JoshK said:
I'd love to see it, but I don't have a FAX (kind of old fashion aren't they?) Could you just E-mail me a PDF or something in an E-mail?
egeddes@gedlee.com
if anyone else is interested in proof reading my algebra I've attached it. The more eyes usually the better.
I will run it through an algebra processor to be sure, but it looks good. The approach is correct.
I punched the formulas into excel last night and the cases where Theta was 60º (half coverage angle) and the exit angle (which I call alpha) is 6º the difference is pretty small ~ 2/1,000th of an inch. If Theta is 30º, the difference becomes more meaningful.
Anyway, I edited the spreadsheet so the contour is corrected for the exit angle and I just need to do some organizational work to make it user friendly. Once people have had time to double check my work and we assured its correct I'll share the spreadsheet.
Is there a better symbol than alpha to use? I am not familiar with commonly used notation.
Anyway, I edited the spreadsheet so the contour is corrected for the exit angle and I just need to do some organizational work to make it user friendly. Once people have had time to double check my work and we assured its correct I'll share the spreadsheet.
Is there a better symbol than alpha to use? I am not familiar with commonly used notation.
Had computer problems last night and could not use my computer. Will get back to you.
Yes, the correction is small, but you also have to think of it in terms of how small the dimensions in the throat are - and the phase plug. These small errors can have a big effect in the throat. At the mouth +- .25" probably works fine.
Yes, the correction is small, but you also have to think of it in terms of how small the dimensions in the throat are - and the phase plug. These small errors can have a big effect in the throat. At the mouth +- .25" probably works fine.
I have finished my response to the Audio X Press papers on Horn Theory. It is posted on my web site at www.gedlee.com
I think that its worth reading because it makes several points that are new to the literature.
Its too big to attach below.
I think that its worth reading because it makes several points that are new to the literature.
Its too big to attach below.
Follow the link to gedlee.com,...The link to the Dr's. response is in the red text..."Read Dr. Earl Geddes letter..."
Well I was posting an update on here and my computer rebooted.
Dr. Geddes and I had some back and forth discussion via email and I think we verified the solution. It reduces quite nicely.
I've update my solution to reflect the reduction and make it a bit more readable. If anyone is interested, I've attached it. I will update the spreadsheet and clean it up some and then post it.
Dr. Geddes and I had some back and forth discussion via email and I think we verified the solution. It reduces quite nicely.
I've update my solution to reflect the reduction and make it a bit more readable. If anyone is interested, I've attached it. I will update the spreadsheet and clean it up some and then post it.
It would be quite interresting to compare these results to what John Kreskovsky has found (a spreadsheet way early in this thread) and look if they are identical. It seems he found a closed-form solution also...
- Klaus
- Klaus
This wouldn't win any awards for UI, but that isn't my forte. It will calculate the profile though.
If anyone knows how to make a picture work for printing to real scale that would be greatly helpful.
If anyone knows how to make a picture work for printing to real scale that would be greatly helpful.
I must be a dummy Josh but what kind of file is that? It's not an xls and I can't open it with Excel like your last one.
File name problem of the board software -- just rename it to a .zip and all is fine.
For the lazybones I reattached the file without the blanks in the filename which cause the problem ;-)
- Klaus
For the lazybones I reattached the file without the blanks in the filename which cause the problem ;-)
- Klaus
Hell if I knew to make XL plot a graph with fixed aspect ratio...
I can only think of a crude workaround:
Screen hardcopy --> Photoshop --> correct aspect ratio from known distances in the graph --> resample with the correct DPI setting to 1:1 output from the printer
Hhm, no XL gurus here?
Ah, found the first UI bug, Josh.
Cell D10 should read "=C10*PI()/180" (entered exit angle --> transfered to radians)
First comparisons to J.K.'s *) look very good (got the same X offsets with both your and his version for some values tried). Thumbs Up!
*) Same initials, same output. More than a coincidence?
- Klaus