Tom Danley's TOWER OF POWER - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Subwoofers

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 7th May 2006, 01:06 PM   #11
qi is offline qi
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: .
Clearly the white paper is not referring to the Tower of Power.

The TOP has a tuning 18hz (16hz - 150hz, +/- 3db)

The outer dimensions of the TOP are 88" x 20" x 18"

For that tuning and those dimensions, it has to be a single-fold pipe.

The driver is in the middle (well, the access panel is)

The line is tapered (Mark Seaton mentions this in an email).

The mouth is "undersized" (mass-loaded)...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg dts20page.jpg (5.9 KB, 3402 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2006, 01:22 PM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
RobWells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Clearly you are correct

My mistake - was following the link from the other site, and assumed the t-o-p was a tapped horn.

sorry!

Rob.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2006, 02:02 PM   #13
qi is offline qi
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: .
Hold on there, big fella!

The Tower of Power IS a tapped-horn (Tom has many configurations).

This one just happens to be an MLTQWP utilizing the tapped horn technology.

That is to say, I think it is
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2006, 02:46 PM   #14
diyAudio Moderator
 
pinkmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chatham, England
I don't know MJKs new sheets, but I'm wondering if this could be modelled as a straight MLTQW with two offset drivers, (the second pretending to be the back of the first). This assumption rests on two guesses; a) you can just use the SPL from the port, and ignore the direct radiation, and b) you can change the phase of one of the drivers.

Does that make sense?
__________________
Rick: Oh Cliff / Sometimes it must be difficult not to feel as if / You really are a cliff / when fascists keep trying to push you over it! / Are they the lemmings / Or are you, Cliff? / Or are you Cliff?
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2006, 05:05 PM   #15
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Quote:
Originally posted by qi

The rear of the driver "taps-in" with an offset 25% from the mouth.

That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it...

Therefore the question begs -- "why is there so little interest in this major new tapped-horn technology?

Is it because the patent is still pending?
Greets!

OK, then why don't you just build a proof-of-concept (POC) with whatever driver you have laying around instead of asking other's opinion of yours?

Even if the patent was available for it, how many folks do you figure can/will tolerate such a huge pipe and if the driver is indeed special, will he sell it to just anybody and/or divulge what makes it special?

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2006, 05:20 PM   #16
Variac is offline Variac  United States
diyAudio Editor
 
Variac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Francisco, USA
One of the purposes of this forum is to ask others their opinion and to get feedback on questions you have.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2006, 05:37 PM   #17
qi is offline qi
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: .
It certainly makes sense to me (but that probably is a BAD thing)

MJK has stated that none of his worksheets will properly model the tapped horn design.

(other no-nos include the acoustic cannon, and the transflex design)

One might argue that this is a 6th order series bandpass design.

1. The 1st half of the pipe is the 1st chamber.

2. The fold is the "port" -- exiting to the 2d chamber.

3. The 2d chamber (the 2d half of the pipe) then ports to the world.

Yeah, I know, its a reach, but I think MJK's double bass worksheet can model this design...
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2006, 05:37 PM   #18
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Greets!

Rob, methinks you 'caved' too easily! One of the refreshing things I've found in reading TD's explanations is that I've never been able to find fault with them based on my understanding of pipe/horn design. I mean he gives you all the info you need to duplicate his designs in essence (if not detail due to any special drivers used); specs, accurate measurements, and a description of operation with no real misdirection. Not to mention he has other patents that gives you some insight into how he arrived at his, or any other's, 'latest n' greatest' 'invention'. Basically, he 'hides' it in plain sight, with no marketing BS.

WRT MJK's WS, it can only predict trends in the basic concept AFAIK, but no clue as to whether they are close enough beyond first approximations. Then again, when I plug some approximate numbers in and calc the driver positions, I get something that's certainly 'in the ballpark' once everything's factored in, so as always YMMV.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2006, 05:44 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
RobWells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally posted by qi
Hold on there, big fella!

The Tower of Power IS a tapped-horn (Tom has many configurations).

This one just happens to be an MLTQWP utilizing the tapped horn technology.

That is to say, I think it is


It looks like a transmission line to me, and I've never looked into them. Just about getting my head round basic horn theory at the moment.

Rob.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th May 2006, 02:47 PM   #20
qi is offline qi
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: .
Quote:
Originally posted by pinkmouse
I don't know MJKs new sheets, but I'm wondering if this could be modelled as a straight MLTQW with two offset drivers, (the second pretending to be the back of the first). This assumption rests on two guesses; a) you can just use the SPL from the port, and ignore the direct radiation, and b) you can change the phase of one of the drivers.

Does that make sense?

Hi PinkMouse!

This post was for you, but I think it got lost in the shouting that was going on...


Quote:
Originally posted by qi
It certainly makes sense to me (but that probably is a BAD thing)

MJK has stated that none of his worksheets will properly model the tapped horn design.

(other no-nos include the acoustic cannon, and the transflex design)

One might argue that this is a 6th order series bandpass design.

1. The 1st half of the pipe is the 1st chamber.

2. The fold is the "port" -- exiting to the 2d chamber.

3. The 2d chamber (the 2d half of the pipe) then ports to the world.

Yeah, I know, its a reach, but I think MJK's double bass worksheet can model this design...
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:11 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