How Do Diameter, Focal Length, and Distance Affect Whisper Dish Efficiency?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jds10011
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Communication
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the construction and efficiency of "whisper dishes," which are parabolic dishes used for communication by focusing sound between two points. Participants explore factors affecting the performance of these dishes, including diameter, focal length, distance between dishes, and construction tolerances. The conversation also touches on potential applications beyond personal communication, such as satellite dishes and other reflective uses.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that a dish diameter of 1 to 2 meters is adequate for voice communication, with a focal length similar to the diameter.
  • There is a proposal that the depth of the dish should be about half of the focal length, ensuring that the speaker and listener are positioned outside the dish.
  • One participant mentions that surface accuracy should be within ± λ / 20 at the highest frequency for optimal performance, with specific calculations provided for audio frequencies.
  • Another participant questions whether performance would be significantly affected by using a spherical profile instead of a parabolic one, given the size of the human head.
  • Suggestions are made for constructing the dish, including using concrete or lighter materials like fiberglass or papier maché, and the idea of using less than a full hemisphere is discussed for ease of mounting.
  • Concerns about tolerances in construction are raised, including the effects of imprecise aiming and the impact of obstructions like the operator's head on sound focus.
  • One participant humorously notes the potential for eavesdropping with an offset-fed dish design, which could keep the listener's presence hidden from others.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the optimal design and construction of whisper dishes, with no clear consensus on the best approach or specifications. Discussions about the effects of different dish shapes and materials indicate ongoing debate and exploration of ideas.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge various assumptions regarding the construction and performance of the dishes, including the need for surface accuracy and the impact of human presence on sound focus. Specific mathematical steps and definitions are not fully resolved, leaving some uncertainty in the discussion.

jds10011
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
We know that satellite and other dishes are parabolic. What factors determine which parabola is used and how well they work?
We're trying to build working models of "whisper dishes" -- two large parabolic dishes placed at a distance and pointed at each other, allowing two people to communicate by whispering at the focal point of one dish and listening at the focal point of the other (or vice versa). At a fairly rudimentary level, we are looking for more information on how well this setup will work based on (a) the diameter of the dish (b) the focal length of the dish (c) how much of the parabola is present, if not already accounted for in (a) and (b), and (d) how far apart the dishes are placed. Can you point us in the right direction of better understanding? At the very least, what is likely to be a "good" shape/size for our model (what equation would we use and what diameter, along with what distance)? (And, yes, we're aware that the dish needs to be large enough that the speaker's/listener's head isn't blocking the "signal".)

Also, we are curious if the answer would be different for other applications, such as a dish for satellite tv, or the classic parabolic reflector dish used for frying eggs on a sunny day.

Lastly, we are wondering how much tolerance there is in these setups -- for example, if the aim is slightly imprecise, if the speaker/listener is slightly off from the focal point, if the shape of the parabola is slightly imprecise in the construction of the model, etc. -- at the very least, what are major and minor sources of error?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Experiment with a couple of used satellite dishes, if you can find them.

The beam between the two dishes is roughly parallel, so the distance between dishes is not a big problem.

For voice, a dish with a diameter of between 1 and 2 metres is OK. The focal length should be similar, with the dish depth about half that, so the person speaking and listening, is outside the dish, while most of the voice will "illuminate" the dish surface. The head of the operator should be at the focus, so different people need to stand or sit at different heights, without needing a stepladder.

Surface accuracy should be ± λ / 20 at the highest frequency.
For 3 kHz audio, λ = 343 / 3kHz = 115 mm.
The surface accuracy should be better than; 115 / 5 = ±6mm.
Holes in the surface must be smaller than λ / 10 = 12 mm.


The dish profile can be shaped by rotating a profile pattern in a sandpit, then the dish can be cast from concrete, and used as part of a garden wall.

For a flattish dish, a shallow spherical surface may be close enough.
If you need more room, you can use a flat wall as a plane reflector along the path.

You may get away with the top half of the dish only, if you have only one, and cut it in two. The bottom half of the dishes are partly obstructed by the body of the operator, and other obstructions or people in the area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_mirror
 
Baluncore said:
Surface accuracy should be ± λ / 20 at the highest frequency.
That's a fair rule of thumb for an ideal source / detector (tiny microphone) at the focus. But a head (plus two ears) will be about 200+mm so the focused sound image needs to be no better than that. So I doubt that performance would suffer with a spherical profile.
Baluncore said:
The dish profile can be shaped by rotating a profile pattern in a sandpit, then the dish can be cast from concrete, and used as part of a garden wall.
A good, cheap solution, if it doesn't need to be pointable. If you don't mind the smell then fibreglass is light and fairly cheap. For indoors, papier maché is even cheaper and easy to fabricate.

I like the idea of using less than a full hemisphere. Much easier to mount and rotate.
 
Baluncore said:
... and used as part of a garden wall.
Always good to know what the neighbors are up to
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
A.T. said:
Always good to know what the neighbors are up to
The advantage of an offset-fed dish, with a microphone at the focus, is that your neighbours do not know you are listening.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K