3 ms·
Yeah so ignoring the obvious absorption and occlusion issues, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law wo
by SigmundA 12y ago
Yeah so ignoring the obvious absorption and occlusion issues, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law would make such a system exetremly inefficient at any distance right?
- duaneb 12y ago"Any distance" is a little much. I'd love this just to clear up wires on my desk, and at that distance I can't imagine the inverse square law would be too much of an issue. Across the house? Yea, that'd be a huge problem, I think.
- SigmundA 12y agoNo, I mean any distance, if it put out 10 watts at 1 inch, it would be 2.5 watts at 2 inches and .625 watts at 3 inches. You would be wasting huge amounts of power just to not have a few inches of wire. At 15ft you would need like 5000W to to get .001W at your device. This is not even thinking about the efficiency of converting electricity into sound and back again. You could focus the sound beam to improve things but then you lose the convenience of putting the device anywhere.
- thedufer 12y agoYour math is a little off. Inverse square law means that every doubling in distance quarters the power, so it'd be .625W at 4 inches (or 1.111W at 3 inches).