Jump to content

Talk:Acoustic impedance: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 14: Line 14:


Is it safe to say that characteristic impedance doesn't change with frequency? I would think that there are limits to the sounds that can go through air, but maybe that's a different concept? Does air have an acoustic [[absorption spectrum]] or something when you get above ultrasound? — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 03:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it safe to say that characteristic impedance doesn't change with frequency? I would think that there are limits to the sounds that can go through air, but maybe that's a different concept? Does air have an acoustic [[absorption spectrum]] or something when you get above ultrasound? — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 03:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a table of other materials at [http://www.sal2000.com/ds/ds3/Acoustics/Wave%20Reflection.htm] in rayles that we could convert and include. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 03:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:34, 3 May 2007

Distinction has to be made between:

  • the characteristic acoustic impedance of a medium, usually air (compare with characteristic impedance in transmission lines).
  • the impedance of an acoustic component, like a wave conductor, a resonance chamber, a muffler or an organ pipe.
This seems to differs from the electrical definition of impedance in that wave conductors and organ pipes would be considered transmission lines, not components, and would have a characteristic impedance. — Omegatron 18:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Very well observed, Omegatron: the input impedance of a wave conductor will vary with its termination and a great deal of its impedance is explained by transmission line behavior. Think about it in physical terms: you can in fact "look through" a wave conductor. A sound wave within the conductor will be affected by the reflection at the end of the tube and the measured impedance at the entrance will vary accordingly. A closed-end organ pipe is maybe a exception, since its impedance can be expressed as a "fixed" (but still cyclical) component. The termination finds an electrical analogy in a short circuit. In reality however, the acoutical short circuit in an organ pipe is not ideal. The closed end is not optimal rigid and often vibrates. The sound wave will therefore loose some energy and will not be 1:1 reflected.Witger 06:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the analogy is actually closer. Electrical transmission lines and impedances are idealisms anyway. I believe a closed and open organ pipe is equivalent to a short circuit or open circuit terminated transmission line. Of course there is no such thing as a perfect short or perfect open, and some leakage will occur. — Omegatron 02:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omegatron! An open end organ pipe is terminated by what is called a radiation impedance. The term is well known in RF applications. In acoustics it finds applications in solving noise problems in air conditioning systems. The radiation impedance has been also mathematically derived for an ideal sound source in a flat wall (as far as I remember with very complicated Bessel functions). The radiation impedance depends on the radius of the pipe and its proportion to the wavelength. Also exhaust pipe systems of cars benefit from the radiation impedance: this is (one) of the reasons why very noisy engines have several exhaust outlets (though maybe one preceeding muffler casing) and why the tail pipe is usually the longest length of the muffler system. In the particular case of an exhaust pipe: if the open end would be really a "open circuit" with infinite impedance, then the tail pipe wouldn't add up in the insertion loss of the system.Witger 07:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. That should probably be added to the article. — Omegatron 13:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it safe to say that characteristic impedance doesn't change with frequency? I would think that there are limits to the sounds that can go through air, but maybe that's a different concept? Does air have an acoustic absorption spectrum or something when you get above ultrasound? — Omegatron 03:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a table of other materials at [1] in rayles that we could convert and include. — Omegatron 03:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]