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 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

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

Postby Ethan Winer » Mon Dec 20, 2004 12:13 am

Eric,

> I HAVE AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TIME NOT TO USE WORDS NOW WHICH BY DEFINITION MUST BE MODERATED. <

Does anyone aside from cc have any on-topic points that contribute to the understanding of standing waves? When someone says "his FAQ is wrong" with no further explanation, or "you expect people to take you seriously?" what they're really saying is "I have nothing of substance to offer."

> Ethan's FAQ ... banned from RO for MANY months <

I'm glad you brought that up because it highlights a logic error I see here repeatedly. That error is called "argument from authority" and the following is from the excellent Logical Fallacies article you can find on THIS web site:

Dr. X believes A, Dr. X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. This is really just a special case of Non-Sequitur, since it does not necessarily follow that those who speak from authority are always correct. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim.


This logic error applies here because in this entire thread the only arguments against me have been along the lines of "Ethan's psuedo scientific writings have been challenged by experts" and "the world of science and education thinks otherwise" and "it only gets you bitch slapped by 'real' acoustic experts."

Guys, if you have anything substantive to offer, this would be a good time to let us know.

--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 Anonymous » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:18 am

E,

Rather than simply edit your last post and leave it covered with ***xxx*** type comments I thought I'd try to respond to a few of the points raised.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to quote Eric's comment - other than to divert attention from your own behaviour - but he had the decency and good manners to moderate his own post - and I thank him for that. What remained was still for some people rather strong and on the wrong side of the line of moderation but in the light of your response I decided to leave it.

A few comments on your post:

Does anyone aside from cc have any on-topic points that contribute to the understanding of standing waves?


Several people, including cc, Paul, thefruitfarmer, DigiPenguin and Eric have made good, on topic remarks in this thread.

When someone says "his FAQ is wrong" with no further explanation, or "you expect people to take you seriously?" what they're really saying is "I have nothing of substance to offer."

No - I think that what they're saying is that your FAQ is wrong. As a moderator I take no view on this, despite it being a personal sleight, as you have been happy enough to make similar unproven comments on a number of occasions. (On a personal level I agree that there are things in your FAQ that I would disagree with and I know that I'm not alone in that.) (Eric had already said that he didn't have time for the detail and made that remark in a brief summary.) I agree that it's rather unfair to leave the point floating without expansion but I expect that as Eric said, his explanation will be forthcoming in the fullness of time.

On the "you expect people to take you seriously" comment, I thought about "moderating" that when I saw it earlier as I felt it was a little OTT but decided to let it stand, partly in the light of your response and partly because saying, as you did "Pick up a college-level text on basic electronics and look up standing wave, then tell me if it says anything about room modes." is one of the more ...er.. unusual remarks I've seen in this, or any other, thread. You could just as well say [Pick up a college-level text on basic hydrodynamics and look up standing wave, then tell me if it says anything about room modes] or [Pick up a college-level text on basic acoustics, look up standing wave, then tell me if it says anything about electrical reflections at impedance mismatches.] I think you'll find that most college-level texts on a given subject tend to stick within their own areas of discussion. They might mention in passing, similar phenomena in other disciplines but ime it would be as unusual for a text on electronics to go into detail about an acoustic phenomenon as for a text on acoustics to mention in detail electrical phenomena.

If you want to read a text that mentions room modes and standing waves then I'd suggest trying one on acoustics - you'll notice that the vast majority find them to be related subjects (though not the same thing). Suggesting, as you seem to be that non-inclusion of a mention of room modes in a discussion of standing waves in an electronics text is somehow proof of your statement that the two are unrelated is rather spurious.

Ethan winer:
When someone says "his FAQ is wrong" with no further explanation, or "you expect people to take you seriously?" what they're really saying is "I have nothing of substance to offer."


By the same assessment,

Ethan Winer:
Eric,

> I HAVE AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TIME NOT TO USE WORDS NOW WHICH BY DEFINITION MUST BE MODERATED. <

Does anyone aside from cc have any on-topic points that contribute to the understanding of standing waves? When someone says "his FAQ is wrong" with no further explanation, or "you expect people to take you seriously?" what they're really saying is "I have nothing of substance to offer."

> Ethan's FAQ ... banned from RO for MANY months <

I'm glad you brought that up because it highlights a logic error I see here repeatedly. That error is called "argument from authority" and the following is from the excellent Logical Fallacies article you can find on THIS web site:

Quote:
Dr. X believes A, Dr. X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. This is really just a special case of Non-Sequitur, since it does not necessarily follow that those who speak from authority are always correct. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim.



This logic error applies here because in this entire thread the only arguments against me have been along the lines of "Ethan's psuedo scientific writings have been challenged by experts" and "the world of science and education thinks otherwise" and "it only gets you bitch slapped by 'real' acoustic experts."

Guys, if you have anything substantive to offer, this would be a good time to let us know.

--Ethan


doesn't say to me that the poster has very much to offer apart from an escalation in the off topic argument!

> Ethan's FAQ ... banned from RO for MANY months <

I'm glad you brought that up because it highlights a logic error I see here repeatedly. That error is called "argument from authority" and the following is from the excellent Logical Fallacies article you can find on THIS web site:

Quote:
Dr. X believes A, Dr. X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. This is really just a special case of Non-Sequitur, since it does not necessarily follow that those who speak from authority are always correct. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim.

This logic error applies here because in this entire thread the only arguments against me have been along the lines of "Ethan's psuedo scientific writings have been challenged by experts" and "the world of science and education thinks otherwise" and "it only gets you bitch slapped by 'real' acoustic experts."


So just to get this clear, as you don't seem to be saying anything here; is the content of the comment:

Eric Desart:
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).


true or untrue? Is "Look at the FAQ second in the list on my article page" banned on RO (assuming that refers to recording.org)? A straight, one word answer will suffice. If you want to explain the one word answer then fine but please answer first then keep to the point in any explanation. If it is true I'd be very interested to know why. If not then I sincerely hope that Eric will apologise and retract the comment.

in this entire thread the only arguments against me have been along the lines of "Ethan's psuedo scientific writings have been challenged by experts" and "the world of science and education thinks otherwise" and "it only gets you bitch slapped by 'real' acoustic experts."

All of which comments, though harsh, often crude and confrontational, are imo not without validity. AFAIK, your writings have been challenged by people who have reasonable claim to be regarded as experts in their field, your theories on standing waves and room modes certainly seem to fly in the face of accepted science - that's not to say you're wrong, just that the comment is correct - and you are certainly taking a lot of flack from the more experienced acousticians responding to your posts. Whether they are more "real" than you is another matter and I would edit that out but it's rather pointless at this stage (I will though, if you want me to).

Ethan Winer:
Guys, if you have anything substantive to offer, this would be a good time to let us know.


A lot of good substantive points have been offered. Just because you disagree with many/most if not all of them, and chose to ignore some, it doesn't mean that they aren't substantive. Implying that other people's viewpoints are invalid merely because you don't share them is rather rude and does you few favours.

Folks,
Yet again, we have a thread which is wandering off topic through a combination of personal attacks and deliberate misdirection. If we could stick with the science we might get somewhere.

Though I'm beginning to wonder! Is there any point in continuing with this thread and trying to get it back on track or is it a complete waste of our time and should we just put it (and ourselves) out of it's misery and lock/delete it now?

Oh well :roll: I guess this makes me as guilty as everyone else of posting off topic. Sorry.
Anonymous

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

Postby Paul Woodlock » Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:26 am

Greetings OVU :)

Thanks for that post.

I'm used to debating in a more exuberent and emotional manner, and I guess that's why it's been a little difficult adjusting to the expectations of this forum. However, I am trying :)

I am pleased that you can see why it's been difficult not to cross the line, when faced with such provocation.

I personally ask you not to close the thread. For one Eric needs to link up to his forthcoming articles, and besides I think even Ethan's theories will ultimately help the learning process for people, because it's very contentious nature will draw some excellent info from the experts showing how it really is.

:)

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 » Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:38 pm

0VU,

> Rather than simply edit your last post <

I can't imagine why you would consider editing my post. I have made no insults, only pointed out the insults of others against me. This is a huge distinction! If you believe I have made inciteful or insulting comments in this post or others, I request that you leave them so others can judge. In fact, your extensive editing and toning down of the many insults against me served only to hide evidence of the ulterior motives of my detractors.

I will answer every one of your points using the same detail as you did, even though not one of your points is remotely related to the subject of standing waves.

> I'm not sure why you felt the need to quote Eric's comment <

To show that so far he has offered little of substance, only more insults.

> other than to divert attention from your own behaviour <

What behavior? This is not the first time you accused me of "bad behavior." In another thread you stated, "Ethan hasn't been above some name calling and frankly childish behaviour." At that time I replied:

That's a serious charge that's neither true nor fair. I have always been cordial to Eric, even when he's insulted me personally and professionally ... If you can show examples of me calling names or being childish I'd love to see them.


You never replied. If you have an example of me behaving badly, either show it now or stop accusing me of that, okay? I'm sorry to say your own bias is becoming quite apparent.

> he [Eric] had the decency and good manners to moderate his own post <

There is no decency in wasting forum bandwidth with posts that say only "I'm very frustrated trying to think of something to say here, other than insults that I know will be moderated."

> Several people, including cc, Paul, thefruitfarmer, DigiPenguin and Eric have made good, on topic remarks in this thread. <

That's why I was careful to say, "the only arguments against me have been..." John Geisen's point that "Standing waves are caused by equal frequency waves traveling in different directions, including opposite" was excellent and on-topic.

> I think that what they're saying is that your FAQ is wrong <

You would think so, but they never have anything specific to criticize. They just say it's wrong. This is a common theme with Eric and his followers, to claim that I'm wrong but without ever explaining how or why I'm wrong.

> there are things in your FAQ that I would disagree with <

Again, either state your specific technical objections or stop accusing me.

> "Pick up a college-level text on basic electronics and look up standing wave, then tell me if it says anything about room modes." is one of the more ...er.. unusual remarks I've seen <

It is an absolutely valid remark! And it was stated a lot nicer than Scott Foster's earlier comment to me, "pick up a frickin' text book and learn the subject." Rather than criticize me by saying my statement is "unusual" you should explain why it's not correct. Standing waves do occur in radio cables, and there are no room modes in those cables. Standing waves also occur at non-modal frequencies inside a room and at all audio frequencies against a boundary outdoors. If you dispute either of the two previous sentences, please explain how they are wrong.

> a mention of room modes in a discussion of standing waves in an electronics text is somehow proof of your statement that the two are unrelated is rather spurious <

It's not spurious at all. I never said room modes and standing waves are unrelated. What I said - and proved beyond any doubt - is that a standing wave is not the same thing as a room mode. This too is a huge distinction.

> true or untrue? Is "Look at the FAQ second in the list on my article page" banned on RO (assuming that refers to recording.org)? A straight, one word answer will suffice. If you want to explain the one word answer then fine <

The one-word answer is No. At least, not currently. This is so far off-topic I'm astonished you brought it up, but I'm glad to explain. In fact, I started to do that in my previous reply, but then decided that Kurt Foster of Recording.org is hardly an authority on acoustics so whether he approves of my FAQ or not is irrelevant.

As many SOS regulars know, I wrote THIS FAQ to explain the basics of acoustic treatment. When I founded the Acoustics forum at Recording.org (RO) several years ago I put a "sticky" post in that forum requesting that newcomers read the FAQ first and then ask follow-up questions. My FAQ served the forum very well for about a year. Then Eric Desart showed up and petitioned RO principals Chris Bialuski and Kurt Foster to remove me as a moderator because I'm not qualified to explain acoustics. He also told them my FAQ is full of errors, and I use it to drive traffic to the RealTraps web site even though it never resided on the RealTraps site. Of course, the entire purpose of my FAQ is to show people how to build their own treatment so they don't have to buy it from me or anyone else. Think about that.

Kurt Foster, who knows little about acoustics and so can only choose which "expert" to believe, removed me as moderator and asked me to stop posting a link to my FAQ. I asked him what specifically he disagreed with and he admitted he was not qualified to comment. But since Eric is an expert and Eric says my FAQ is wrong, then it must be wrong. Talk about "argument from authority!" After a month or so I was finally able to get Kurt to at least look at my FAQ, so he could see it was not an advertisement for RealTraps. At that time he posted publicly at RO that it's okay for me to link to my FAQ again. I have since stopped posting there because every time I did five guys from StudioTips would show up and hurl insults. Sound familiar?

> your writings have been challenged by people who have reasonable claim to be regarded as experts in their field <

I have already shown they are not the experts they claim to be, by proving beyond all doubt that a standing wave is not the same thing as a room mode. I have also shown that standing waves occur at non-modal frequencies, which is another thing Eric had disagreed with before but can no longer dispute. I have a long list of other technical gaffs and errors made by Eric Desart. I see no point in listing them all here, but I will if you really want me to. Bear in mind that for two years now these "experts" have denied that basic quarter-wavelength comb filtering occurs at a single boundary.

Their entire case that I am not an expert, and only pretend to be, is based on this disagreement over the definition of room modes and standing waves, and quarter-wavelength comb filtering. I have clearly shown that I am right and they are wrong on both of these issues, so who really is the expert?

So, is this what we're reduced to - each side trying to show that the other is a moron? More to the point, just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they're always right. And just because someone doesn't have a degree doesn't mean they're wrong. To be perfectly clear, I have no idea what formal credentials Eric and his followers may or may not have because they never listed them publicly. But whether Eric has a Ph.D. or is totally self-taught is unrelated to the facts about standing waves.

If Eric continues to insist that a standing wave is the same thing as a room mode, I ask him directly to explain this: Radio stations employ a Standing Wave Ratio (SWR) meter between the transmitter and antenna to measure the ratio of direct and reflected energy. This lets the engineers make adjustments to ensure that maximum transmitter power gets to the antenna, rather than be reflected back into the transmitter's output and wasted. Since clearly there are no room modes in a radio transmission line, how can one be the same as the other?

--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 Tim. » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:20 pm

Ethan's last post:
>I never said room modes and standing waves are unrelated.

A prior post from Ethan:
>In fact, this is further proof that standing waves have nothing at all to do with room modes.

Tim ;o)
Tim.
Regular
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 1:00 am

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

Postby Tequila Slammer » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:34 pm

OK, we've started to make progress here. As far as I could tell, there were two sides of an argument:

- Room modes = standing waves.
- Room modes are nothing to do with standing waves.

Without getting into specifics, we seem to have arrived at:

- Room modes are a special case of standing waves.

Agreed on all sides.

Great!

Shall we forget the specifics of who said what and move on from here? If standing waves can occur at any frequency, what does that mean in real terms for the end user?

Thinking about it, as they would only occur when the angle of incidence is 90 degrees to the wall (on both perpendicular planes) is this an argument for positioning monitors in front of and above the monitoring position, angled down, so the listener isn't bisected by either of these planes?

New page, new start. ;) Can we have an interesting, informed and informative discussion without personal attacks please? :lol:
User avatar
Tequila Slammer
Poster
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:00 am

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

Postby Scott R. Foster » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:38 pm

Tim Rainey wrote:Ethan's last post:
>I never said room modes and standing waves are unrelated.

A prior post from Ethan:
>In fact, this is further proof that standing waves have nothing at all to do with room modes.

Tim ;o)


Classic Ethan.

: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 Tequila Slammer » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:46 pm

:roll:
User avatar
Tequila Slammer
Poster
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:00 am

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

Postby Ethan Winer » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:51 pm

Slammer,

> Room modes are a special case of standing waves. Agreed on all sides. <

Just to clarify, the full statement I made earlier is that standing waves have nothing to do with room modes and everything to do with reflections. So technically, Yes, standing waves are related to room modes, but only at select frequencies and only as a function of reflections. Reflections are the parent principle, not the other way around.

Thanks for summarizing.

--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 Tequila Slammer » Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:03 pm

*sigh*

OK, I'm assuming here that room modes are going to exhibit a more marked effect than any other type of standing wave within a room - simply because the room dimentions mean the wave will be amplified in both directions by reflections on either side of the wall.

A standing wave at another frequency would surely be 'broken up' by the reflection at the opposite boundary, reducing the effect?
User avatar
Tequila Slammer
Poster
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:00 am

PreviousNext