| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jerry Freedman
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 2476
Location: Burlington, Massachusetts
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TrpPro wrote: | | BobList wrote: | | I have never met a "physics" expert who could really play. They CAN'T...they have too much analyzation involved. The guys who during the day work at Bell Labs, are doctors, lawyers, physics experts usually suck in the section. |
I've never heard him play, but I have a feeling that kalijah does not fall into this category of not being able to play. And it seems that everyone misses a huge point where he is concerned. Although he seems able to scientifically analyze every last molecule involved in playing the trumpet, he has never, to my knowledge, professed using this type of complex analysis and knowledge in the learning process.
But he does dispel erroneous statements/concepts that could easily be stumbling blocks for a student who is trying to learn. |
Kalijah may or my not be a good player, I have never heard him and never said anything about his playing. I do think that his insistence on some sort of scientific validity for the metaphors that SUCCESSFUL trumpet teachers use in their teaching to be full ***. I have several degrees, one in math and one in computers plus few others.
Profanity is not allowed, even thinly disguised. Do refrain. - Moderators |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BobList
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 09 Nov 2002
Posts: 1104
Location: Baltimore, MD
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kalijah, I suppose it may look like it, but I am not saying you can't play, and I didn't single you out in my earlier post....sorry if you took it that way ( and looking back, I can see how that could happen).
I was just getting tired of looking for a good TCE post, and finding the physics were getting deeper by the hour...
My later post says basically, " hey guys, sorry for the rant".
Nothing personal was meant to anyone on this forum...
But I am serious about one thing....
which one of you all would like to start a Trpt. Physics forum?.
Bob List
_________________
http://www.JMB-MUSIC.COM
http://gregblackmouthpieces.com/personal.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3260
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jery wrote:
| Quote: | | I do think that his insistence on some sort of scientific validity for the metaphors that SUCCESSFUL trumpet teachers use in their teaching to be full ***. |
I have no problem with metaphors or visualizations. The problem is that they are almost never qualified as such. And some of them have been followed or preceeded by statements such as "....Its just physics" or "its simple physics..." "science tells us.." then instantly these "metaphors" are outright lies. Misleading students and causing problems.
And this occurs daily all over this site on web sites. And in practice rooms and class rooms and teaching rooms etc.
Most players learn to play sucessfully in spite of, not due to the popular methods and teachigs and "explainations" that exist. Some players arent so fortunate.
These very practioners could simply say: "well I use "air speed" as a visualization to 1. increase flow, 2. manipulate the embouchure and 3. increase lung pressure. But usually they will deny, ignore, or even refuse that any of 1. 2. or 3. should or will occur. How is this helpful to a student?
It is not, it is misinformation, and it is IMO full ***.
There is nothng wrong with accuracy in teaching is there?
and Bob said:
| Quote: | | Nothing personal was meant to anyone on this forum... |
Nothing was taken personally. And I commend the posters for keeping things fairly civil.
And a "technical, science and physics" area might well be in order. As a matter of fact some past moderators asked me if I would be interested in acting as the moderator on such a venture. It has been kicked around as an idea by a few users, I do not know if the current moderators or site administrators have entertained that possibility.
I think it would be a good idea, but to moderate such a thing, I think would be difficult. The SIMPLE science of air dynamics is within my grasp. If it got into the physics of bell design I would not be much help.
Darryl
Last edited by kalijah on Mon Jan 04, 2021 4:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Freedman
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 2476
Location: Burlington, Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I have no problem with metaphors or visualizations. The problem is that they are almost never qualified as such. And some of them have been followed or preceeded by statements such as "....Its just physics" or "its simple physics..." "science tells us.." then instantly these "metaphors" are outright lies. Misleading students and causing problems.
And this occurs daily all over this site on web sites. And in practice rooms and class rooms and teaching rooms etc.
Most players learn to play sucessfully in spite of, not due to the popular methods and teachigs and "explainations" that exist. Some players arent so fortunate.
These very practioners could simply say: "well I use "air speed" as a visualization to 1. increase flow, 2. manipulate the embouchure and 3. increase lung pressure. But usually they will deny, ignore, or even refuse that any of 1. 2. or 3. should or will occur. How is this helpful to a student?
It is not, it is misinformation, and it is IMO full ***.
There is nothng wrong with accuracy in teaching is there? |
There is nothing wrong with accuracy in teaching but there is something wrong with finding fault with successful methods because the explanations by the teachers, be they be Reinhardt, Costello etc. You assume that the teachers have a grasp of physics which none claim to and you assume that the model you are working from is applicable. Are you going to tell John Mohan or Paul Cacia ( the gordon students I know about off hand) that they are doing it wrong? Whatever for? It would be more useful to try to figure out what these teachers mean and why what they teach works rather than beating them up because the images and metaphors they use to describe delicate muscular adjustmant are wrong. Its sort of like finding faults with oranges because they are not apples.
Instead of proving bees can't fly, why not figure out how they do it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3260
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You assume that the teachers have a grasp of physics which none claim to and you assume that the model you are working from is applicable. |
There are teachers that DO claim to understand physics, but they do not. Then they make false claims based on ther ignorance of the subject, and they aint' metaphors.
And the model of air flow that I work from IS applicable. The real behavior of air is not suspended for trumpet playing. It is fully in play.
| Quote: | | Are you going to tell John Mohan or Paul Cacia ( the gordon students I know about off hand) that they are doing it wrong? Whatever for? |
I have never seen anything Cacia has said. or written. So I can not make judjements in that regard.
John and I agree that the tongue does arch up for most players as they ascend.
I take it a step further by noting, correctly, that extreme arching will cost the player in terms of air pressure and air flow at the embouchure. Which are the determinimg factors of air power.
John will take his beyond simply arching and make claims about air power, and air speed increases, and air pressure "focus" that are 100 percent false. And he presents them as 100 percent literal truth. Not metaphors.
Now if these teachers are presenting the false "physics" concepts as literal truth, how then is the student ever expected to accept it as a metaphor.
| Quote: | | It would be more useful to try to figure out what these teachers mean and why what they teach works rather than beating them up because the images and metaphors they use to describe delicate muscular adjustmant are wrong. |
I am not beating up any teacher or method. But that is just my point, some minions of these teachers do not discuss the delicate muscle adjustments involved as the teachers do. rather they jump into the "its all about the air" approach, then proceeding to "explain" the air workings from a point of really misuderstood science. Even to the point of giving the student misinformation.
There is no telling how many students and players have been ruined by this ego-driven, all-knowing, "physics-expert-because-I-think-I'm-a-great-high-note-player" approch to teaching:
check out this thread quoting a typical lesson with one of these cats:
http://www.trumpetherald.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=44912&highlight=lesson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Freedman
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 2476
Location: Burlington, Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I am not beating up any teacher or method. But that is just my point, some minions of these teachers do not discuss the delicate muscle adjustments involved as the teachers do. rather they jump into the "its all about the air" approach, then proceeding to "explain" the air workings from a point of really misuderstood science. Even to the point of giving the student misinformation. |
All teachings get changed ( or corrupted ) as they are passed down. However, if certain images and visualizations work for the student, then they work. If they are not scientifically valid, they still work. Leon Merian teaches playing with "cold air", a meaningless phrase but it works for him and I knew what it meant even though I realized that the reality was far from the metaphor. Leon plays wonderfully and he is a good teacher too. I am not going to tell him that he is all wrong, it works for him and works for his students. If I had the time and knowledge I might want to investigate what Leon is really doing and explain it clear, physical terms so that others may understand it exactly. Would that help them become better players? maybe, maybe not but I certainly would not go around claiming that Leon is all wrong.
TCE works ( like all methods for some not everyone). Callets ideas about compression might be totally off the wall but they work for him and work for his successful students. So what if its garbage from the physics/fluid dynamics explanation. It works and that's all I require from a teacher. Something is going on with the tongue way up front...what is that? Why does it work? This approach is infinitely more useful than claiming that TCE as explained by Callet makes no sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tptguy
Jerome Callet Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 3380
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darryl, Perhaps we can go at this another way. Rather than countering individual explanations, can we go to what Mr. Callet actually teaches and see if there is a knowable scientific explanation of why it works? As I said before, I know it works extremely well for me and all students I've worked with, but I don't pretend to know why. And please remember, I'm a novice in physics so like many, I'm quickly overwhelmed with physics that gets very deep. But maybe we can try.
Here is my take on what Jerry teaches: He demonstrates that a strong, solid spitbuzz provides a more focused pitch that is significantly more in tune than that provided by the traditional manner of articulating and blowing. This strong, centered spit buzz is created with the tip of the tongue through the teeth and in continuous contact with both upper and lower lips. The tongue is replacing the lower lip so the traditional squeezing of the lips against each other is no longer the tool to raise pitch. The lips come back and grip the full forward tongue so very little air is allowed to enter the horn. Before the tone is articulated the air is held in the mouth in full force. However this force is much less than generally taught. Rather than more air, Jerry teaches less air. The spit buzz then releases the air with a solid up and down spit action - never back and forth. Once a student comprehends this action and hears its effect then the student is able to use this technique in all practicing. All the essential muscles of the embouchure develop naturally and "correctly" around this technique. The more one does it, the more the range, power, endurance, sound, and pitch fall in line. Development proceeds in a continuous manner even for those like myself who have struggled greatly with other techniques. Jerry doesn't get seriously into why it works and neither do I. But, I'm testament to the fact that it surely works. Darryl, is there a scientific explanation for why this is working? Best regards, Kyle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3260
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | He demonstrates that a strong, solid spitbuzz provides a more focused pitch that is significantly more in tune than that provided by the traditional manner of articulating and blowing. |
Can you demonstrate or prove this claim in some way? Where is his demonstration? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tptguy
Jerome Callet Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 3380
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Darryl, Yes, it's quite easy to demonstrate. Jerry demonstrates it throughout every lesson. That's how he guides the student and the student learns to guide himself. I've been using it for several years now to guide my practicing throughout every session in addition to using it with all my students. Can you provide a scientific explanation for what makes this full forward tongue technique work so well, especially for those of us who have not been able to progress nearly so far with more traditional techniques? - Best regards, Kyle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3260
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Can you provide a scientific explanation |
I have an opinion as to why ANY embouchure that works well does so. And there is no particular method that it is exclusive to.
Gotta gig, gotta go. Later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tptguy
Jerome Callet Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 3380
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Speaking strictly of the features that ARE exclusive to Superchops, let us know if you can scientifically explain why a good number of people are having great success with it. I think that's what I and other readers would find interesting. Best regards, Kyle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NickD
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 679
Location: Chicago (northern suburbs)
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:30 am Post subject: In the words of Neo, "whoaaaaa!" |
|
|
Wow! I have been laying low recovering from a broken shoulder, and I sure missed this.
Ok, there has been much wodnerful discussion here, and I can only add a little if anything to it.
First, I have a masters in music and a masters in physics. I do have a day gig as a high school physics/AP physics teacher. In fact, we're about to begin our physics of music unit! I love this quarter! I also play about 120 gigs per year as a commercial/jazz trumpeter - a free-lancer - in the Chicago area. I've been working around here for 26 years - big bands, jazz quartets, rock bands classical orchestras. I've even been hired as an extra with members of the CSO at orchestra hall. Still need a day gig though. Oh well...
Now, I do little lectures on brasswind acoustics. I like to do some fun demos. One is to blow bubbles with my trumpet. I challenge my students to guess the winner - me or the bubble. They are usually surprised when the bubble fills so slowy and that no matter how loudly I play, I can't burst it right away. If I get the water, soap and glycerine mixture just right, it can take a couple of minutes and the bubble can get to be as big as a couple of feet across before it pops. I did this at West Chester, but my mix had gone a bit stale and had a tougher time getting a decent film going.
I once saw an old commercial of Al Hirt trying to break a wet Kleenex that was covering his bell. The Kleenex won, but not for Al's not trying! 
The point is, we don't use as much air as we think to blow loudly. The only purpose of the air is to move the lips - make them vibrate. We can't fill up the horn. It is already full of air! There is slow drift of air through the horn as we play, but the actual drift speed shouldn't have any impact on the sound. It is just the DC component. The sound is the AC component. Tom Moore from Rollin's college needs to do an experiment here!
I do another demo with a prepared horn. I have a horn ready with the bell completely covered in mylar so that I can't get any air through it. Then I use a tricked out mouthpiece with a hole drilled in the side and play bugle calls on a horn with no air going through it. The sound goes through the mylar, though with a muted effect. The air flow is right out of the side of the mouthpiece through a straw in the vent hole.
The point here is that the air doesn't even have to go through the horn to make it work! I just need to move the air to get my lips vibrating. There is a secondary point. Throat resistance must be optimized. Too big and the slots spread. Too small and the horn "stops up."
Both of these demos are not my creation, though I love them. I got them out of articles in the ITG Journal.
EDIT: After re-reading some of the posts, I thought I'm mention that Jerry came to my clinic at West Chester and sat right in front of me. Now that was intimidating. He was, however, in agreement with virtually all of my discussion of the physics of trumpet. I know he feels that I need to make some adjustment to my chops, but that's why I'm working with TCE now. In addition to my own wierd mouthpieces I now play his new Superchops 1 and I do try to communicate with him when I can. I'm pretty sure he doesn't think I'm a crackpot or a hack player.
EDIT: I also noticed that one poster who said that anyone who uses physics or works as a physicist has to be a bad player DOES have a day gig. This is a puzzlement to me. I think he was saying that analytic folks have to be bad players. I am in obvious disagreement, but this does make a difference. Nevertheless, I believe firmly in civil discourse in these forums. Ok, that's it for now.
Now, I know apologies have been made, and I certainly can accept them. However, I must confess to bristling a bit when I see folks post that anyone with a day gig sucks as a player. It is pretty easy to go there in an effort to make a point or to try to invalidate someone's words. I have a day gig that I love - allows me to use part of my background in a constructive manner - high school physics teacher. I also have a night gig - jazz trumpeter. OK, could I play better if I could play all day? I'm sure I could. Would I if I could? Absolutely! MAN, do I wish I could JUST play my horn and do nithing else. However the nature of the biz in Chicago - very complex and depressed (see may article "Life In The Trenches" on the UK Brass Forum) forces me to work a day gig to support my family.
Most of the pros I know have day gigs. Some deny it. They say, "I'm full time and you aren't!" Yet they have some 60 to 100 trumpet/brass students! Hmmmm... at a half hour a student we're looking at 30 to 50 hours a week. Well, hello!!! That's a day gig by any standard! The only guys in Chicago who don't have to teach are in the CSO and even some of them do it!
I was once fired from a nice little gig once I started teaching. I was told "you aren't any good anymore." That's almost verbatim. Man that hurt, as I was on a comeback and my playing was improving tremendously after some physical problems. This fuels my sensitivity, and my tendency to go on a bit here. Sorry about that.
Finally, if there was a "Physics of Trumpet" fourm here, you can bet I'd post a lot!
Peace!
Nick
PS: Wayne Bergeron is here at New Trier High School today. I've actually arranged for a substitute teacher to proctor my exam in a class so I can attend his masterclass. I am seriously interested in hearing what he has to say. I'll share on that matter later. I'm also his designated driver to the gig (I'm a band parent). I'll bug him then, too!
_________________
Nick Drozdoff - Getzen Endorsing Artist
http://www.nickdrozdoff.com
http://www.getzen.com/
http://www.youtube.com/nickdrozdoff
https://www.facebook.com/nickdrozdoffandthevariabledpostulateensemble
https://soundcloud.com/nick-drozdoff
Last edited by NickD on Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:16 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oj
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 1699
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nice post, Nick!
Get going - Darryl, you and others on TH - set up a "Trumpet Physics Forum"!
Many of us who enjoy physics (but who don't have it as a day gig) will love such a forum!
Ole |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
razeontherock
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 10609
Location: The land of GR and Getzen
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jonas: in case you missed goldenhornplayer saying it - the term "air compression" can readily be substituted with "resistance." I was glad to read Ken say that, as I heard that straight from Mr. Callet.
I always like it when various sources agree, and I think that's the realvalue of these discussions; get out the wrong thinking, improve our imagery, concepts and ultimately our playing.
| kalijah wrote: |
The embouchure tissues and the air in the mp cup DO NOT CARE what the velocity of the air is that occured before it reached them. They only react to the TOTAL energy of the air that arrives.
|
THAT'S a great point!! But so is Kyle's question to Darryl ... when you have time
Oh and Nick - where can we get filled in on Wayne's masterclass?? 
_________________
"And this is life: that you know the Son, and the One who sent Him." The rest is just details |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NickD
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 679
Location: Chicago (northern suburbs)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edtaylor
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 23 Dec 2001
Posts: 1199
Location: Brevard, NC
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall from some past thread that someone thought air flow and projection were related. However, if that were true the vacuum horns that used to be sold (I may be telling my age here) as car and truck accessories couldn't have worked.
_________________
Ed Taylor . . . a Messianic gentile |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
razeontherock
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 10609
Location: The land of GR and Getzen
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since Darryl hasn't re-joined us, lemme ramble on about some seculations I have about Kyle's very appropriate point, that on this forum we'd be most interested to understand WHY Jerry's methods work for us.
(my intention here is to get the "red pen" of someone who knows physcis better than I, not to assert I'm right)
In this thread I perceive Darryl as saying that ENERGY is significant, and that air flow and air pressure are largely inter-changable as long as we don't think we can approach 0 airflow. I'd suggest that Callet's methods focus on increasing air pressure into the cup while reducing air flow to produce similar results with successful players who use conventional embouchures. LEON MERIAN comes to mind!!!
The main benefit of this is air FLOW requires lip strength, and I never developed sufficient lip strength to handle it. Not even when I was practicing 8 - 12 hours / day in College, and had facial muscles that visibly looked brutish.
Darryl says he'd rather not have to create more air pressure in his lungs, but he also says humans are incapable of more than maybe 1/2 psi. Personally, I've never had a lack of abdominal strength, and I've played some hellishly long gigs. I'm not saying I can create 30 PSI on a municiapal water pipe with a 3 foot diameter, but I regularly clear out 50 ft of (water) hose w/ a 3/8" ID. I don't have a valid way of measuring the pressure I create, but I can say with confidence I exceed 10 PSI, and air going through a trumpet (or rather the bore of the mpc) is MUCH easier to pressurize.
I also (currently) have to think Callet's bell designs work to maximize acoustic response w/ minimal airflow. This combination requires air PRESSURE, which (at least partially) explains his emphasis on spit buzz, and more importantly WHY IT HELPS. Even though many other players, using many other systems, truly get no benefit from "free" buzzing.
(read: "used to be me")
A spit buzz that sounds like buzzing a mpc is moving WAY up on my list of priorities! Right behind WIDE open jaws. Maybe I should reverse those two, but I can now hear Maynard's jaws wide open, and also differentiate him from his section much more clearly due to this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3260
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In this thread I perceive Darryl as saying that ENERGY is significant, and that air flow and air pressure are largely inter-changable as long as we don't think we can approach 0 airflow. |
No, i never said or implied that.
Flow and pressure are most certainly NOT interchangeable.
Flow is very much influenced by the acoustics of the horn.
And there is a flow requirement INTO the horn to play. And it is NOT simply to make the lips vibrate.
Nick wrote:
| Quote: | | The point here is that the air doesn't even have to go through the horn to make it work! I just need to move the air to get my lips vibrating. |
But it is not the "vibrating lip" that gives power to the sound. It is the "pulses" of air into the mp cup. These pulses have pressure AND flow. and the flow INTO the horn is required.
I don't think you read the entire thread, and my posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
healey.cj
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 2011
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The main benefit of this is air FLOW requires lip strength, and I never developed sufficient lip strength to handle it. Not even when I was practicing 8 - 12 hours / day in College, and had facial muscles that visibly looked brutish. |
The problem is that playing is a balance and co-ordination between many moving parts. Strength is required with the conventional method! but only to stop the lips from blowing apart, not to squeeze them together.
Air Flow is not the whole picture as you may have thought back then.
First of all, the lips need to learn to vibrate properly in their optimum position, this takes around a month to 'learn' or get the hang of and is the basis of MANY methods. (Clarke, Cat Anderson, CC etc)
What people also forget, is that the airflow needed up high is proportionally less than the air flow playing low. A larger aperture needs greater airflow to achieve energy in the pulses of air.
A smaller aperture needs a lot less airflow to achieve the same level or pressure at the aperture (which is smaller) and to recieve a similar strength pulse.
Higher doesn't mean more.
8 hours a day would be damaging you lips and no amount of muscle could help you. especially not when the lips aren't in the right/best position to start with.
No Offense, It just really worries me though that Colleges don't have teachers who know how playing the horn works, or how to get real, lasting results - reguarly!
I really hope TCE works out for you After 8 hours a day practice, you deserve it to!
Take care and best wishes!
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3260
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall from some past thread that someone thought air flow and projection were related. However, if that were true the vacuum horns that used to be sold (I may be telling my age here) as car and truck accessories couldn't have worked.
_________________
Ed Taylor . . . a Messianic gentile |
You are mistaken to assume that there was no air flow simply because the pressure sourse was negative (a vacuum) There is air flow required even for a vacuum horn, it just happens that the net flow in a vaccum horn is in the opposite direction. And the resulting sound will still propogate or "transmit" out of the horn.
So yes, air power and resulting sound are related. And "flow" is required for power, along with pressure.
Switch the wires on the two terminals of your audio speaker. The current will flow now in the opposite direction on each pulse. But the speaker still transmits the sound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
