 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Acoustics / May 2008very directional speaker technology
Anybody heard these speakers? Looking for a discussion of this technology. It would be a neat homebrew project! http://www.holosonics.com/technology.html http://www.holosonics.com/brochure/Audio_Spotlight_Specifications.pdf http://www.holosonics.com/products.html What frequency is the ultrasound? Do some systems mix two ultrasound sources? There is correction for nonlinearity of air is that correction performed at ultrasound frequency or audio frequency? Here's a couple of youtube videos about the subject. I'd like to hear your input. :-) Note the bnc connector to the speaker! Mike "amdx" <amdx@knology.net> wrote in news:d8c1a$48109d20$450139ad$8021 @KNOLOGY.NET: > Anybody heard these speakers? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What frequency is the ultrasound? Because of air attenuation, as low as possible while still safely outside the audible frequency range. Call the manufacturer and ask. Given that it's easily measured, it can't be a secret. > Do some systems mix two ultrasound sources? That depends on your definition of a source. Two ultrasonic signals, yes. Two ultrasonic transducers, only if they are stupid. > There is correction for nonlinearity of air is that correction > performed at ultrasound frequency or audio frequency? At the ultrasound frequency. > Here's a couple of youtube videos about the subject. > I'd like to hear your input. :-) > Note the bnc connector to the speaker! > Mike Here's a semi-technical review article published by another company on the subject. http://www.directionalsound-usa.com/hss/pdf/HSSWHTPAPERRevE.pdf > "amdx" <amdx@knology.net> wrote in news:d8c1a$48109d20$450139ad$8021 > @KNOLOGY.NET: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > http://www.directionalsound-usa.com/hss/pdf/HSSWHTPAPERRevE.pdf Thanks for the URL, nice history of development. Mike >>Here's a semi-technical review article published by another company on the >>subject. >>http://www.directionalsound-usa.com/hss/pdf/HSSWHTPAPERRevE.pdf > Thanks for the URL, nice history of development. > Mike Agreed. It a "must" read for speech communications folks. Keep an open mind in reading it; nothing orthodox about these folks.. Angelo Campanella >>> Here's a semi-technical review article published by another company >>> on the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Angelo Campanella and (as usual) the moral of the story is: be aware when using approximations - like, for example, linear analysis of pretty much anything :) but yes, fascinating stuff to read. For some further reading, try "acoustic waveguides" by Boyle. Cheers Terry >>> Here's a semi-technical review article published by another company >>> on the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Angelo Campanella Am I the only one who worries about sitting in a 140dB ultrasonic field? This can't be good for biology???? My brain is already sufficiently scrambled, thank you...  SignatureReturn address is VALID! Bunch-O-Stuff Forsale Here: http://mike.liveline.de/sale.html >>>> Here's a semi-technical review article published by another company >>>> on the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> Angelo Campanella > Am I the only one who worries about sitting in a 140dB ultrasonic > field? No. Hearing damage does not in principle depend on anything but on the amount of energy delivered to the sensory organ, ie. audio does not have to be audible to do damage. > This can't be good for biology???? My brain is already > sufficiently scrambled, thank you... Kind regards Peter Larsen >>>>>Here's a semi-technical review article published by another company >>>>>on the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Peter Larsen Wouldnt a honking great phased array of ultrasound transducers, in conjunction with IR cameras and some clever software make a great burglar "alarm" - 140dB that tracks their head. Betcha that'd make you leave a room, fast. Cheers Terry >>>>>>Here's a semi-technical review article published by another company >>>>>>on the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Cheers >Terry It exists. It is used on ships to deter pirates. Just point the array at the little attacking speedboat, and they get out of there fast (as you say). d SignaturePearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com > Wouldnt a honking great phased array of ultrasound transducers, in > conjunction with IR cameras and some clever software make a great > burglar "alarm" - 140dB that tracks their head. Betcha that'd make you > leave a room, fast. Don't forget a couple dozen 1 million lumen strobe lights, flashed in sequence to disorient them, till the cops arrive. Signaturehttp://improve-usenet.org/index.html Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET with porn and junk commercial SPAM If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm >> Wouldnt a honking great phased array of ultrasound transducers, in >> conjunction with IR cameras and some clever software make a great [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Don't forget a couple dozen 1 million lumen strobe lights, flashed in >sequence to disorient them, till the cops arrive. Not in any perceivable sequence, it becomes too easy to adjust. > >> Wouldnt a honking great phased array of ultrasound transducers, in > >> conjunction with IR cameras and some clever software make a great [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not in any perceivable sequence, it becomes too easy to adjust. I meant sequence them enough to let them cool between flashes, not flash them in a fixed pattern. Signaturehttp://improve-usenet.org/index.html Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET with porn and junk commercial SPAM If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm >> >> Wouldnt a honking great phased array of ultrasound transducers, in >> >> conjunction with IR cameras and some clever software make a great [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I meant sequence them enough to let them cool between flashes, not >flash them in a fixed pattern. Agreed then. >Wouldnt a honking great phased array of ultrasound transducers, in >conjunction with IR cameras and some clever software make a great >burglar "alarm" - 140dB that tracks their head. Betcha that'd make you >leave a room, fast. Just take a high speed drill to your eardrums. Such a boobytrap invariably nails the owner more than anybody else. It sure would be a lot less work and yield the same results. >>Wouldnt a honking great phased array of ultrasound transducers, in >>conjunction with IR cameras and some clever software make a great [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It sure would be a lot less work and yield the same results. think harder. Cheers Terry > > Am I the only one who worries about sitting in a 140dB ultrasonic > > field? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Peter Larsen What do you base your statement on? I can see where the energy *would* need to be in the audible range. The detectors in the human ear are thousands of tiny cilia that are each tuned to a unique frequency of sound. They literally resonate at a particular frequency. The damage happens when the cilia are over stimulated and mechanically damaged. So if the energy is not in the audible range, they don't resonate and it is much harder to damage them. Of course if you use a high enough level of sound, even outside the hearing range, it can do damage. Like someone posted, at some point a ball of cotton will burst into flame! I don't like the idea of spontaneous human combustion. Rick [quoting me] >> audio does not have to be audible to do damage. > What do you base your statement on? Reality. Notice that it is by design a very general statement. > I can see where the energy > *would* need to be in the audible range. "Be audible" implies that it is heard by the actual person and "in the audible range" implies that it could be heard by a ""normal"" person. It is an important distinction to be aware of, because people with pre-existing hearing damage often neglect obvious aural risks or plain fail to detect them as being at "risk loudness level", whatever that may be. > The detectors in the human > ear are thousands of tiny cilia that are each tuned to a unique > frequency of sound. They literally resonate at a particular > frequency. At what Q? - my level of information is that this is still kinda softish tissue with a "frequency range preference" rather than metallic high Q precision resonators a lá tuning forks. But the image you project is more like the tuning fork model .... > The damage happens when the cilia are over stimulated and > mechanically damaged. Seem to be the agreed facts on this. > So if the energy is not in the audible range, > they don't resonate and it is much harder to damage them. Just how much harder? > Of course if you use a high enough level of sound, even outside the > hearing > range, it can do damage. Like someone posted, at some point a ball of > cotton will burst into flame! I don't like the idea of spontaneous > human combustion. Just what part of my statement: "Hearing damage does not in principle depend on anything but on the amount of energy delivered to the sensory organ" is it that you disagree on, you seem to me to have written exactly the same as a correction to what I posted. > Rick Kind regards Peter Larsen > [quoting me] > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Peter Larsen You guys are making the obvious (mis)assumption that hearing loss is the ONLY danger here. This technology has been proposed for use in an automobile to give each passenger a different audio program. "Hey mommy, what's inside this little hole I've got my eye plastered against?" "Makes my eye feel warm..." Wonder the resonant frequency of the tails on your swimmers? SignatureReturn address is VALID! Bunch-O-Stuff Forsale Here: http://mike.liveline.de/sale.html >> [quoting me] >> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Wonder the resonant frequency of the tails on your swimmers? As I do agree with Rick on the damage of the specific sensory organ, nobody says that damages could occur elsewhere i.e. in the ear due to temperature raises when source is directly pointed at the membrane of the drum or other kinds of effects. Ultrasounds can interfere with blood circulation... fetuses do react when the beam is pointed at them in normal scanning, thus while a listening commodity for the gravid it could be a torture for the fetus. On the other hand many physiotherapy centers use ultrasounds to give relief to subjects with particular pains or conditions, so such sound systems could also make us feel better! hehehe (I know there hasn't been any official research on that). I believe that a company before placing in the market such technology must do and must have done some homework to avoid any lawsuit against them. If smart they might even seek some medical safety board approval...I see that on the original question nobody has answered and personally I would take the risk :) and have a listen... I'm very curious about that. If anybody in south east Asia has any, please post. Best regards, Riccardo >>>> Here's a semi-technical review article published by another company >>>> on the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > This can't be good for biology???? My brain is already sufficiently > scrambled, thank you... Good Point. Expseriens and measureemnts around 1950 at Penn State showed that heat deposition occurs at an above this level. A ball of cotton will smoulder and catch fire at and above 160 dB. Bare skin reflects the energy, but who wants to take that chance. Anglo campanella |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.