https://www.altaro.com/hyper-v/hyper-v-usb/
I think method 2 (the remote desktop connection approach) might work for your case.
YOu can install unsigned drivers in later windows versions. It is possible to turn of the security feature that demands the driver to be signed.
If the laptop with win7 runs fine and is just used as a measurement tool - why hot simply stick with it? I do it like this - I have dedicated machines for tasks like this and aside from a simple network share to swap some measurement results back and forth, the machine is not used for anything else. Since there is no emailing, surfing the web or anyting else and the machine is behind a firewall - the risk of it being affected is very very low....
one measurement system even runs on win95.....
I agree that you are right. How ever, You don't have my eyes! My main system is a 43 inch 4k TV as a monitor. The laptop is a 13" HP Envy I5. I have tried to shut off the security feature before. But that was about 4 years ago. I should try it again. Maybe somethings have changed. The main reason for looking to leave that crazy laptop is not wanting to put more work into it. I have replaced RAM, Hard Drive, Battery. It is very slow compared to my current system. Truly the tablet is faster. The tablet screen is also nicer to work on. 12 inch S7 Ultra. Still a pretty well featured tablet compared with even the new ones.
Getting older has it's fun and games. Eyesight being one of them. And yes I have been using glasses. Actually since I was 19 years old.
I've got one system that's running Windows2000.
Hornresp Update 5730-250318
Hi Everyone,
CHANGE
A few loose ends left over from release 5730-250309 have now been tidied up.
Kind regards,
David
Hi Everyone,
CHANGE
A few loose ends left over from release 5730-250309 have now been tidied up.
Kind regards,
David
Hi everyone, I'm just starting out with Hornresp and have some very basics questions regarding some concepts. I find it easier to express them graphically than in words, so I'm presenting this preliminary drawing to confirm I have the correct data.
L = Total Tube Length: I drew an arrow inside the tube, following all the midpoints along the way. Is that the length I should consider?
S1 = "Horn segment 1 throat area (sq cm)" Is it the same as the cut-out in the baffle or is it the cone area (effective diaphragm area)?
S2 = "Horn segment 1 mouth area and horn segment 2 throat area (sq cm)". Here I assume it's simply the tube outlet area. Please confirm.
Thanks in advance.
Beto
L = Total Tube Length: I drew an arrow inside the tube, following all the midpoints along the way. Is that the length I should consider?
S1 = "Horn segment 1 throat area (sq cm)" Is it the same as the cut-out in the baffle or is it the cone area (effective diaphragm area)?
S2 = "Horn segment 1 mouth area and horn segment 2 throat area (sq cm)". Here I assume it's simply the tube outlet area. Please confirm.
Thanks in advance.
Beto
Look up the "Advanced Centerline Method" - it should provide a better approximation of path length in a folded path.
Ok, Thanks @Brian Steele .
Apparently, the problem is how the midpoint is represented when there are planes that meet at angles, not with curvatures. After the original drawing, I subdivided each side into several segments, and the length variation is minimal. In the second example, I only subdivided each side into three, as I saw done in examples in a previous thread. The length changes noticeably. Then I did the exercise by eliminating the angled intersections, replacing them with a curvature. It changes again.
So, do you think the one with a length of 215.53 cm, is the correct one? What about S1? Is the baffle cut-out or the effective diaphragm or cone area? S2, although simple, I'd like confirmation.
Regards,
Beto
Apparently, the problem is how the midpoint is represented when there are planes that meet at angles, not with curvatures. After the original drawing, I subdivided each side into several segments, and the length variation is minimal. In the second example, I only subdivided each side into three, as I saw done in examples in a previous thread. The length changes noticeably. Then I did the exercise by eliminating the angled intersections, replacing them with a curvature. It changes again.
So, do you think the one with a length of 215.53 cm, is the correct one? What about S1? Is the baffle cut-out or the effective diaphragm or cone area? S2, although simple, I'd like confirmation.
Regards,
Beto
Specify the design as an offset driver (OD) horn with four parabolic (Par) segments. Parabolic rather than conical (Con) or exponential (Exp) flare profiles should be used because the cross-sectional area changes linearly with axial length along the horn.
Cross-sectional areas S1 to S5 are at the points shown by the red lines.
The Input Wizard under the Input Parameters window Help menu can be used to create a generic template of an offset driver horn, the dimensions of which can then be modified as required by the user.
.
Here's how I use the ACL method to get the best approximation of path length.
First step is that, unless going through a bend, sample points should always be taken orthogonal to the path, i.e. the CSA (cross-sectional area) at any point along the path should always be taken at right angles to the path. This is the only way that the measured CSA at each sample point will work out to be equal to the calculated CSA at that point in the corresponding Hornresp sim. And, of course, the most important sample points are S1, S2, S3, etc...
Now, working with that in mind, the following diagram shows how to use the ACL method to plot the approximate path around any bend:
Now, the ACL method isn't perfect. It's good for when expansion remains the same around same around the bend, but if you have a discrete and noticeable step up or down in expansion, it does lose accuracy. In any case, to cross-check your calculations, compare the calculated net volume of the build with the net volume of the corresponding Hornresp sim. If it's the same or a few % points bigger, it's likely to be correct. If it's SMALLER than the net volume of the sim, then you've done something wrong and it's time to recheck the calculations.
OK, thanks, @David McBean and @Brian Steele .
It seems the devil is in the details. I drew scheme "A" according to David's instructions and what I understood from Brian's instructions regarding what should be at 90° (orthogonal) to what. I recently drew scheme "B" based on David's new suggestions. There are, of course, differences in measuring the length and establishing the cross-section areas. What's still "unclear" is how to establish S2. Scheme"B" shows what I understood Brian to suggest for determining this area.
It would be great to analyze these determinations with you, as it provides greater conceptual and practical clarity.
Greetings.
Beto
It seems the devil is in the details. I drew scheme "A" according to David's instructions and what I understood from Brian's instructions regarding what should be at 90° (orthogonal) to what. I recently drew scheme "B" based on David's new suggestions. There are, of course, differences in measuring the length and establishing the cross-section areas. What's still "unclear" is how to establish S2. Scheme"B" shows what I understood Brian to suggest for determining this area.
It would be great to analyze these determinations with you, as it provides greater conceptual and practical clarity.
Greetings.
Beto
Method B is close to the method I use. The sample lines should be at 90 degrees to the path, not the sides of the horn. And a quick check will show that the calculated CSAs at any sample point from S1 to S4 should be a very close match the exported Horn Data for the Hornresp sim.
Hello Brian, think about a Method C by add the orthogonality vs the centerline itself and not to the side panels, I found it even better.
Making it orthogonal to the angled panel just shift the error but still be an approximation.
Last edited:
Thanks guys!
I did the exercise proposed by @LORDSANSUI , which is a bisector of non-parallel planes, describing the line perpendicular to it. I corrected a small error in version B in determining the length.In short, at least in this case, there isn't a very noticeable variation, but it is progress toward determining the length. As a beginner, I'm surprised there isn't a methodological agreement (or I haven't discovered it yet).
What I still think I need to fine-tune is S2. According to what @David McBean and @Brian Steele suggested, the midpoint of where the driver is mounted (interior) is decisive, but the angle to form that plane is the one that makes my head spin. Right now, there are options A, B, and C. How should this relationship be understood?
I did the exercise proposed by @LORDSANSUI , which is a bisector of non-parallel planes, describing the line perpendicular to it. I corrected a small error in version B in determining the length.In short, at least in this case, there isn't a very noticeable variation, but it is progress toward determining the length. As a beginner, I'm surprised there isn't a methodological agreement (or I haven't discovered it yet).
What I still think I need to fine-tune is S2. According to what @David McBean and @Brian Steele suggested, the midpoint of where the driver is mounted (interior) is decisive, but the angle to form that plane is the one that makes my head spin. Right now, there are options A, B, and C. How should this relationship be understood?
Hornresp is limited to 4 segments which sometimes makes it difficult to decide how best to model a folded horn having multiple bends, and where to place the S1 to S5 cross-sectional area planes.
Because of the nature of the problem there is no single "perfect" answer. The Advanced Centre Line method has however proven to be sufficiently accurate for determining path lengths, with the planes of the cross-sectional areas being normal to the centre line.
In my example I wanted to give you a general idea of where the S1 to S5 areas could be logically located, bearing in mind your S1/S2/baffle cut-out/Sd comment. I did not bother to set S1 to S3 at right angles to the path centre line because I assumed the areas would be close enough for the purpose of the exercise, and did not want to complicate their calculation unnecessarily.
The current Option C value will be close enough for all practical purposes. The driver is positioned at a bend so no matter what value is chosen for S2 the predictions will not be entirely accurate anyway because Hornresp is not aware that the bend exists. Also, Hornresp assumes that the horn cross-section is circular when in this case it is not.
Perhaps try comparing the three options for S1 to S5 to see how much the results vary, and how critical they are to small differences in specified cross-sectional areas and segment lengths.
Hornresp Update 5730-250328
Hi Everyone,
BUG FIX
Record files exported from earlier releases of Hornresp could not be imported into Version 57.30.
This has now been fixed.
Kind regards,
David
Hi Everyone,
BUG FIX
Record files exported from earlier releases of Hornresp could not be imported into Version 57.30.
This has now been fixed.
Kind regards,
David
Thank you David,
One mate was reporting this issue and my investigation pointed the root cause for the additional line you create in the Flag Status group to record the End Correction Flag Status introduced from from update 5730-250309.
Have a good day.
Best regards