X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from poplet2.per.eftel.com ([203.24.100.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c2) with ESMTP id 3977571 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:44:04 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au Received: from sv1-1.aanet.com.au (sv1-1.per.aanet.com.au [203.24.100.68]) by poplet2.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888781739CA for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:43:23 +0800 (WST) Received: from ownerf1fc517b8 (203.171.92.134.static.rev.aanet.com.au [203.171.92.134]) by sv1-1.aanet.com.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 8DA65BEC00E for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:43:22 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Phononic bandgap muffler Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:43:25 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091115-1, 11/15/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Ernst, Thinking out loud, I'm wondering if the tubes can be on an angle and still do the same job - perhaps even better?. The reason I ask is that air can travel through the tubes if their welded to the outer skin and can act as cooling tubes through the muffler. Often sound is converted into heat when traveling through an exhaust, so cooling could be an advantage. George ( down under) > Al Gietzen wrote: >> Ernest; >> >> Interesting stuff. Just a guess; but it seems to me that, while 15 db is >> an >> appreciable reduction, having that reduction only over the 8K to 12K >> maybe >> isn't all that productive. It would reduce the 'harshness', but isn't >> the >> greatest amplitude at lower frequency? Also, do you envision that this >> can >> be made into a compact, workable package for aircraft application? >> >> > Al, you prompted me to run the same analysis on a different sample. I > picked a section of the sound where Mike was revving the engine. The > first analysis was from a section where he was idling. > > This time, I kept an outline of the original sound in the background. > You can see that my experimental setup has a lot to be desired. > However, the loss from the original to the light purple peaks is the > same loss in all the later samples. The light purple is the straight > through, no interference sample. The sample with 4 lines is in light > green. Where the green overlaps the purple, we get a dark grey. The > purple above the dark grey is the attenuation from adding the 4 lines of > baffles. Any green above the grey is energy added. I would be tempted > to say that the green peaks at 16.5kHz and 20kHz are artifacts of the > experimental setup, except that the artifacts move predictably with the > addition of more rows, ie, the arrangement is moving sound energy out of > the lower frequencies and out beyond what we find audible. > > Now, I'm tempted to find out what will happen if I add more rows. > > -- > Ernest Christley, President > Ernest@TechnicalTakedown.com > > TechnicalTakedown, LLC > www.TechnicalTakedown.com > 101 Steep Bank Dr. > Cary, NC 27518 > (919) 741-9397 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >