Sound Wave Energy Loss due to thickness of aluminum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on sound wave energy loss in aluminum discs of different thicknesses, specifically comparing 1/8" and 1/4" thicknesses. It highlights that transmission loss increases by 6 decibels with each doubling of frequency or wall mass per unit area. Users are encouraged to research the attenuation coefficient for aluminum within their frequency range to obtain specific loss values. An example illustrates that if a 1/8" plate reduces intensity from 1 W/m2 to 0.5 W/m2, adding another 1/8" plate would further reduce it to 0.25 W/m2. Overall, the attenuation in metals is relatively low for audible frequencies, suggesting minimal sound loss with increased thickness.
nst.john
Messages
163
Reaction score
1
Hello everyone!

I previously opened a thread asking about sound wave energy loss in aluminum discs based on thickness. I am looking to find out more about exactly how much using a disc that is twice the thickness of the other, (one is 1/8" and the other is 1/4") sound energy would be lost using the thicker one compared to the thinner one. We had some problems using the 1/8" one and we may need to use the 1/4" but I don't want too much sound to be lost in the process. Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A quick overview can be found at:

http://www.silex.com/pdfs/sound attenuation.pdf

The bottom of pg 12 states:
"...transmission loss increases 6 decibels for each doubling of frequency, or each doubling of the wall mass per unit area, up to a plateau frequency."

Remember that Google is your friend; that was the sixth hit searaching for 'sound attenuation versus frequency'
 
To find a specific number you will need to look up the attenuation coefficient for aluminium, in the frequency range of interest.
But as an example of how it works, assuming that you start with a beam of intensity 1 W/m2, if the 1/8" plates reduces the intensity to 0.5 W/m2, adding a second 1/8" plate will halve it again, to 0.25 W/m2.
However this is a quite extreme example. The attenuation in metals is quite low for audible frequencies.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top