Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.240.18.37; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <49639BEB.5000800@nc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:59:07 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081125)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Muffler design (was 20B isssues . . )
References: <list-3413112@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-3413112@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tracy Crook wrote:
> Interesting stuff Ernest,  Hope this turns up some good results.
>
> I haven't had time to really go into muffler theory so I've just 
> observed what the car & motorcycle makers do.  Based on these 
> observations only,  I've concluded that unless we come up with a new 
> concept, there is no substitute for size and cubic inches.  
The phononic devices ARE a new concept.  Most of the data I've been able 
to find has been abstracts of peer-review research publications.  The 
three links I provided earlier are the only publicly available data I've 
turned up. 

Even still, conceptually it's a fairly simple construct.  The devilish 
part, as Bill alluded to, is that it has to be tuned.  The papers I've 
read lead me to believe that I have some idea of the magnitude of the 
dimensions necessary, and I've sketched out a way to run a lot of tests 
of different configurations easily.  Nothin' left to do but the doin'.  8*)