[Cn-H]1..8
[sigma(n,n+1)]1..3,5..7;
sigma(4,1);sigma(8,5);
[sigma(n,n+4)]1..4
and
C1-5,H-C2-6,H-C3-7,H-C4-8,H,1;
C5-H-C6-H-C7-C8-H;
and
[Cn-n+4,H]1..4;
[Cn-H]5..8;
sigma(4,1); sigma(8,5);
They all represent the same carbon cube. (C8H8)
Purpose; because the normal naming of chemistry can’t define all structures they come up with trivial names, which I find very annoying. This notation is intended to be able to describe every structure uniformly. And no, don’t even try to pronounce it.
With all those strange new physics theories and models which seem to conflict eachother it seems all rather too awquard to be true.
Like Quantum Mechanics stating that something can be two things at the same time, which seems impossible, but certainly is when keeping in mind that Quantum Mechanics states that something is what it seems to be when measured where measurement always has to interact which means that very unstable states of an object don’t exist but still can be applied on an object being two states at the same time with a third set of properties… great…
What people don’t seem to realize is that most physics theories apparently conflict for they are formulated rather awquard, but only formulated like that for then they are reasonably understandable as a model. Also one given theory isn’t superior above another, usualy one theory just stresses a certain part of apparent reality more by the way it represents everything.
There just isn’t the theory that explains how the universe works, there are only models covering a part in a certain way.
I don’t care if someone likes to represents an atom as a little UFO, as long as the conclusions and predictions in that theory are usefull in being able to predict behaviour and characteristics.
This is also where philosophie makes a fatal mistake, a philosopher would tend to use metaphores, scientificly called models, literaly assuming that reality is just a metaphore. And there ishardly anything you can do to persue them otherwise anyways :-).
Apparently it seems, assuming the string theory is an accurate model, that we only experience an infinite small amount of the whole universe. It maybe could be seen that we are just a little (end) fractal in a big fractal (inside another).
But why are we as we are? It would be logical to assume that we are nothing more than a logical result of one chaos like formula for the whole universe seems to be pseude randomly as many chaos formula’s seem. We’re just one of the infinite possibilities (stressing possibilities).
That would seem rather depressing and our lives would seem rather useless.. and actually.. they are rather useless for the whole static everything. But actually that makes just one more reason to maintain our human species for otherwise we couldn’t enjoy our uselessness :-).
And even if we would have to formula to predict everything (which maybe even has been found already by some mathematician, but is only experienced differently by us as models differ from eachother), we would only be interested in derived models for our perception of it to aid our uselessness :-).
Finaly I got grip of a recording of an electric guitar without distortion and applied the gamma wave distortion on it:
As promised a few pictures of the electric guitar effects we’re working on,
first up, the gamma wave effect.
The gamma wave effect pulls the amplitudo’s either to the 0 line or the -1/1 line, just like the gamma on your monitor does:
The effect basicly makes the wave a lot louder and gets rid of the faint sounds. When on fully applied as in the images above it also creates some distortions due to either making the wave unharmonic-ish or getting rid of the nuances.
Another image taken on a higher oscilation (smaller zoom):
This clearly shows the distortion
(The inversion of peak and valley doesn’t matter for for sound only the transition from a valley to a peak matters)
As I said before I am working with some others on a software based distortion. I finaly got the base running pretty smoothly but the main obstacle is how to create that distortion electric guitars use.
We came up with about 3 different methods:
(When I got my osciloscope control working I’ll take before and after pictures, for now I ain’t sure how the formula’s effect real-world sound yet)
Gamma corrections
This works a bit like the gamma of your monitor. The input for graph for gamma correction is called the epsilon which comes in 2 forms, linear and sine. The first one creates a more distortion like sound than the latter but also makes the wave not harmonic anymore which possible means that most of the distortion like sound is caused by the speakers not handling unharmonic waves very well. The latter one only sounds near the amplitudo distorted.
Sharpening valleys/tops
This method requires some buffering of the current top (or valley) of the wave and sharpenes it by a specific amount. This works a bit like the gamma correction method although it works on every volume making it usefull too for low-volume sounds. The major problem is that it requires tracking a top or a valley, which with a high bitrate requires a really big buffer to analyze, and it has a delay of one top/valley. The big problem is that this isn’t ideal for live playing for which it was designed, a delay of a few extra hundreds of a second would be noticable and it is fairly possible that this algorithm requires too much resources.
Adjusting speed resistance
At a certain point in a wave you can derive the speed and the angle. By registering the original speed and resistance of the wave a derived one can be created which could leed to sharper or softer edges of a top/valley just as the previous method but without being required to analyze the whole top/valley. We’re hoping this method will work best but this is just a concept hoping to work out as it should.
If anyone actually knows how analog distortions work exactly we would be more than happy to learn about it, just comment.
More on this to come…
At the moment I am busy creating a software based distortion for an electric guitar.
The most challenging part is getting effects to work, to explain this in more detail you need to know how a computer handles audio.
Sound itself is nothing more than a vibration in the air. It can be represented by the amount of force the air is pushing or pulling.
A tone of a specific frequency would look like:
A computer stores sound by sampling the amplitude of the air at regular interfals.
It would be easy to write a program to increase the frequency of the sound above, but a normal sound doesn’t look that regular:
Increasing the bass or treble of that wave would require some advanced algorithms, which take time to execute which creates a larger delay. One thing that a distortion shouldn’t do is lag.
More on this when some stuff is working.
R = t / C!
Electrical Resistance equals Time per Electrical Capacity.
