when might Sapkowski's approach be fun & favorable?

freddi · 1st February 2009, 06:54 PM

maybe with moderate->-higher Q drivers? lumped resonance with all hole diameter the same might be estimated - holes towards tned might grow progressively larger (?) - would max be no more than wall thickness?

http://www.google.com/patents?id=JjA..._pages&cad=1_1

planet10 · 1st February 2009, 08:17 PM

Arghhh!!! That is how i was going to execute the Carlson lsot on my iBIBk when we finally got around to building them... can't be a commercil product now i guess (not that that was planned anyway).

I wonder if there is prior art to invalidte this?

dave

freddi · 1st February 2009, 08:25 PM

prior art = sure = Norman C. Fulmer 1952 application plus Karlson spoke of holes forming aperture in the first "Acoustic Transducers"

Fulmer
http://www.google.com/patents?id=yh9...ad=0_1#PPA1,M1

Excerpt from Karlson's 1st "Acoustic Transducers" patent filed 1951
link - http://www.google.com/patents?id=tsV...BAJ&dq=2816619

"The discussions on said tapered aperture have been largely based on an essentially open or unrestricted hole in the coupling chamber. However, it is also the intent 35 of my invention to include a tapered aperture which consists of a series of holes or perforations. A tapered aperture so constructed also presents possibilities for further control of the characteristics of said coupling chamber by a variation in the size and the multiplicity of said holes. 40 These holes can be made both resistive and reactive in nature with the result that a great variety of effects may be introduced by this means."

are you sometime going to do a "real Karlson" type?

planet10 · 2nd February 2009, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by freddi
prior art = sure = Norman C. Fulmer 1952 application plus Karlson spoke of holes forming aperture in the first "Acoustic Transducers"

We should send that to the attention of the patent office... it is prior art that is exactly what his is.

Quote:

are you sometime going to do a "real Karlson" type?

It is way down in the queue... i have Moray's plans and i did hear his when i saw him in Calgary. We compared it to the mFonken, but they had the unfair advantage of FE127eN.

dave

freddi · 2nd February 2009, 06:03 PM

K are somewhat Zen designs - from what little pddlling I've done with larger coupler, the starting gap and first few inches of aperture can affect results so that might be done on an empirical basis. Theres no front chamber "gain" probably other than coupled cavity peaking (?) - there has to be a favorable subjective balance struck with practical tilt-back angles of 20-30 degrees from vertical and frontal aspect. Port placement may matter somewhat. Its traditional to try rear lowpass choke shelf. I don't understand how to do a t-line rear and would not think at small cabinet volumes that it would present much advantage over a simple ported chamber (?) "Some" small K might be approached as something which would rely upon a sub to complete the spectrum? Carl Neuser claimed a lot of mass load Fs shift from the front coupler but I could not see much with WT3 on a x15 coupler ( a 4.3 cubic foot bulk speaker with about 1 cubic foot front chamber) when removing its wings - but I could not remove the sides of the rear chamber.

the patent office missed the boat on reading Sapkowski's patent - wonder how many more they missed? :^)

1st February 2009, 06:54 PM	#1
freddi diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2005	when might Sapkowski's approach be fun & favorable? maybe with moderate->-higher Q drivers? lumped resonance with all hole diameter the same might be estimated - holes towards tned might grow progressively larger (?) - would max be no more than wall thickness? http://www.google.com/patents?id=JjA..._pages&cad=1_1

1st February 2009, 08:17 PM	#2
planet10 frugal-phile(tm) diyAudio Moderator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III Blog Entries: 5	Arghhh!!! That is how i was going to execute the Carlson lsot on my iBIBk when we finally got around to building them... can't be a commercil product now i guess (not that that was planned anyway). I wonder if there is prior art to invalidte this? dave __________________ community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi p10-hifi forum here at diyA

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
rational approach	traw	Multi-Way	2	15th August 2006 07:39 AM
Active 2-way, best approach to x-over under 1k?	Greggo	Multi-Way	3	14th July 2006 04:52 PM
here's my approach	hitsware	Solid State	2	13th November 2004 04:54 AM
A less used approach	SuppersReady	Pass Labs	18	29th January 2003 11:16 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

1st February 2009, 08:25 PM	#3
freddi diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2005	prior art = sure = Norman C. Fulmer 1952 application plus Karlson spoke of holes forming aperture in the first "Acoustic Transducers" Fulmer http://www.google.com/patents?id=yh9...ad=0_1#PPA1,M1 Excerpt from Karlson's 1st "Acoustic Transducers" patent filed 1951 link - http://www.google.com/patents?id=tsV...BAJ&dq=2816619 "The discussions on said tapered aperture have been largely based on an essentially open or unrestricted hole in the coupling chamber. However, it is also the intent 35 of my invention to include a tapered aperture which consists of a series of holes or perforations. A tapered aperture so constructed also presents possibilities for further control of the characteristics of said coupling chamber by a variation in the size and the multiplicity of said holes. 40 These holes can be made both resistive and reactive in nature with the result that a great variety of effects may be introduced by this means." are you sometime going to do a "real Karlson" type?

2nd February 2009, 06:03 PM	#5
freddi diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2005	K are somewhat Zen designs - from what little pddlling I've done with larger coupler, the starting gap and first few inches of aperture can affect results so that might be done on an empirical basis. Theres no front chamber "gain" probably other than coupled cavity peaking (?) - there has to be a favorable subjective balance struck with practical tilt-back angles of 20-30 degrees from vertical and frontal aspect. Port placement may matter somewhat. Its traditional to try rear lowpass choke shelf. I don't understand how to do a t-line rear and would not think at small cabinet volumes that it would present much advantage over a simple ported chamber (?) "Some" small K might be approached as something which would rely upon a sub to complete the spectrum? Carl Neuser claimed a lot of mass load Fs shift from the front coupler but I could not see much with WT3 on a x15 coupler ( a 4.3 cubic foot bulk speaker with about 1 cubic foot front chamber) when removing its wings - but I could not remove the sides of the rear chamber. the patent office missed the boat on reading Sapkowski's patent - wonder how many more they missed? :^)