Talk:Subharmonic

message: One paragraph states (correctly, I think) that the subharmonic series is comprised with ratios of 1/n relative to the frequency of the oscillator. The next paragraph states that it is a misconception and describes combination tones. Perhaps this term has multiple meanings. Sergivs-en (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-contradictory article 

message: Comments by 63.231.234.97 (in brown) on 25 January 2012‎ moved from article to here: (by Crowsnest (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertion of subharmonics occurring only at ratios of 1/n is absolutely false. ANY ratios can be produced the driving factor IS AND ONLY IS the difference between the frequencies of the two or more combined frequencies. If the editor would do some research into the world of frequency synthesis he might become enlightened.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.234.97 (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, IP editor. It would seem that you know what you are talking about, which, I freely admit, is a lot more than I do. What is needed here to start sorting this article out is some reliable references; Wikipedia articles are based on published sources, not on the knowledge of contributors, however expert. Can you point to books or academic articles that support or explain what you are saying? Speaking purely for myself, as my knowledge of this topic is a long way south of zero, it would be particularly helpful if some of those sources could be viewed online. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your reply. A couple of very brief comments: if the theory of subharmonics was treated by Tesla, then some links or references to his treatment would be useful. The physics book you cite (well, actually I found a different edition on Google) discusses beat frequencies, a phenomenon well known to all (?) practising musicians, as they are a fundamental tool in tuning and intonation. And thirdly, I'm sorry, but the personal theories of you or any other editor, however interesting, have no place here. Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources, not on individual theories. I look forward to further references. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved comments by  63.231.234.97 from the article text to here 

message: Interesting take, without seeing any experimental evidence I think that this assertion may be true. The separate sections of the Y should be considered as separate independent sinusoidal sources that partially conform to the strings with bounded nodes while the center point being considered a partially bounded node with additional degrees of freedom. These strings would most likely NOT be able to produce pure single tone sinusoids but would produce superposed sinusoids directly. Similarly  when an open string is lightly touched, thus reducing a degree of freedom, at the center of the string length, the fundamental will be quieted leaving only the 2nd and above harmonics. Similar effects occur when touched at other nodal points. This subject would be experimentally interesting and most likely provide substantiating evidence supporting this discussion concerning the corrections of long standing fallacies that have been, at least temporarily, corrected in this page.
63.231.234.97 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Y Shaped Strings 

message: This topic continues to be completely misunderstood by apparently very well educated persons, let me clue you into how I first arrived at recognizing this fallacy.
In short I was fishing. Take a body of water, that body of water will most likely have waves on its surface. Now lets remove any sources of energy that will create these waves with the exception of the wind. Anyone can plainly see that when a wind blows on this surface waves will form. These initial waves are low amplitude waves with a relatively short wavelength of maybe a couple off centimeters in length that can easily be observed during any wind gust, these are relatively high frequency waves. Now consider that after some time these high frequency waves will always interact to form much longer wavelengths with much higher amplitudes, these are relatively much lower frequency waves.These lower frequency waves are in fact subharmonic waves that have formed because of the differences of the superposition of the original high frequency waves. 
Why is this true when during most of all of my academic experience I have been taught that waves only interact to form N integer harmonic waves? Personally I had to rely on my technical training in aircraft avionics and radio to answer this question. That is correct durrng my entire academic career in electrical engineering from a very prominent institution they completely and miserably failed to ever discuss this topic. This is a very sad commentary on our "higher" educational system. 
The fact is that these lower frequency waves physically form because of both the direct mathematics already discussed here ad nauseum as well as  the results of the conservation of energy theorems from thermodynamics. By the way Herman von Helmholtz is, in a large part, also responsible for this area of physics. 
For a more in depth discussion on this subject please see the paper that has been previously removed from the References section but is still available in the External Links section of the main article.
http://www.photodady.com/subharmonics_rev2.pdf 
63.231.234.97 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this is all original research, see WP:NOR on the Wikipedia policy with respect to original research. This is an encyclopedia, i.e. describing what has appeared in reliable secondary sources. Further, your observations with respect to the lengthening and growing of wind waves are completely incorrect. The mechanisms for lower frequency and higher amplitude are due to nonlinear (Benjamin-Feir) instabilities, resonant nonlinear wave interactions and interaction with the wind. See e.g. . -- Crowsnest (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation that even a child could understand 

message: Thank you for providing collaborative research that provides credibility and independent validation to the century old research (READ: NOT MY OWN RESEARCH) that high frequency waves can and do combine harmonically to form lower frequency waves. In the area of academic research this is usually a reason to jump for joy. But I am not an academic nor was it my intention to prove this since truths always stand on their own. Proven by the incorporation and, albeit slow, acceptance of these century old radio theories into many other areas of industry.  Academia continues to be the last holdout. I must admit that my intentions here were a little subversive. I was actually doing research that might help me with my long standing support for open source programming as well as open source depositories of information.
Unfortunately this is not the case, instead what I am actually accumulating is data that supports the psychological behavioral research of Alfred Adler. That people will behave irrationally and take unethical positions when acquiring and defending positions of power, virtual or otherwise. Thank you for your participation, I was surprised that it took you so long to engage in the ad hominem attacks since I personally thought that they were going to begin much sooner. In fact I thought they were going to start last August when I added my first entry to this page.
Really? I'm the one with a narrow view? Please, when it is YOU that seem to believe that academia and academic publications are the sole source of reliable truth. When yet another instance of the fallacies that have resulted in potentially accelerated human deaths that was perpetuated by numerous “peer reviewed” articles published in the highest caliber academic professional journals that was exposed last night by CBS's 60 Minutes. In my opinion yours is the narrow view.
I was hoping to prove wrong the research performed by Ron Jones and “The Third Wave” theory on fascism, I failed thanks to your help. I was also trying to disprove the assertion by Aristotle that democracies always degenerate into despotisms. Again I failed thanks to your help and unfortunatly  predictable participation.
What happens in the future to the truths I provided here on this page may eventually turn around the conclusions that I am being driven towards, but I am loosing faith. Examples include: WIKILeaks as well as being driven to the Mac from the crappy and unstable MAC-WANNABE UBUNTU GUI and lack of commercial software support despite the fact that generally LINUX systems have proven to be the most stable and secure platforms available. Note: Mac OSX is a propriety branch of LINUX.
Good Luck towards all, 
Especially those 3500 or so other people who have visited this page in the past 90 days but were unable to chime in due to non-disclosure agreements and security clearances.
P.S. 
I'm the only one that so far who's identity is exposed for all to see. I've kept my IP address static for a reason, but not for long. It is easy to stand behind an anonymous avatar with absolutely nothing to lose but your own position in your own virtual world. That is the sad commentary on WIKI as a reliable source of truthful information.
63.231.234.97 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just too far ahead of your own time, and we're jealous. Sergivs-en (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: P.S. But seriously, please understand that this is not the place to reveal truths. I'm sorry that you're disappointed in Wikipedia, but this approach is what makes it a valuable and useful reference. Perhaps the "attacks" that you write about did not happen earlier because this is a fairly obscure subject. You obviously understand how it's supposed to work to some degree, because you write you were being "subversive". This is disrespectful to other people who are, let's say, no less intelligent than you. Either you don't think very much of their time or a little too much of your point of view. You make some points about the academic establishment, ethics, and positions in the virtual world etc. -- well, try to think clearly about your own motivations instead. And good luck with your research. Sergivs-en (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Thoughts