3 ms·

tl;dr -- aside from the point about fuel, you mostly don't disagree with him. You have different definitions for the same terms he uses, and you draw your syste

tl;dr -- aside from the point about fuel, you mostly don't disagree with him. You have different definitions for the same terms he uses, and you draw your system in a different place than he draws his. Both of you make reasonable choices. A youtube video is not an academic paper, and cannot start by rigorously defining the system under discussion. > he called oxygen the fuel for the fire... it's not the fuel for the fire I think you're correct here, from chemistry definitions oxygen is not fuel, because breaking its bond consumes energy rather than releasing it. However, I don't think the host is trying to give perfectly precise chemistry definitions here, he's trying to explain how fire burns, and calling oxygen 'fuel' makes it clear to his audience that oxygen is required for combustion. I think your objection here is similar to objecting that voters in the US elect electors rather than candidates -- it's correct, but not necessary if you're explaining the concept of democracy. > the port actually decreases the efficiency of the speaker by letting the negative bass note sine waves cancel out the positive sine waves from the front of the speaker, but this is done to tone down the "boominess" of the speaker at its resonant frequency, thus making the speaker more "neutral" sounding I don't know much about bass reflex speakers, but I read the wikipedia page in decent depth, and it appears to me that you are wrong, or perhaps using a different definition than the field itself uses. From the wiki page: "This port enables the sound from the rear side of the diaphragm to increase the efficiency of the system at low frequencies as compared to a typical sealed- or closed-box loudspeaker or an infinite baffle mounting... Depending on the exact relationship between driver parameters, the enclosure volume (and filling if any), and the tube cross-section and length, the efficiency can be substantially improved over the performance of a similarly sized sealed-box enclosure." [0]. I bet I can see where your disagreement comes from though -- I think you're arguing that adding the reflex speaker cancels some of the power going through the main speaker, and therefore must result in decreased total_power_out/total_power_in (forgive me if I misunderstand). This is a sensible way to define efficiency, and I think you're correct that total_power_out is strictly decreased. However, there are also other sensible ways to define efficiency, eg, instead of total_power_out you might care about the perceptually-weakest frequency the speaker generates, to ensure the sound is "balanced" to a human ear. You might then define efficiency as num_spectral_bins*min_weighted_spectral_power_out/total_power_in. I have some experience optimizing perceived smoothness, and we used a metric very similar to this. Without fully knowing what you mean or what he means, I think you're disagreeing over terms, not correctness. > but in any case, what he says about the "bulk" movement of air (he should probably call it net, i mean all air is bulk by nature) there is no way that the speaker pumping air in and out of the cavity could turn into net movement in one direction... the air coming out was directionally focused from the cone? and sucking back in was amorphous and somehow not detected by his device? I think you're agreeing with him here, his explanation matches yours. We can break a full period of oscillation into two sections: a high pressure section (the air molecules being pushed away from the speaker), and a low pressure section (air being pulled back). The high pressure section travels _coherently_ through the air cannon, mostly moving air molecules in a single direction (as you say, it is "directionally focused from the cone"). The low pressure segment pulls air back into the air cannon, but it is _not_ coherent (as you say, it is "amorphous"). During the low section, molecules can flow towards the air cannon from the side of the cannon; they do not have to come from directly in front of the air cannon. If you rewatch that section I think you'll see you're not disagreeing with him. To be fair, more drawings would help communicate it more clearly. You're correct that if you draw your observation box big enough, there can be no net movement from something wiggling back and forth, but I think he's drawing his observation box over the fire. If you look at that system (the air above the fire), you will see net movement. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_reflex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_reflex

fsckboy 14d ago
what you are calling agreement between me and him I don't see at all. I'm not going to watch that video again. I could watch another one and tell you what's wrong with that one, that would be more interesting. I know the field of loudspeakers/acoustics very well, what I've said so far and will say now is all off the top of my head, and it's unlikely that it's in his head at all. We're not going to research a number like 5% more efficient because that's a complete waste of time, let me explain. "We" measure loudness of sound on a decibel scale, that is tenths of a Bel, and the Bel scale is a logarithmic scale, more or less because that's how human hearing perception works, I guess because that's how sounds occur in nature (evolution). But what that all translates to is, to be perceived as "twice as loud" requires a 10 decibel increase; that corresponds to an increase of 10 times the power. On a smaller scale, a 3 dB increase requires doubling power. 3dB is perceptible, but minimally so. So for a tiny 3db increase in loudness requiring 2x the power, is anybody interested in an 5% inefficiency increase taking us to needing 2.1? no, nobody is interested in that, they don't make power amplifiers with ".05 times more power!" (maybe I should add, the decibel scale is a comparative scale, not an absolute scale, and the hearing/sound phenomenon is not linear to begin with, so it works best and most intuitively on smaller ranges; to put it a different way, a power amplifer can go from zero (off) to 10 Watts, 100 Watts, 1000 Watts, but there is no "log of 0") now, as to the comparison of tuned ported/bass reflex compared to acoustic suspension (which is what sealed box refers to): acoustic suspension is NOTORIOUSLY ineffient; it is also notoriously good sounding, and in a compact amount of space like an apartment living room the inefficient power is not important to achieving high sound volumes to create a symphony listening experience. But that is not true of infinite baffles (consider a speaker mounted in a wall), so to lump together infinite baffle with acoustic suspension and call something else 5% more efficient is just plain wrong, but who cares because 5% is nothing on a logarithmic scale. (space efficiency btw is very important in most people's living spaces, and that's where acoustic suspension really wins. I don't know the "efficiency" of acoustic suspension, but people did need to upgrade their power amplifiers, say from 3 watts to 10 watts or to 20. This was in a period of time where electronics were still transistorizing and shrinking so people would notice "hey, I need to buy something, can't keep using the old thing" more than %ages) the goal is not efficiency, it's good sound. bass reflex improves its sound by cancelling the resonant frequency which would be overly loud otherwise. acoustic suspension also tames the resonance, but with an entirely different method, the speaker box is small enough that the compression of the air acts as a spring, where the entire surface of the (paper) cone is supported by the sealed air cushion; the acoustic supsension loudspeaker driver itself does not need a spring in that setup, but it is required for other applications of loudspeakers. he didn't ask himself any questions about the difference between the air cannon and his bass reflex port plus air cannon setup. The frequency of of audio, even very low bass notes would be minimum 20 Hz (that is unrealistically low for most sound systems), and the normal air cannon "balloon snap" is not really comparable. A test he could do would be to keep the speaker cavity filled with smoke and see if a 20 Hz signal blows 20 smoke rings a second: guarantee, it does not, but it might do something interesting. the relatively slow swirl of the smoke ring is a turbulence after effect phenomenon but lets go back to why I wrote my original comment. incels here were making fun of a mexican high school girl and using that video to point out she had accomplished nothing. so to give her the same credit every high school student deserves for their science fair project, I thought I'd point out that this youtube genius could also be made fun of.

fsckboy 14d ago

what you are calling agreement between me and him I don't see at all. I'm not going to watch that video again. I could watch another one and tell you what's wrong with that one, that would be more interesting. I know the field of loudspeakers/acoustics very well, what I've said so far and will say now is all off the top of my head, and it's unlikely that it's in his head at all. We're not going to research a number like 5% more efficient because that's a complete waste of time, let me explain. "We" measure loudness of sound on a decibel scale, that is tenths of a Bel, and the Bel scale is a logarithmic scale, more or less because that's how human hearing perception works, I guess because that's how sounds occur in nature (evolution). But what that all translates to is, to be perceived as "twice as loud" requires a 10 decibel increase; that corresponds to an increase of 10 times the power. On a smaller scale, a 3 dB increase requires doubling power. 3dB is perceptible, but minimally so. So for a tiny 3db increase in loudness requiring 2x the power, is anybody interested in an 5% inefficiency increase taking us to needing 2.1? no, nobody is interested in that, they don't make power amplifiers with ".05 times more power!" (maybe I should add, the decibel scale is a comparative scale, not an absolute scale, and the hearing/sound phenomenon is not linear to begin with, so it works best and most intuitively on smaller ranges; to put it a different way, a power amplifer can go from zero (off) to 10 Watts, 100 Watts, 1000 Watts, but there is no "log of 0") now, as to the comparison of tuned ported/bass reflex compared to acoustic suspension (which is what sealed box refers to): acoustic suspension is NOTORIOUSLY ineffient; it is also notoriously good sounding, and in a compact amount of space like an apartment living room the inefficient power is not important to achieving high sound volumes to create a symphony listening experience. But that is not true of infinite baffles (consider a speaker mounted in a wall), so to lump together infinite baffle with acoustic suspension and call something else 5% more efficient is just plain wrong, but who cares because 5% is nothing on a logarithmic scale. (space efficiency btw is very important in most people's living spaces, and that's where acoustic suspension really wins. I don't know the "efficiency" of acoustic suspension, but people did need to upgrade their power amplifiers, say from 3 watts to 10 watts or to 20. This was in a period of time where electronics were still transistorizing and shrinking so people would notice "hey, I need to buy something, can't keep using the old thing" more than %ages) the goal is not efficiency, it's good sound. bass reflex improves its sound by cancelling the resonant frequency which would be overly loud otherwise. acoustic suspension also tames the resonance, but with an entirely different method, the speaker box is small enough that the compression of the air acts as a spring, where the entire surface of the (paper) cone is supported by the sealed air cushion; the acoustic supsension loudspeaker driver itself does not need a spring in that setup, but it is required for other applications of loudspeakers. he didn't ask himself any questions about the difference between the air cannon and his bass reflex port plus air cannon setup. The frequency of of audio, even very low bass notes would be minimum 20 Hz (that is unrealistically low for most sound systems), and the normal air cannon "balloon snap" is not really comparable. A test he could do would be to keep the speaker cavity filled with smoke and see if a 20 Hz signal blows 20 smoke rings a second: guarantee, it does not, but it might do something interesting. the relatively slow swirl of the smoke ring is a turbulence after effect phenomenon but lets go back to why I wrote my original comment. incels here were making fun of a mexican high school girl and using that video to point out she had accomplished nothing. so to give her the same credit every high school student deserves for their science fair project, I thought I'd point out that this youtube genius could also be made fun of.