Yes - perhaps one need to go to the next level of physical simulation to nail the HOMs... and to see any other difference re: parallel walls...
//
//
Ok, so you rearrange it but it's still delayed and everything else that goes with diffracted energy.
But we already know how to make horns where diffraction is not an issue. Whether is it round or rectangular at the mouth seems to make very little difference.
By reflecting the wave "away" and make it meet other sized geometries, non parallel walls has a dampening/scattering effect making energy distributed rather than concentrated -> lower Qs in effect. No?
When you say diffraction above, you don't mean from the mouth I suppose?
//
When you say diffraction above, you don't mean from the mouth I suppose?
//
A horn is driven at the throat and the sound wave develops from there. So a rectangular horn is less "coherent" (i.e. with diffraction less concentrated in time and space) than a round one or a 7-sided one (the more sides, the closer it is to a circle, i.e. the more symmetric/coherent it is). That's the situation as I see it.
And because the simulations show that both rectangles and circles can give perfectly smooth results, I really don't see this as an issue. What's crutial is the profile and how it's terminated - that seems to make all the difference.
And because the simulations show that both rectangles and circles can give perfectly smooth results, I really don't see this as an issue. What's crutial is the profile and how it's terminated - that seems to make all the difference.
Last edited:
Yes of course most energy moves orthogonal to the walls we are discussing but HOMs is an energy that "appears" in the other direction - right?
//
//
I think an asymmetric would be better yes. But perhaps its not as easy as just how few segments... I do agree that more segments tend to be = round...
So perhaps the lest, uneven numer of sides?
3?
//
So perhaps the lest, uneven numer of sides?
3?
//
That's the nice thing - because of the large asymmetry (compared to a round one), it's not really necessary (although it would surely improve it further).
From the construction point of view, it's no problem either - you can continue to bend the ply back as much as you want. With an octagon, I would definitely add such rolling back. With a rectangle, I would go without.
From the construction point of view, it's no problem either - you can continue to bend the ply back as much as you want. With an octagon, I would definitely add such rolling back. With a rectangle, I would go without.
Last edited: