Modernising Underpants - Sound Cancelling & Odour Retaining Tech

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the innovative concept of sound-canceling underpants designed to eliminate embarrassing noises in social and professional settings. The primary challenge highlighted is the complexity of real-time sound cancellation due to varying noise frequencies, which may require individual tuning for each pair, complicating production. Participants suggest alternative approaches, such as using acoustic damping fabrics instead of active sound cancellation. The conversation also touches on the potential for odor-retaining pants, though this idea faces challenges regarding thickness and practicality. Humor is prevalent, with suggestions for humorous features like sound-triggered alerts and the use of activated charcoal for odor control. The feasibility of miniaturizing technology for these garments is debated, alongside the notion of using a reed valve sensor for sound detection. Overall, the thread explores both the technical and comedic aspects of modernizing a basic clothing item while acknowledging the inherent difficulties in achieving these innovations.
  • #31
I would appreciate if you guys could elaborate on the fact that pitch is inversly proportional to the square root of the mass of the butt cheeks. It seemed to me that another parameter is more relevant to the pitch actually, not even to mention the difference between chickpea and beer influence.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
wolram said:
the kilt idea has the advantage of hiding the electronics in the sporran.

Underpants and kilts ? But I thought ...
 
  • #33
To bring this to the academic level i have found this paper,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJG-4H57JKV-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f7b3f543db0ba8fe07d8828c69a5b13f

Obviously fitting baffles is out of the question.
 
  • #34
"Acoustic resonance in a staggered tube array: Tube response and the effect of baffles"
If you staggered my tube array - I'd be baffled as well
 
  • #35
LowlyPion said:
You might want to consider attacking the problem at the source.

Here you go Wolram. Just insert and you're on your way.

http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2164696/GunSilencer-main_Full.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
Thank you for the idea Ivan, i am not sure about this one though, i can see no dimensions,
any thing above 2inch dia? would be hard to sell.
I think i will stick with a flapper type sensor and electronic cancellation.
 
  • #37
wolram said:
Thank you for the idea Ivan, i am not sure about this one though, i can see no dimensions,
any thing above 2inch dia? would be hard to sell.
I think i will stick with a flapper type sensor and electronic cancellation.
I am not so worried about the diameter (some people could accommodate that, apparently) but with the length of the silencer. Wimples are so "old school". Wow, have we reverse engineered some medieval social accessories? Maybe with some activated charcoal between the central tube and the shell... Darn! NASA's going to steal this one from us!
 
  • #38
Next thing you know we will be talking about gerbils.
 
  • #39
The Mormons (LDS) wear long underwear that's been blessed at the Temple in Salt Lake so that they are "always carrying a piece of the Temple".
 
  • #40
humanino said:
I would appreciate if you guys could elaborate on the fact that pitch is inversly proportional to the square root of the mass of the butt cheeks. It seemed to me that another parameter is more relevant to the pitch actually, not even to mention the difference between chickpea and beer influence.
I was kidding about the mass of the cheeks! It's clearly not the vibrating cheeks that is the source of the sound but the escaping gas. So I would venture that the shape and size of the rectal opening is probably most relevant to pitch.

But I saw turbo's post and could pass up the opportunity to be a little ... anal.
 
  • #42
Hmm is there any way the sound could be be converted into a tune? How about tiny embedded microphones that send the sound to a digital device that transforms the sound into different melodies for different people . It would be kind of like picking out your favorite ring tone.:devil:
 
  • #43
edward said:
Hmm is there any way the sound could be be converted into a tune? How about tiny embedded microphones that send the sound to a digital device that transforms the sound into different melodies for different people . It would be kind of like picking out your favorite ring tone.
What an idea! If you could have the sound of your farts converted into your boss' "Wham" ring tone and have him reach for the phone reflexively several times during a meeting... priceless.
 
  • #44
"... before you go-go..."
 
  • #45
No fair, this thread is a serious discussion about bringing underpants into the 21st century,
not creating another wind instrument.
 
  • #46
wolram said:
No fair, this thread is a serious discussion about bringing underpants into the 21st century,
not creating another wind instrument.
hey! kazoo-type instruments have a loyal following. (although perhaps among aficionados that have restricted olfactory capabilities).
 
  • #47
wolram said:
Ah yes ,what frequency does a G string vibrate at?

On A=440 equal temperament,

  • 195.998 Hz for the violin and viola,
  • 97.999 Hz for cello and double bass

Where each semitone is a multiplicative factor of 2^(1/12) ~= 1.059. Of course there are many alternative approaches,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_tuning#Systems_for_the_twelve-note_chromatic_scale

which exist because the even chromatic tuning is imperfect (it does not preserve the classical, integral ratios of perfect intervals), and conversely any system based on perfect intervals is not invariant under transposition (almost the musical equivalent of Galilean invariance, it can be argued).

For example: if you try to map the frequency harmonics

1:2:3:4 (1=fundamental)

to the intervals 8ve, 5th, 4th respectively, you get ratios 2, 3/2, 4/3 for the respective intervals. Whereas, if you break the octave uniformly into twelve semitones, (logarithmic scale)

x^12 = 2 -> x = 2^(1/12)

So that the corresponding 5th is 2^(7/12) ~= 1.4983, and 4th is 2^(5/12) ~= 1.3348. Nothing works!
 
  • #48
In fartology, the use of semiquavers in performance is frowned upon as "over the top" "common", and perhaps even "diva" behavior. Employing a farting pole to gain leverage in professional competitions is allowed, but is strictly regulated.
 
  • #49
Well jest if you must, but i have all ready designed a reed valve type sensor, made from a flexible material that is washable, this sensor can even be retro fitted to ordinary underpants,
the only draw back is, it may make one walk a bit funny, so i am looking into some solid state device, may be optical, the only problem i have with that is if one sets off an anti noise while in normal motion.
 
  • #50
So if you walk like a duck, and you talk like a duck...
 
  • #51
Waaack! Waaack!
 
  • #52
I just saw a Leno clip regarding a washable, reusable "flatulence deodorizer". We may have been scooped in regard to the olfactory effects, Woolie. Have to concentrate on mitigating the auditory effects.
 
  • #53
turbo-1 said:
I just saw a Leno clip regarding a washable, reusable "flatulence deodorizer". We may have been scooped in regard to the olfactory effects, Woolie. Have to concentrate on mitigating the auditory effects.

*#$#*#$#'s, i bet they were reading this thread and gazumped us, any way this morning i worked out how to stop the optical sensor from giving a false signal, it was simple, all i had to do was limit the low frequency response, so it all tied up with the fast amplitude response technology done.
 
  • #54
wolram said:
How can such a basic item of clothing be modernised you ask, well i have come up with an idea for sound cancelling underpants, the idea is to use upto date technology to capture sounds and produce an anti sound, and thus no one will have suffer embarrassment in meetings etc.
The only problem i have, is doing this in real time, this problem arises from the fact that the noise frequency can vary so much, so i will have to spend a lot of time making recordings . It may even be that each pair of underpants has to be tuned to the individual user, which will be a major disadvantage.
In the pipe line is odour retaining pants, but these are not looking promising, as so far they need to be at least 1/2 thick, and with people wanting to wear eye patches, i can not see how these could be packaged.

This is insane. You'll be wasting a lot of resources for a senseless purpose. Why not modernize the tailored suits instead to make it self cleaning no-wash garment. That way, you can save precious money for the laundry. I think there are already research conducted for that.
 
  • #55
JulieEastern said:
Why not modernize the suits instead to make it self cleaning no-wash garment. That way, you can save precious money for the laundry. I think there are already research conducted for that.
Been done in korea http://articles.latimes.com/1999/feb/27/business/fi-12162
 

Similar threads

Quieting the Dorm: Sound-Canceling Devices for Studying
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
Exhaust and engine accoustics for asthetics and performance
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
News David Suzuki article on Consumerism
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
14K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 267)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K