You are here

Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Customising, building or repairing your own gear? Need help with acoustic treatment or soundproofing? Ask away…

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby Scott R. Foster » Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:42 pm

Ethan:

Single Hz pink noise... 1/4 wave nulls from all walls... the 100 Hz band has a peak because it was measured... standing waves are misunderstood, new terminology and a new theory are required

Don't you get tired of having to make up a new pretend science for every phenomena you take under consideration... another chapter in your "new school" acoustics everytime you run into something you don't understand?

Its a slow motion intellectual train wreck and folks starting to learn the topic do not deserve this treatment, its abusive. You really need to stop.

But not just for the sake of other folks... do it for your own sake as well. Wouldn't it be easier in the long run for you to just pick up a frickin' text book and learn the subject?

Think of all the time and effort it would save.

Or, in the alternative, at least go to some other source for you raw material. If you are gonna do the moonbat pretend science thing, is there really any need to "misappropriate" terms and concepts from real science... it only gets you bitch slapped by "real" acoustic experts.

Instead, maybe you could tie it all back to aromatherapy or the Illuminatae.. at least your diatribes would have a punchline.

:headbang:
User avatar
Scott R. Foster
Regular
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby Paul Woodlock » Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:57 pm

Foz wrote:.....But not just for the sake of other folks... do it for your own sake as well. Wouldn't it be easier in the long run for you to just pick up a frickin' text book and learn the subject?

Think of all the time and effort it would save.
.....

:headbang:

I know

Paul
Paul Woodlock
Regular
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby cc. » Sat Dec 18, 2004 9:19 pm


Are you guys argueing about whether the combination of an incident wave and a reflected wave can be called a standing wave?!?!

You've made me go and look in my University text book now (which is more than I ever did while I was there) :headbang:

It seems to think that it can ("The Physics of Vibrations and Waves" by H.J.Pain 3rd ed.) - he uses just this case as an example to calculate the standing wave ratio.

I've lost the will to live now.
User avatar
cc.
Regular
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:00 am
Location: lisbon at the moment

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby Ethan Winer » Sat Dec 18, 2004 9:33 pm

Scott,

> Don't you get tired of having to make up a new pretend science <

Don't you get tried of insulting me while handily evading every point made?

Pick up a college-level text on basic electronics and look up standing wave, then tell me if it says anything about room modes.

--Ethan
User avatar
Ethan Winer
Regular
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 1:00 am
Location: New Milford, CT USA

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby Paul Woodlock » Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:42 pm

Ethan Winer wrote:Scott,

> Don't you get tired of having to make up a new pretend science <

Don't you get tried of insulting me while handily evading every point made?


Now that is truly rich :) I'd be Bill Gates if I had £1 for every point you've evaded.

Scott isn't insulting you. On the contrary, he's giving you some well meant advice for your own sake.



Pick up a college-level text on basic electronics and look up standing wave, then tell me if it says anything about room modes.

--Ethan

And you expect people to take you seriously?


CC wrote:Are you guys argueing about whether the combination of an incident wave and a reflected wave can be called a standing wave?!?!


I don't think so CC. Ethan is boldy claiming Room modes have NOTHING to do with standing waves.

However the world of science and education thinks otherwise.

Here's what the University of Southampton, UK, has to say about standing waves and modes ( including room modes ) in various situations. http://www.isvr.soton.ac.uk/SPCG/Tutorial/Tutorial/Tutorial_files/Web-standing-waves.htm

Cue more evasion and 'semantics pedantics'. :)


Paul
Paul Woodlock
Regular
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby cc. » Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:36 am

Paul Woodlock wrote:
CC wrote:Are you guys argueing about whether the combination of an incident wave and a reflected wave can be called a standing wave?!?!


I don't think so CC. Ethan is boldy claiming Room modes have NOTHING to do with standing waves.

Where did Ethan say this? I found him saying "standing waves have nothing at all to do with room modes" - that is not the same thing!
User avatar
cc.
Regular
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:00 am
Location: lisbon at the moment

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby Eric Desart » Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:43 am

cc,

You like to play word games not?
The topic is about Room acoustics.
The way you say it in defense of Ethan is as well PLAIN wrong.

As God and 10 people are my witness:
In order to prevent those incredible exhausting over and over repeating discussions, where confusion is more used as a handy tool to look clever, I wrote others in private BEFORE Ethan's replies.

And this is a literally quote:

Eric wrote privately wrote: It is this linguistic finesse that Ethan uses to trick you by provoking that Room modes and standing waves are not related.
So he really hopes that you should say that they are the same. SO DON'T unless putting it in a clear context.
...snip...
Ethan doesn't need to understand standing waves. It's enough for him to prove that you are wrong to cause confusion to come out as the expert himself.


I can't be more honest than showing myself.

And if you now like to play with the words as I formulated them: please do. I won't play along. I'm Dutch have little feeling for English and for me it's about the content.
User avatar
Eric Desart
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby cc. » Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:50 pm


Eric, I don't want to play word games, but flipping that sentence round changes its meaning - that's why I pointed it out.

All Ethan seems to be saying is that to get a standing wave you just need a reflection, not a room mode. What is wrong with this?
User avatar
cc.
Regular
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:00 am
Location: lisbon at the moment

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby Paul Woodlock » Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:51 pm

cc. wrote:
....

All Ethan seems to be saying is that to get a standing wave you just need a reflection, not a room mode. What is wrong with this?

That, is NOT the same as this.....

standing waves have nothing at all to do with room modes

This discussion is now getting absolutely ridiculous.


PAul
Paul Woodlock
Regular
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby cc. » Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:24 pm

OK, if you take that one sentence out of context it doesn't - but if you look back everytime he says it's not to do with room modes, he also says that it is to do with reflections. For example:


However, the underlying concept of a standing wave remains, as does my original point: At a predictable distance from a reflecting boundary there are a series of points where the wave is completely motionless. If a wave approaches a boundary at a right angle, the first point is 1/2 wavelength from the boundary. Other points occur at 4/4 and 6/4 and 8/4 wavelengths, etc. (comb filtering). At other angles the distance will vary but still be predictable. Again, the main point is this has nothing to do with room modes, and everything to do with reflections. Standing waves can occur at any frequency outdoors against a wall where clearly there are no modes.
User avatar
cc.
Regular
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:00 am
Location: lisbon at the moment

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby Paul Woodlock » Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:18 pm

cc. wrote:OK, if you take that one sentence out of context it doesn't - but if you look back everytime he says it's not to do with room modes, he also says that it is to do with reflections. For example:


However, the underlying concept of a standing wave remains, as does my original point: At a predictable distance from a reflecting boundary there are a series of points where the wave is completely motionless. If a wave approaches a boundary at a right angle, the first point is 1/2 wavelength from the boundary. Other points occur at 4/4 and 6/4 and 8/4 wavelengths, etc. (comb filtering). At other angles the distance will vary but still be predictable. Again, the main point is this has nothing to do with room modes, and everything to do with reflections. Standing waves can occur at any frequency outdoors against a wall where clearly there are no modes.

CC, with respect....


Ethan's argument that standing waves exist outside of room modes and then using that argument to say the following "In fact, this is further proof that standing waves have nothing at all to do with room modes. " is IMO nonsense.


Just becuase a standing wave can occour in situations OTHER than room modes, DOES not mean that mode frequencies are 'nothing' to do with standing waves.

And hether you say "modes have nothing to do with standing waves", OR "standing waves have nothing to do with modes", is exactly the same.

'nothing' is a symetrical argument, and means the same both ways around.

Just becuase a steering wheel is used on a bus, doesn't mean steering wheels have nothing to do with cars.

That's why this discussion has gotten ridiculous IMO.

All I wanna do is learn a bit more about the subject. And I would suspect, do others reading this.

This stupid trail of wordplay and logical nonsense designed to cover up some people's lack of acosutical knowledge is doing nothing for anyone's education here.

let's look at at what's really happening here....

Do you really think that if Ethan explained the science of acoustics, including standing waves, correctly then people like Eric or Jeff would still take issue with him. Of course they wouldn't. Science is science, reagrdless of whether someone is liked or not.

Yet Ethan's psuedo scientific writings have been challenged by experts on many threads on may forums.

That says something to me.


Paul
Paul Woodlock
Regular
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby Ethan Winer » Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:35 pm

Paul,

> is IMO nonsense <

Rather than call it nonsense, why don't you explain to us why it's nonsense. Please be specific.

> Just becuase a standing wave can occour in situations OTHER than room modes <

Okay, now we're finally getting somewhere. If you recall, I disputed the original contention by Eric and Jeff and maybe others that room modes are standing waves. Now you agree with me that standing waves can occur in situations other than room modes. This is huge because you are confirming what I have been saying for two years now:

Standing waves are the result of basic acoustic interference and so can exist outdoors where there are no modes. Therefore, room modes are a subset of basic acoustic interference. And since standing waves can occur outside of a room they can by extension occur inside a room at non-modal frequencies.

--Ethan
User avatar
Ethan Winer
Regular
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 1:00 am
Location: New Milford, CT USA

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby Paul Woodlock » Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:51 pm

Ethan Winer wrote:..... Now you agree with me that standing waves can occur in situations other than room modes. This is huge because you are confirming what I have been saying for two years now:
......--Ethan


Neither I, nor anyone else to my knowledge, has ever claimed otherwise.

Sorry to disappoint, but you'll have to find other ways to be proved right. It's not 'huge' at all.

First you say, standing waves have nothing to do with room modes, and now you're saying standing waves do have something to do with room modes, but exist outside them also.

Why the change?


Paul
Paul Woodlock
Regular
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby Eric Desart » Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:52 pm

Paaaauuuuuul, please!!!!!!!

cc ,

I will answer you later partly.
This goes too far, becomes too time consuming.
I intent to write an article about it, but that takes time.
That's why I said I will make a web page about it when having the time. Then I'm sure all my words are weighed.

I give you a summary though.
I do not agree with Ethan, his FAQ is wrong and misleading, so are lots of his articles.
Even when I try to imagine how Ethan sees those stopping waves, I have no idea how to picture this.

And while knowing and agreeing that it is utterly unfair and unpolite from me to end a message like this, while still not having the energy to go in-depth on all those topics individually, I will prepare something at least showing some of my aversion.

And sorry I really have no idea how to control others's emotions, from which I do know the background, and know they are honest.
User avatar
Eric Desart
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Re: Standing waves get their own thread - lucky little blighters!

Postby Eric Desart » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:31 pm

Ethan Winer wrote:Paul,

Okay, now we're finally getting somewhere. If you recall, I disputed the original contention by Eric and Jeff and maybe others that room modes are standing waves. Now you agree with me that standing waves can occur in situations other than room modes. This is huge because you are confirming what I have been saying for two years now:

Standing waves are the result of basic acoustic interference and so can exist outdoors where there are no modes. Therefore, room modes are a subset of basic acoustic interference. And since standing waves can occur outside of a room they can by extension occur inside a room at non-modal frequencies.

--Ethan


I saw those replies only after I entered my previous message.
Reading this message:
Ethan I HAVE AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TIME NOT TO USE WORDS NOW WHICH BY DEFINITION MUST BE MODERATED.

YOU FANTASIZE WHAT I AND JEFF SAID. IN FACT YOUR WHOLE REASONING IS JUST COLLECTING WORDS AS THEY SUIT YOU.
There's only one thing I'm really jealous about: you really do believe yourself don't you? As said before, threads with you don't need acousticians.

I deleted the rest of this message. It could only be moderated, while still representing my real thoughts.
I stop this thread for me. I only answer further via articles and a web page.

One can wonder why Ethan's:
Look at the FAQ second in the list on my article page,
is banned from RO for MANY months (with a try in-between of 2 weeks).

But Ethan I really must complement you. You are an EXPERT, pity it isn't acoustics.
User avatar
Eric Desart
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

PreviousNext