Patrick,
>From a practical perspective only, I am not the best person to ask technically
>about sound engineering but maybe someone else is in the group. If you used
>an air filled enclosure like this where I am from (British Columbia) you would
>have considerable build-up of condensation. This is caused by the colder
>temperature of the water in relation to the ambient above water. You may
>develop some problems with the unit due to this. If you had a small leak,
>even a drop, and this went un-noticed even for a short time, this would cause
>considerable corrosion from the salt water. Up here we pack our underwater
>stobe connections with silicon to stop this from happening and shorting our
>the contacts and causing corrosion. This works really well. The same problem
>happens in other climates with cold water temperatures.
Jason
--- In ". m u r m e r ." <> wrote:
>
> and while i'm out of lurk mode...
>
> i posted this question to the phonography list, but got no response, so
> i thought i'd try here. any thoughts about this?
>
> i've been fiddling with building a simple hydrophone for awhile now.
> i'd made several attempts with hollow cavities filled with vaseline,
> poster tack, oil, or nothing. i'd read that a hydrophone ought to be
> filled with oil, something about it having a similar density to water
> and therefore letting the soundwaves travel through the cavity to the
> piezo inside. working with oil is messy, however, and it's very
> difficult to reliably seal the cavity without any air bubbles inside. i
> managed one though, but i also had an identical one which i'd sealed
> with an empty cavity. i compared them, and both work great, and sound
> remarkably similar, if not identical. so what i wonder is: why do i
> think the cavity needs to be full of oil? what does that provide that
> my empty one does not have? anyone have any insight?
>
> best,
> patrick
>
> --
>
> ||| www.murmerings.com |||
>
|