my tone is not "agressive" but I honestly feel we have spun into
> a sematics debate over the meanin of the word oscillator.

Well, if I said that the sky was green, and then, assuming that somebody
could be bothered disagreeing with me, would I be justified in widening
the definition of green to include blue?

That's just being stubborn. There are millions of people who think that
an oscillator is one thing, and now you want it to be other things as
well. You could instead pick a more appropriate word like "synthesiser"
or "signal generator".

Again, I don't mean to insult you, I am only trying to set the record
straight. I'm not about to alter my definition of "oscillator" to
include things that are not oscillators.

Have fun,
Darren

[Matthew DeBlock]

I think you summed it all up riht here

"But because it is damped, it is not, on its own, a device capable of
sustained oscillation. (I.e. a device called an "oscillator" for short.)"

electronic component consume power to operate

we are arguing about ratio here i think

your "official oscillator" just seems to "must be as efficient as electricity and have what we consider to be 'neliable waste".

You have basically said that 0.1 is 0.1.. but 0.0001 is 0.

I never said it was efficient.

...

also

"(Because Wikipedia is a reliable source of knowledge.)"

I take exception to wikipedia bashers

Wikipedia is FAR more credible and unbiased than most university professors I have met.

what is your "better than wikipedia alternative?"

Have fun,
Darren

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Connected Community HackerSpace" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/connected-community-hackerspace/sqI8aG1tJXk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to connected-community-h...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/connected-community-hackerspace/1373249159.30791.57.camel%40buffy.sunnydale.

[Matthew DeBlock]

whoops.. sorry.. noticed you did not bash wikipedia.. unles you made a typo... i assumed from contect that was a "not" and ater noticed "oh my od there i no "not"..

so what did you mean?

[Matthew DeBlock]

*i notice there was not a "not" and now am unclear as to meaning of that sentence. so mechanical oscillator ARE oscillators?

[Matthew DeBlock]

FYI.. you are talkin to a polyglot (enlish french, spanish and madarin) living in China.

so as per definitions I have so many lexicon to keep track of I tend to use more universal definitons. you may find that in many lanuages their word for "osciallator" is not so restrictive as you are describing.

again, this is all a "war of definitions"

I have told you what I mean by "oscillator"

I am using an accepted definition.

I understood your point from the beginning.

Voltaire : Define your terms ;)

I stand by "this is an oscilator"

I still see no flaw in that statement