User:Fernandez.microflown/sandbox: Difference between revisions
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
<math>\widehat{I}^{p-p}_n \simeq I_n - \frac{\varphi_{\text{pe}}\,p_{\text{rms}}^2}{{k\Delta r \rho c}}=I_n \biggl( 1-\frac{\varphi_{\text{pe}}}{{k\Delta r}}\frac{p_{\text{rms}}^2/ \rho c}{I_r}\biggr) \, ,</math> |
<math>\widehat{I}^{p-p}_n \simeq I_n - \frac{\varphi_{\text{pe}}\,p_{\text{rms}}^2}{{k\Delta r \rho c}}=I_n \biggl( 1-\frac{\varphi_{\text{pe}}}{{k\Delta r}}\frac{p_{\text{rms}}^2/ \rho c}{I_r}\biggr) \, ,</math> |
||
where <math>I_n</math>is the “true” intensity (unaffected by calibration errors), <math>\hat{I}^{p-p}_n</math> is the biased estimate obtained using a ''p-p'' probe, <math>p_{\text{rms}}</math>is the root-mean-squared value of the sound pressure, <math>k</math> is the wave number, <math>\rho</math> is the density of air, <math>c</math> is the speed of sound and <math>\Delta r</math> is the spacing between the two microphones. This expression shows that phase calibration errors are inversely proportional to frequency and microphone spacing and directly proportional to the ratio of the mean square sound pressure to the sound intensity |
where <math>I_n</math>is the “true” intensity (unaffected by calibration errors), <math>\hat{I}^{p-p}_n</math> is the biased estimate obtained using a ''p-p'' probe, <math>p_{\text{rms}}</math>is the root-mean-squared value of the sound pressure, <math>k</math> is the wave number, <math>\rho</math> is the density of air, <math>c</math> is the speed of sound and <math>\Delta r</math> is the spacing between the two microphones. This expression shows that phase calibration errors are inversely proportional to frequency and microphone spacing and directly proportional to the ratio of the mean square sound pressure to the sound intensity. If the pressure-to-intensity ratio is large then even a small phase mismatch will lead to significant bias errors. In practice, sound intensity measurements cannot be performed accurately when the pressure-intensity index is high, which limits the use of ''p-p'' intensity probes in environments with high levels of background noise or reflections. |
||
On the other hand, the bias error introduced by a ''p-u'' probe can be approximated by<ref name=":0" /> |
On the other hand, the bias error introduced by a ''p-u'' probe can be approximated by<ref name=":0" /> |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
<math>\hat{I}^{p-u}_n=\frac{1}{2} \text{Re}\{{P\hat{V}^*_n}\}=\frac{1}{2} \text{Re}\{{P V^*_n \text{e}^{-\text{j}\varphi_{\text{ue}}} }\} \simeq I_n + \varphi_{\text{ue}} J_n \, ,</math> |
<math>\hat{I}^{p-u}_n=\frac{1}{2} \text{Re}\{{P\hat{V}^*_n}\}=\frac{1}{2} \text{Re}\{{P V^*_n \text{e}^{-\text{j}\varphi_{\text{ue}}} }\} \simeq I_n + \varphi_{\text{ue}} J_n \, ,</math> |
||
where <math>\hat{I}^{p-u}_n</math> is the biased estimate obtained using a ''p-u'' probe, <math>P</math> and <math>V_n</math> are the Fourier transform of the sound pressure and particle velocity signals, <math>J_n </math>is the reactive intensity and <math>\varphi_{\text{ue}} </math>is the ''p-u'' phase mismatch introduced by calibration errors. Therefore, the phase calibration is critical when measurements are carried out under near field conditions, but not so relevant if the measurements are performed out in the far field<ref name=":0" />. The “reactivity” (the ratio of the reactive to the active intensity) indicates whether this source of error is of concern or not. Compared to pressure-based probes, ''p-u'' intensity probes are unaffected by the pressure-to-intensity index, enabling the estimation of propagating acoustic energy in unfavorable testing environments provided that the distance to the sound source is sufficient. |
where <math>\hat{I}^{p-u}_n</math> is the biased estimate obtained using a ''p-u'' probe, <math>P</math> and <math>V_n</math> are the Fourier transform of the sound pressure and particle velocity signals, <math>J_n </math>is the reactive intensity and <math>\varphi_{\text{ue}} </math>is the ''p-u'' phase mismatch introduced by calibration errors. Therefore, the phase calibration is critical when measurements are carried out under near field conditions, but not so relevant if the measurements are performed out in the far field<ref name=":0" />. The “reactivity” (the ratio of the reactive to the active intensity) indicates whether this source of error is of concern or not. Compared to pressure-based probes, ''p-u'' intensity probes are unaffected by the pressure-to-intensity index, enabling the estimation of propagating acoustic energy in unfavorable testing environments provided that the distance to the sound source is sufficient. |
||
[[User:Fernandez.microflown|Fernandez.microflown]] ([[User talk:Fernandez.microflown|talk]]) 14:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Pinging {{u|Viewmont Viking}} who removed the content. Personally I don't see much wrong with the content from a [[WP:COI]] point of view (there are some style issues that need addressing, such as "it should be noted", "simply", and similar editorial comments that are unsuitable for Wikipedia), but if these are indeed the standard probes used to measure sound intensity, then they will be covered by numerous other sources, and there should be no need to rely on ones associated with Microflown Technologies. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 23:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: I do not see a conflict either, so I agree there is no reason to remove the content on those grounds, but I find the text confusing and I think it needs improvement. For example, while it is correct to state that sound intensity is the time average of sound pressure p and particle velcocity u, it is not correct to write this as (1/2) Re(p u*), because these are not the same p and u. In the time average they are real quantities, in the time domain. In the second form they seem to be complex quantities (in the frequency domain?). Further, a p-p does not give particle velocity directly but particle acceleration, which can then be converted to velocity in a simple manner in the frequency domain. If the presentation is improved to straighten up these two points I would support reinstatement of this contribution by [[User:Fernandez.microflown|Fernandez.microflown]]. [[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]] ([[User talk:Dondervogel 2|talk]]) 07:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:03, 7 October 2019
More information for "Measurement" section
Sound intensity is defined as the time averaged product of sound pressure and acoustic particle velocity[1]. Both quantities can be directly measured by using a sound intensity p-u probe comprising a microphone and a particle velocity sensor, or estimated indirectly by using a p-p probe that approximates the particle velocity by integrating the pressure gradient between two closely spaced microphones[2].
Pressure-based measurement methods are widely used in anechoic conditions for noise quantification purposes. The bias error introduced by a p-p probe can be approximated by[3]
where is the “true” intensity (unaffected by calibration errors), is the biased estimate obtained using a p-p probe, is the root-mean-squared value of the sound pressure, is the wave number, is the density of air, is the speed of sound and is the spacing between the two microphones. This expression shows that phase calibration errors are inversely proportional to frequency and microphone spacing and directly proportional to the ratio of the mean square sound pressure to the sound intensity. If the pressure-to-intensity ratio is large then even a small phase mismatch will lead to significant bias errors. In practice, sound intensity measurements cannot be performed accurately when the pressure-intensity index is high, which limits the use of p-p intensity probes in environments with high levels of background noise or reflections.
On the other hand, the bias error introduced by a p-u probe can be approximated by[3]
where is the biased estimate obtained using a p-u probe, and are the Fourier transform of the sound pressure and particle velocity signals, is the reactive intensity and is the p-u phase mismatch introduced by calibration errors. Therefore, the phase calibration is critical when measurements are carried out under near field conditions, but not so relevant if the measurements are performed out in the far field[3]. The “reactivity” (the ratio of the reactive to the active intensity) indicates whether this source of error is of concern or not. Compared to pressure-based probes, p-u intensity probes are unaffected by the pressure-to-intensity index, enabling the estimation of propagating acoustic energy in unfavorable testing environments provided that the distance to the sound source is sufficient.
- ^ FAHY, FRANK. (2017). SOUND INTENSITY. CRC Press. ISBN 1138474193. OCLC 1008875245.
- ^ Jacobsen, Finn, author. Fundamentals of general linear acoustics. ISBN 9781118346419. OCLC 857650768.
{{cite book}}
:|last=
has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b c Jacobsen, Finn; de Bree, Hans-Elias (2005-09-01). "A comparison of two different sound intensity measurement principles". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 118 (3): 1510–1517. doi:10.1121/1.1984860. ISSN 0001-4966.