Talk but not walk?

The other part of the puzzle is the professor considers himself a bit of a skeptic’s skeptic. And he likes to write, too. Should be a marriage made in heaven. 

Thanks very much uberwaltz.  We don't need people to just simply agree with one another so much as to at least listen to the case made by someone holding a different view (and hopefully understand and interact with it, even if to show it is unsound, instead of putting someone in a category that you just blow off).

BTW, I will certainly cop to being a wind-bag in some of my posts!

geoffkait,

Thanks for that "reprint" of the article about a special room. It is interesting to read that someone has gone to such a distance. However, as much as it lays down a number of questions many of us also would, it describes nothing of substance, much less does it describe methods used. Is that the whole article? If it is not and it has more description of what was done and how, would you mind sharing it?

Having said that, my question about placing an object into a path of laminar flow to "organize" it is still unanswered. I feel that, for one reason or another, Michael Green has left this thread but I would appreciate anyone's input. I was hoping that Michael would answer as I got the question from looking at his website. I thought he must be the best person to ask.


In fact, I was also interested in methods he uses to determine where to place such obstacles to laminar flow in order to achieve whatever desired effect there is. Every room is different and placing it at the relatively same spot (let's say at third of the length, or something like that) may not be the best way. Ideally, to do it right, one would have to measure airflow in the room, at different levels of it, and do it under a number of different temperatures and positions of the obstacles and the listener. That seems, to say the least, very cumbersome and impractical, if not close to impossible without major equipment and staff expenses. I wondered if he has experimented with different paints, too. Not to mention, what his thoughts would be on changing the Reynolds number of a hypothetical room regarding the impact it would have on sound propagation. Of course, my first puzzle is still that "organizing" laminar flow by placing something in its way.


I see that we fully agree on  movement of the air around the airplane wings. The only difference is that I wrote it more concisely (absolute or relative) and you more descriptively. However, sound waves emanating from most of the speakers can hardly be called "laminar flow".

If any of the other posters have any thoughts on this topic, please join.

prof,

I can feel your pain but, at the same time, I think you took this thread too close to your heart. Babbling over the Internet with/against some other girls and guys should not be taken that seriously, I think. As much as I may agree with pretty much all you mentioned, I do not think it is worth the energy and anger it projects through your words.

The thread itself turned away from the original "talk vs. walk" argument and became something else. I am trying to use it to decipher something totally new to me that I noticed on MG website and which is against anything I have known so far about the subject(placing objects into the laminar flow path to make it "organized"). I am not getting far with it, but am still hopeful as search for answers over the Internet and three physics reference books has not yielded any success. Maybe someone, if not Michael Green himself, will be able to clarify.

Do not waste your nerves on something as unimportant as an "audiophile" thread. It is really not worth it and you cannot win. Whoever disagrees with you may simply drop off leaving you with no answer at her/his will. Not worth it, I promise.