Tom Danley's TOWER OF POWER - Page 3

Relax · 8th May 2006, 06:40 PM

I think my post was deleted, but I was wondering if anyone has built a TL the same size as a tapped line. Then try the driver in the two positions to see differences?

It would be a rather simple way to see if they are close enough to be modeled the same.

Tehrasha · 10th May 2006, 02:01 AM

While I agree that a tapered divider would seem the obvious choice. I think Danley's version is built similar to this....

Walts Stepped Horn

With the driver located near to the 'step'.

While the current pictures at Danley's site make it difficult/impossible to see. In previous pictures one could see the dividing wall through the port to be straight. In fact early renderings showed the port to 'wrap' around 3 sides of the cabinet. Now reduced to a single port, probably to allow for flush mounting in a wall.

A stepped layout would make bracing far simpler, and more akin to mass production as well.

qi · 11th May 2006, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Relax
I think my post was deleted, but I was wondering if anyone has built a TL the same size as a tapped line. Then try the driver in the two positions to see differences?

It would be a rather simple way to see if they are close enough to be modeled the same.

Hi Relax

Here is an idea for you.

The driver in a standard enclosure on the same end as the port gives you a traditional t-line.

A modified enclosure and on the opposite end gives the "experimental" design.

The end opposite the driver /enclosure would then be capped off.

The unit is 60" x 12" x 12" and is tuned to 17-18hz.

You will need a 50hz 4th order xover for such a low tuning...

Traditional...

qi · 11th May 2006, 01:44 AM

The same 16' tuned pipe with the driver / enclosure on the other end.

The front of the driver fires into the tuned pipe 4' from the sealed end.

The rear of the driver fires into the tuned pipe 4' from the open end.

The end opposite the driver /enclosure is capped off...

qi · 11th May 2006, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tehrasha
While I agree that a tapered divider would seem the obvious choice. I think Danley's version is built similar to this....

Walts Stepped Horn

With the driver located near to the 'step'.

While the current pictures at Danley's site make it difficult/impossible to see. In previous pictures one could see the dividing wall through the port to be straight. In fact early renderings showed the port to 'wrap' around 3 sides of the cabinet. Now reduced to a single port, probably to allow for flush mounting in a wall.

A stepped layout would make bracing far simpler, and more akin to mass production as well.

Thank you for your feedback.

Yes, I too have looked at all the the posts / pics regarding this subject.

My SKETCHUP is based on all of that information and actual pictures of the unit.

Also, an email specifically mentions that it is tapered.

Quote:

In fact early renderings showed the port to 'wrap' around 3 sides of the cabinet. Now reduced to a single port, probably to allow for flush mounting in a wall

AFAIK, the port exits from the side, or optionally exits from the bottom

Walt's design is "close" (as I am sure you have seen).

Walt mentions he is not "down 3db at 16hz", however (the TOP published specs).

I believe Walt needs to go to a longer pipe and / or smaller port.

Regards...

johninCR · 11th May 2006, 06:02 AM

What lead you guys to the conclusion that the pathway is tapered at all. The pic I saw which is no longer available looked to me like a constant size pathway, and that Danley's design is just an offshoot of the 1950's Jensen Transflew. The driver is just in a different location. Wouldn't this make it some type MLTL ?

pinkmouse · 11th May 2006, 07:54 AM

Sorry qi, been a bit busy to reply. Certainly your model feels aesthetically correct with the sloped line, rather than stepped, and I'm sure to improve on the Transflex it has to be significantly different, unless the patent purely applies to the method of calculation. I think it's safe to assume that the driver is in the middle of the enclosure, otherwise why go to the effort of cutting an access hole half way down. Unfortunately, my PC measurement system is inoperative at the moment, otherwise I might build a test cab to experiment with.

qi · 11th May 2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by johninCR
What lead you guys to the conclusion that the pathway is tapered at all. The pic I saw which is no longer available looked to me like a constant size pathway, and that Danley's design is just an offshoot of the 1950's Jensen Transflew. The driver is just in a different location. Wouldn't this make it some type MLTL ?

That's exactly what I thought, but an email I read specifically mentions that it is tapered.

My original SKETCHUP...

johninCR · 12th May 2006, 05:34 AM

I've been trying to decide what to build as a sub for a false stage under my projector screen. I'm thinking that trying this thing with 10hz tuning and 4 segments is the way to go. I have a few 15's to try, all with dual VC's, so I use RDO to adjust the Qts and can even try isobarik if it's too sloppy or it acts like the total air volume is too small. Do you think 4 times the terminus area that Danley uses makes sense to go an octave lower, or is double the distance around his terminus the right number, or neither?

What about bracing? Is it ok to divide pipe pathways in half ?

Any input is greatly appreciated.

qi · 12th May 2006, 11:51 AM

My two cents...

I would model it in MJK as a regular straight t-line

Optimize the model with stuffing as usual

Use those specs

Substitute this new technology for the stuffing (ie., no stuffing)

Center bracing is certainly a way to go (dowels are often used)

Just make sure the total CSA inner dimension is to spec

I personally would tune to 15hz and xover at 40hz

10hz tuning is WAY LOW (as I am sure you know)

With 10hz tuning where would you xover?

11th May 2006, 06:02 AM	#26
johninCR diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Costa Rica	What lead you guys to the conclusion that the pathway is tapered at all. The pic I saw which is no longer available looked to me like a constant size pathway, and that Danley's design is just an offshoot of the 1950's Jensen Transflew. The driver is just in a different location. Wouldn't this make it some type MLTL ? __________________ Everyone has a photographic memory. It's just that most are out of film.

11th May 2006, 07:54 AM	#27
pinkmouse diyAudio Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Chatham, England	Sorry qi, been a bit busy to reply. Certainly your model feels aesthetically correct with the sloped line, rather than stepped, and I'm sure to improve on the Transflex it has to be significantly different, unless the patent purely applies to the method of calculation. I think it's safe to assume that the driver is in the middle of the enclosure, otherwise why go to the effort of cutting an access hole half way down. Unfortunately, my PC measurement system is inoperative at the moment, otherwise I might build a test cab to experiment with. __________________ Al I conceive of nothing, in religion, science or philosophy, that is more than the proper thing to wear, for a while. Charles Fort

12th May 2006, 05:34 AM	#29
johninCR diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Costa Rica	I've been trying to decide what to build as a sub for a false stage under my projector screen. I'm thinking that trying this thing with 10hz tuning and 4 segments is the way to go. I have a few 15's to try, all with dual VC's, so I use RDO to adjust the Qts and can even try isobarik if it's too sloppy or it acts like the total air volume is too small. Do you think 4 times the terminus area that Danley uses makes sense to go an octave lower, or is double the distance around his terminus the right number, or neither? What about bracing? Is it ok to divide pipe pathways in half ? Any input is greatly appreciated. __________________ Everyone has a photographic memory. It's just that most are out of film.

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

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

8th May 2006, 06:40 PM	#21
Relax diyAudio Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dayton	I think my post was deleted, but I was wondering if anyone has built a TL the same size as a tapped line. Then try the driver in the two positions to see differences? It would be a rather simple way to see if they are close enough to be modeled the same.

10th May 2006, 02:01 AM	#22
Tehrasha diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2005	While I agree that a tapered divider would seem the obvious choice. I think Danley's version is built similar to this.... Walts Stepped Horn With the driver located near to the 'step'. While the current pictures at Danley's site make it difficult/impossible to see. In previous pictures one could see the dividing wall through the port to be straight. In fact early renderings showed the port to 'wrap' around 3 sides of the cabinet. Now reduced to a single port, probably to allow for flush mounting in a wall. A stepped layout would make bracing far simpler, and more akin to mass production as well.

12th May 2006, 11:51 AM	#30
qi diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: .	My two cents... I would model it in MJK as a regular straight t-line Optimize the model with stuffing as usual Use those specs Substitute this new technology for the stuffing (ie., no stuffing) Center bracing is certainly a way to go (dowels are often used) Just make sure the total CSA inner dimension is to spec I personally would tune to 15hz and xover at 40hz 10hz tuning is WAY LOW (as I am sure you know) With 10hz tuning where would you xover?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)