naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: distance vs. strength

Subject: Re: Re: distance vs. strength
From: Klas Strandberg <>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:12:44 +0200
At 16:29 2005-08-02, you wrote:
>At 09:19 AM 8/2/2005, flawn wrote:
>
>
> > >"Getting close is in fact even more effective than that.  Signal strength
> > >is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. So that half the
> > >distance means four times the signal strength."
> >
> >In a free field, sound emanates out from a source in three dimensions. So I
> >would think the drop in power is in a sphere relationship, not a square.  In
> >that example, halving the distance to the source would achieve eight times
> >greater signal, not four.  In the real world, with the ground as a barrier
> >and
> >trees etc providing scatter, the actual difference would be somewhere
> >between the
> >squared and the cubed ratios.
>
>In real life, I think, it is far more variable.  We commonly find that when
>there is a fog, distant sounds seem subjectively to be louder.  They
>actually may be.

Fog is present under air pressure inversion. Then sound is reflected by a 
"ceiling" of thicker air a bit above ground.

Klas.




>Loss with distance is never as bad as a cube relation, however, since sound
>intensity has the dimension of power per unit area, not per unit
>volume.  Power is of course energy per second, as in ergs per
>second.  Double the radius of a sphere, the AREA quadruples, so the worst
>loss is a factor of four.
>
>When the bottom 1000 ft of the atmosphere are fairly uniform, but quiet,
>sound does radiate in three dimensions, so doubling the distance makes the
>sound 1/4 the power per unit area, a loss of 6 dB.
>
>When there is an inversion, or any thermal sudden change in the lowest
>hundred feet or so, sound is confined to a ring of air, roughly given by
>the circumference. Here, on a foggy still morning, doubling the distance
>doubles the size of the ring, now vertically confined. So we find the power
>to be 1/2, or a loss of 3 dB.  Distant sounds ARE louder under such
>conditions that sound is trapped.  This is somewhat analogous to the SOFAR
>layer in the ocean, where water density/temperature/salinity afects trap
>sound for miles in a ring of a certain depth range.  Roger Payne often said
>to me he thought whales might be able to hear one another, in an aboriginal
>quiet ocean, halfway around the world.
>
>We live 1500 ft from a (newly moved, but legally grandfathered in NH) skeet
>range, often exceeding at 6 PM 30 shots per minute.  Boy does it get
>lively, Twelve gauge shotguns register 84 dBA at our doorstep.  Recordings
>available ad nauseum on request. ;^)
>
>--  best regards,  Marty Michener
>MIST Software Assoc. Inc.,  P. O. Box 269, Hollis, NH 03049
>http://www.enjoybirds.com/
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email: 
         



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU