Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #44687
From: Tracy Crook <tracy@rotaryaviation.com>
Sender: <rwstracy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Muffler design (was 20B isssues . . )
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:50:37 -0500
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Agreed, this is definitely a new concept and I hope it works.

The only thing that bothers me is that, as you pointed out, the bandwidth needed for attenuation is about 0 to 12 Khz.  That represents MANY octaves even if we bump the lower limit to a realistic number ( only a closed pipe will work at zero :-).  This bandwidth is mutually exclusive with the term "tuned".  And if by tuned they mean low pass, then it is not a new concept since that is covered by conventional mufflers.  There may be something to this new concept but until this contradiction is explained, I would hesitate to start cutting parts.

Tracy


On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com> wrote:
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*)

Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster