|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers |
|
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 |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sweden
|
Hi all. I am in process of building an elf 1.0 creativesound.ca/pdf/SuperELF.PDF However basports with a diameter of 1" are not easily found here i Europe. So I want to convert this into a port with a diameter of 35 mm. Should I just take the total volume of the first port and convert it to corresponding volume with the 35 mm port?
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stockholm
|
If you increase the cross-sectional area by a factor x, so should the effective length of the tube. The helmholtz resonance frequency is
fh=c/(2*pi)*sqrt(S/LV) where c=345 m/s, S is the cross-sectional area of the port, L is the effective port length, and V is the box volume. As you can see; if S/L is constant, so is fh. The effective length of the tube is the physical length plus ~1.7 times the radius of the tube. This little addition takes care of the co-oscillating air outside the tube. In your case, if the physical length was 10 cm and the diameter 2.5 cm, the effective length was 10+1.7*2.5/2=12.125 cm. Increasing the diameter to 35 mm increases the area by a factor (35/25)^2=1.96 times. So the effective length should now be 12.125*1.96= 23.765 cm. Subtract end corrections from this: 23.765 - 1.7*3.5/2 = 20.79 cm The factor 1.7 could be discussed depending on if the port ends are seen as flanged or not, and wether the space inside the box is seen as a free half space or not. Anyway, this correction is small, so an error in it is not very harmful. HTH |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sweden
|
Ok. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
|
Can you estimate the effective length of a tube with a typical flare on one end or both?
__________________
Davy Jones |
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stockholm
|
Quote:
If you are really into simulating it, you could model it by dividing the tube in several coaxial parts with different lengths and diameters. Each would have an acoustic mass of MA=rho0*L/S where rho0 is 1.2 kg/m3, L is the length of that section, and S is the section's cross sectional area. Add an end correction of 0.85 r at each end. All these acoustic masses add up to one big acoustic mass, which should be the same as the acoustic mass of the original tube (also including its end corrections of 0.85 r). Note that acoustic mass is something different than mechanic mass (in case you found the equation for MA strange HTH |
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Slot port vs circular port equivalence | Brisso57 | Multi-Way | 12 | 21st February 2009 02:38 PM |
| Help in determine port dimensions | shlomid | Multi-Way | 3 | 28th September 2007 01:45 AM |
| Single Port Vent Better than Dual Port? | Daveis | Multi-Way | 18 | 15th July 2007 05:12 AM |
| Help calculating box dimensions & port | jim_vt | Full Range | 6 | 5th April 2005 04:08 AM |
| To port or not to port? Newbie with newly built mains | starquake | Multi-Way | 1 | 18th December 2004 12:51 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.15027 seconds (55.73% PHP - 44.27% MySQL) with 10 queries |