when might Sapkowski's approach be fun & favorable? - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 1st February 2009, 06:54 PM   #1
freddi is offline freddi  United States
diyAudio Member
 
freddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Default 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
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2009, 08:17 PM   #2
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2009, 08:25 PM   #3
freddi is offline freddi  United States
diyAudio Member
 
freddi's Avatar
 
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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2009, 07:02 AM   #4
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
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
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2009, 06:03 PM   #5
freddi is offline freddi  United States
diyAudio Member
 
freddi's Avatar
 
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? :^)
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2