naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: mic windscreen tests from Army Research Lab

Subject: Re: mic windscreen tests from Army Research Lab
From: "John Hartog" hartogj
Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:46 pm ((PST))
The DPA Windpac uses a smooth polyester material.  That's an entirely
different approach than using fur.  Maybe a slick fabric over a foam
ball would be worth trying out.  One consideration is a foam ball
might soak up rain like a sponge.
A nice thing about my Tree Ears design is even through several events
of all night steady rain and wind, so far they have kept the capsules
dry.


--- In  "jpbeale" <> wrote:
>
> --- In  "John Hartog"
> <hartogj_1999@> wrote:
> > It would have been nice if they had used a sweep of a wider range of
> > frequencies for their reference signal to see how each windscreen
> > performed at higher frequencies.  The foam might hiss kind of loud
> > with wind blowing across its textured surface.
>
> I guess the military interest is noise of trucks, helicopters and
> artillery, hence the lower frequencies. It was funny how they admitted
> they didn't finish testing the 3" foam ball because it got eaten in
> mid-test by the wind tunnel!
>
> I would be interested to hear how your test goes- I would also expect
> foam to hiss more than fur. The DPA Windpac is supposed to be good,
> without use of fur, but I've read it is only good with the front
> pointy side facing the wind, and not sideways. Maybe it could be
> mounted on a pivot, so it could weathervane into the wind? :-)
>






<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