Talk:Anechoic chamber

Physics: Acoustics B‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Acoustics Taskforce.

Technology C‑class

	Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

confused acoustic vs rf

Dear Concerned,

I like this article a lot, but I am also getting quite confused halfway through it, as it seems to jump back and forth between acoustic and RF chambers. It woudl help , I think, if they could be basically just split into two different sections completely. They could refer to the other, where there are similarities, but overall, the two different ppl reading this are gonna be people interested in sound recording, and people interested in RF testing... and so the different sections should focus on addressing those two aduiences separately imho.

etc

As an aviation enthusiast I've heard of anechoic chambers being used for radar signature measurement, where the echos absorbed are radar echos, not sound echos. Anechoic chambers for EM radiation should be mentioned in addition to ones meant for audio purposes.

I'll try to do a significant revision and addition to incorporate this. mnemonic 10:49, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Should the words "dampening" and "dampened" be used? Doesn't that mean the panels are making something wet? ;)

Perhaps "damping" and "damped" should be used.

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dampening

Acoustic and RF (electromagnetic) anechoic chambers

I have added several paragraphs about RF anechoic chambers as opposed to acoustic ones and I have not as yet deleted anything. I think it improves the article but it could do with a tidy up, or perhaps it might be worth splitting it into the two different types. If nobody else does I'll get back to it in a few weeks.

I think some clarification is needed about the acoustic and RF wavelengths. It is true that a typical audio frequency of 500Hz acoustic wavelength (0.7 m) is very different from 500 Hz electromagnetic (600 km) but I don't think many RF tests are done as low as 500 Hz. But 0.7 m RF wavelength I make about 454 MHz. Many tests are done around these UHF frequencies. ChrisAngove 17:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Suggested Improvements

Picture of the interior of an RF anechoic chamber if possible showing something being tested. References to the particular international standards (a) that chambers are built to and (b) that are typically tested for in the chambers. A picture or two showing the shell construction ie. the screened room for the RF and the 'metre thick cement' or similar for the acoustic one. ChrisAngove 17:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Testing of Satellite Components

Does anybody know anything about the very high level acoustic noise testing that used to be done on components to go into space? I believe it may have been to similate launch conditions. Do they still do it or has it been superceeded? The levels would need a heavy duty chamber i think. ChrisAngove 17:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Anechoic chamber?

Why is all the information about acoustic anechoic chambers here in the discussion page rather than in the actual article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.64.252.71 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

semi or hemi anechoic

Hi,

I think it would be of interest of many people to add a chapter about semi and hemi anechoic chambers with regard to the different measurement possibilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.249.81 (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reply to this - Semi-anechoic is used to describe RF chambers. I think hemi describes acoustic, but I have no experience with those. I have never heard hemi used in relation to RF chambers - EMC enginer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.160.226 (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

partly wrong

the whole RAM-section contained factual errors, and had no citations or sources: (ferrite plates vs. pyramid shaped is just completely wrong since i know that the ferrite plates are less effective at HIGHER frequencies) source: I found a ferrite plate damping curve, but there might be other/better sources.

There might be more factual errors, since large parts of this article remain unverified.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.116.159.61 (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caves?

Mention if caves are good Anechoic chambers, at least electronically. Jidanni (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic anechoic chambers

Is this right: "In general, the interior of an anechoic chamber is very quiet, with typical noise levels in the 10-20 dBA range." The University of Salford has a semi-anechoic chamber with only 3.8dba background noise, so this seems hard to believe. Also, the University of Salford claims an anechoic chamber with a -12.4dBA background noise level, so perhaps this Guinness record needs updating. I don't really know anything about this topic, but a quick google search yielded these. Anybody know more about this? NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 03:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "in general" phrase is correct. Few chambers go lower than 10dBA. The dBA measurement is relatively insensitive to low frequencies, so a low dBA number might be hiding a degree of low frequency rumble. 0dBA is 20 micropascals, or the lowest level a human can hear. Going lower than zero dBA is a very rare achievement. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]