Doppler Distortion & the "Anonymous Non-believer"

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.music.home.studio,comp.disp (More info?)

http/sound.westhost.com/doppler.htm

Any remote chance that the "anonymous non-believer" is the one, the only,
Bob Cain?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"A pure sinewave predictably shows a single peak at 1kHz - no surprises
there, and it is not shown."

Sounds like he's got something to hide.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The Ghost <theghost@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:Xns95EBADC07AD28theghosthotmailcom@140.99.99.130:

> http/sound.westhost.com/doppler.htm
>
> Any remote chance that the "anonymous non-believer" is the one, the only,
> Bob Cain?
>

A Non-beliver in what?

That doppler distortion does not exist and is actually PMD?

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

R wrote:
> The Ghost <theghost@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:Xns95EBADC07AD28theghosthotmailcom@140.99.99.130:
>
>
>>http/sound.westhost.com/doppler.htm
>>
>>Any remote chance that the "anonymous non-believer" is the one, the only,
>>Bob Cain?
>>
>
>
> A Non-beliver in what?
>
> That doppler distortion does not exist and is actually PMD?

Yeah, I believe he found that the maximum pressure deviation
occurs when the driver is at minimum velocity and minimum
when at maximum velocity as my equations predict. Whatever
it should be called it's not Doppler.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:ctcrli026jp@enews4.newsguy.com:

>
>
> R wrote:
>> The Ghost <theghost@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:Xns95EBADC07AD28theghosthotmailcom@140.99.99.130:
>>
>>
>>>http/sound.westhost.com/doppler.htm
>>>
>>>Any remote chance that the "anonymous non-believer" is the one, the
>>>only, Bob Cain?
>>>
>>
>>
>> A Non-beliver in what?
>>
>> That doppler distortion does not exist and is actually PMD?
>
> Yeah, I believe he found that the maximum pressure deviation
> occurs when the driver is at minimum velocity and minimum
> when at maximum velocity as my equations predict. Whatever
> it should be called it's not Doppler.
>
>
> Bob

I quite agree that the effect is not doppler.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

midicad2001@yahoo.com wrote in news:1106892506.397931.176330
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> "A pure sinewave predictably shows a single peak at 1kHz - no surprises
> there, and it is not shown."
>
> Sounds like he's got something to hide.
>
>

I think that a single sine wave is easily imagined and I agree that it would
be rather redundant and pointless to show it.

How does one hide anything with regards to a single sine wave or are you
trying to be funny?

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

R wrote:
>
> How does one hide anything with regards to a single sine wave or are
you
> trying to be funny?

I was mimicing the rampant paranoia I observe on various ngs. Funny is
perhaps too strong a word.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 27 Jan 2005 22:08:26 -0800, midicad2001@yahoo.com wrote:

>"A pure sinewave predictably shows a single peak at 1kHz - no surprises
>there, and it is not shown."
>
>Sounds like he's got something to hide. <snip>

Looks like I need to dig into this. I smell bullshit...LOTS of it.

dB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

R <spmaway@ylhoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EBE1F913233mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1:

> The Ghost <theghost@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:Xns95EBADC07AD28theghosthotmailcom@140.99.99.130:
>
>> http/sound.westhost.com/doppler.htm
>>
>> Any remote chance that the "anonymous non-believer" is the one, the
>> only, Bob Cain?
>>
>
> A Non-beliver in what?


I gave you the link. That was your homework problem.


> That doppler distortion does not exist and is actually PMD?

It was Bob Cain, not I who instigated the recent, rampant misuse of the
term "Doppler Distortion." Harry Olson, in his classic reference book
"Acoustical Engineering" refers to the phenomenon as as Frequency-
Modulation Distortion.

The recent debate, however, was not over what the phenomenon is called.
The debate was over the existence of the phenomenon. Early on, Bob Cain
denied that modulation products were produced when an ideal piston vibrated
simultaneously at a low and high frequency. He subsequently recanted that
position in favor of another, which was that so-called Doppler distortion
was produced by a pistion mounted in an infinite baffle radiating into a
free field, but not by an ideal pistion radiating into an infinite tube.
Thankfully, Art Ludwig analyzed the problem and demonstrated that Bob Cain
was wrong about the distortion produced by an ideal piston radiating into
an infinite tube, as well. That analysis, which Bob Cain was incapable of
understnding at the time, is posted on Art Ludwig's website.

Given the circumstances, and the fact that Bob Cain is an intellectually
dishonest coward, it is certainly not surprising that he would prefer being
referred to as an anonymous non-believer than by name.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The Ghost wrote:

> He subsequently recanted that
> position in favor of another, which was that so-called Doppler distortion
> was produced by a pistion mounted in an infinite baffle radiating into a
> free field, but not by an ideal pistion radiating into an infinite tube.

Total misrepresentation as always. (Isn't it Sokolich that
is always babbling about slander and libel?) I subsequently
derived an adequate approximation for the effect in a tube
for arbitrary signals and it turned out to be a basic
non-linear relationship between sound pressure at a point in
a plane wave sound field and the velocity of the particles
about that point. I have not seen this basic relationship
described elsewhere. The driver is involved only in that it
transforms a signal to the motion of particles about a
point. This naturally results in a non-linear pressure
relationship when measured by a fixed sensor at a distance.

Sokolich never understood the problem well enough to even
hazard a guess what might be going on and is being eaten
alive by the fact that I solved a problem that he couldn't
even formulate.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro,sci.physics. (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:ctcrli026jp@enews4.newsguy.com:

>
>
> R wrote:
>> The Ghost <theghost@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:Xns95EBADC07AD28theghosthotmailcom@140.99.99.130:
>>
>>
>>>http/sound.westhost.com/doppler.htm
>>>
>>>Any remote chance that the "anonymous non-believer" is the one, the
>>>only, Bob Cain?
>>>
>>
>>
>> A Non-beliver in what?
>>
>> That doppler distortion does not exist and is actually PMD?
>
> Yeah, I believe he found that the maximum pressure deviation
> occurs when the driver is at minimum velocity and minimum
> when at maximum velocity as my equations predict. Whatever
> it should be called it's not Doppler.
>
>
> Bob


What it should be called is irrelevant. YOU are the one who instigated the
recent rampant misuse of the term "Doppler distortion." Furthermore, the
debate was not over what the phenomenon should be called. The debate was
over its phenomenological existance. And, in this regard, I was right on
all counts, and YOU were WRONG on all counts.


With regard to "YOUR" so-called equations, let's get the record straight.
First of all, on the basis of your posts, it is clear that you were
incapable of understanding Art Ludwig's analysis. Furthermroe, you were
clearly incapable of analyzing the problem yourself. Consequently, you
went to sci.physics and got Zigoteau to analyze the problem for you. But
he too eventually recognized your stupidity and left you hanging with an
incomplete analysis.

You claim that you have predictive equations. Based on your record, I
would suggest that you don't have squat. Post "your" COMPLETE analysis and
"your" closed-form predictive equations and prove me wrong.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro,sci.physics (More info?)

The Ghost wrote:

>
> You did nothing meaningful, so there is nothing to refute. As per the
> copy/paste of the post below, I am not alone in making that assessment.

Refute the equation I derived or admit you can't.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro,sci.physics (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:ctv9ab0102h@enews1.newsguy.com:

>
>
> The Ghost wrote:
>
>>
>> You did nothing meaningful, so there is nothing to refute. As per
>> the copy/paste of the post below, I am not alone in making that
>> assessment.
>
> Refute the equation I derived or admit you can't.
>
>
> Bob


There is nothing to refute. Furthermore you are just as ignorant about what
constitutes a derivation as you are about how to go about solving the
elementary partial differential for one-dimentional wave propagation in a
tube.

Zigoteau did a partial derivation but left you hanging. Thereafter, all
you did was pull equations out of thin air ing anYou

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics,rec.audio.pro,sci.physics (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:ctv9ab0102h@enews1.newsguy.com:

>
>
> The Ghost wrote:
>
>>
>> You did nothing meaningful, so there is nothing to refute. As per
>> the copy/paste of the post below, I am not alone in making that
>> assessment.
>
> Refute the equation I derived or admit you can't.

There is nothing to refute. You derived nothing. You are a fraud.