Recent content by Cosma

Yes i know this equation, buy, im writing you the same message i wrote to Baluncore, "yes and I know this because this is how tank circuits work, but why can't I use the transistor? that is, a circuit in which there is the power supply, a signal generator, a bjt transistor (with relative...

yes and I know this because this is how tank circuits work, but why can't I use the transistor? that is, a circuit in which there is the power supply, a signal generator, a bjt transistor (with relative resistances) and the inductor, therefore with the transistor that acts as a signal amplifier...

no but, when I was talking about tank circuits, I was talking about amplifiers with active components, speaking instead of your second statement, capacitors produce pulses (switching), which unlike a sinusoid does not have the negative part of the half-wave. anyway, in my opinion this is the...

so in an inductive coupling you use a capacitor to charge an inductor, because compared to a transistor it produces a pulse (much more efficient for Faraday) compared to a sine wave and linear, right?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313808117_Performance_evaluation_of_saturating_class_-_C_driver_circuit_for_inductive_wireless_power_transfer

yes I think this is the right answer, the big difference is the type of resulting wave, the capacitor creates a pulse, which according to Faraday's law is much more efficient than a sinusoidal and linear wave of a transistor, so in the inductive coupling (wpt) to recharge the inductor they use a...

this is the example from which I took inspiration, the doubt came to me when I thought that the speakers are moved by an electrical signal, and the LC mesh acts as a crossover and not as an inductive accumulator, that's why I asked the question

Good morning, I have a question that I can't answer. Considering devices for wireless energy transfer, or more generally for electromagnetic induction, why are RLC oscillators used (in particular the capacitor) to charge the coil, and not instead transistor amplifiers, such as in class A or C...

ok I understand thanks baluncore👍

@berkeman @Baluncore I would like to ask you a little question, perhaps a little too banal. but the neurons (which usually respond to different frequencies) but if excited by an electrical signal lasting a few picoseconds or femtoseconds, what happens, is it polarized and therefore excited, or...

ok yes I understand, so the radiance levels are also kept low to avoid excessive heating in the eyes for example, ok thanks for the clarification

I had written the question out of main curiosity, given that it is an established fact that lower frequencies are more penetrating, that's all. no I don't know any other type of microwave stimulation, it was just curiosity

thanks for your answer, I ask you the same question I asked Mr. Berkerman, and therefore, is it true that microwaves are more penetrating than infrared in areas such as the skin or skull (bone) due to the longer wavelength? ?

ok thanks for the reply, I remember this article and in fact it specifies that certain wavelengths together with particular transmission parameters increase the depth. But could microwaves have the same depth, due to the lower frequency?

For a few weeks I have been undergoing transcranial photobiomodulation (tPBM) sessions using a helmet, and I discovered that it uses near-infrared radiation, and I was very surprised, because the theory should state that instead it is the microwaves that are more penetrating into the skull, so...