On Wednesday, 26 October 2016 15:05:08 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/10/16 14:50, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 October 2016 08:11:12 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/10/16 01:34, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 October 2016 21:35:02 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/10/16 21:16, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 October 2016 20:22:55 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/10/16 18:33, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 October 2016 18:14:18 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/10/16 17:15, Michael Chare wrote:

I've never seen a crystal oscillate on its own.

FWLIW I expect they do, moving back and forth due to environmental vibration. With high Q they can't build up much movement, but it's not zero.

Bells don't ring without bell ringers.

You've never carried them around then. They tinkle.



Then *you* are the bell tinkler.

That's one way to miss the point.


well you missed it first. My point was that oscillators need energy
sources, and therefore passive components like bells or crystals are not
oscillators unless they have a source of energy, be it battery, bell
ringer, or jerking around in your trousers.

And its very rare to have a two terminal *active* electrical device as
in general you need two wires for supply, and one for the output, and if
there is an input one for that too.

A car flasher is not an oscillator, until it is connected to a bulb.,
Then it is a two terminal device BUT the output is the light. Same for a
buzzer. Except that's sound.

And a bell without a bell ringer isn't an oscillator either.

Only when its being jerked around does it ring.

what a waste of time.