Slashdot Mirror


Mysterious Sound Waves Can Destroy Rockets

Ponca City, We love you writes "Scientists believe that powerful and unstable sound waves, created by energy supplied by the combustion process, were the cause of rocket failures in several US and Russian rockets. They have also observed these mysterious oscillations in other propulsion and power-generating systems such as missiles and gas turbines. Now, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have developed a liquid rocket engine simulator and imaging techniques to help demystify the cause of these explosive sound waves and bring scientists a little closer to being able to understand and prevent them. The team was able to clearly demonstrate that the phenomenon manifests itself in the form of spinning acoustic waves that gain destructive power as they rotate around the rocket's combustion chamber at a rate of 5,000 revolutions per second. Researchers developed a low-pressure combustor to simulate larger rocket engines then used a very-high-speed camera with fiber optic probes to observe the formation and behavior of excited spinning sound waves within the engine. 'This is a very troublesome phenomenon in rockets,' said Professor Ben Zinn. 'These spinning acoustic oscillations destroy engines without anyone fully understanding how these waves are formed. Visualizing this phenomenon brings us a step closer to understanding it.'"

193 comments

  1. Brown noise by rubies · · Score: 5, Funny

    It makes rocket scientists crap their pants!

    1. Re:Brown noise by menkhaura · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bah, rocket science isn't brain surgery!

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    2. Re:Brown noise by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Those sound waves usually make people take cover too.

    3. Re:Brown noise by definate · · Score: 3, Funny

      Exactly, it's not like it's rocket surgery!

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:Brown noise by kyriosdelis · · Score: 1

      It's Brown note gawd dammit, not "brown noise". Stop watching so much South Park!

      --
      I don't mind dating a girl that has been with everybody, as long as she had a good shower afterwards.
    5. Re:Brown noise by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      And apparently (from the summary, because who reads the articles), it's 5,000 Hz which is within the range of human hearing.

      Anyone want to try an experiment? This page - http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/spring/PicturingSound.html has an audio file of a 5,000 Hz signal. See if you either explode like these rocket or crap your pants.

      http://www.learner.org/jnorth/sounds/Tone5000Hz.wav

      Layne

    6. Re:Brown noise by Four_One_Nine · · Score: 1

      Was that an intentional "Corner Gas" reference? If so, well done.

      --
      I did it for Johnny.
    7. Re:Brown noise by definate · · Score: 1

      I've never seen "Corner Gas" I live in Australia.

      This was just something me and my friends say now and then "Rocket Surgery" and "Brain Science".

      However, I will take the credit!

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:Brown noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine if the people of the world, all at the same instant, let out a huge horrendous fart. I don't mean a SBD either, I mean a real cheek flapper. I'll let you consider the implications...

  2. Good news! by bluephone · · Score: 5, Funny

    This means rocket science is once again hard. You may now resume saying "Well, this isn't rocket science" until they solve this.

    --
    jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
    1. Re:Good news! by fractoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bah, this isn't hard. These rockets are just getting speed wobbles, any 8-year-old boy with a bike will be able to tell you all about them!

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:Good news! by natoochtoniket · · Score: 1

      You may now resume saying "Well, this isn't rocket science"

      Except that this is rocket science.

    3. Re:Good news! by susano_otter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This means rocket science is once again hard. You may now resume saying "Well, this isn't rocket science" until they solve this.

      But shockwave instability in rocket propulsion systems has been a known problem since the very beginning of rocketry. They've been solving it repeatedly for decades. Heck, the Saturn V's F1 engine had it bad in early designs. Solving the F1's shockwave problem required significant innovations in testing methods and tools, and in fuel injection techniques, but solved it was.

      The only thing going on today is the same thing that's been going recently in a lot of fields from building architecture to aerodynamics: the replacement of empirical trial-and-error problem-solving methods with highly complex mathematically-driven computer simulation methods.

      Indeed, this advancement of the state of the art will make rocket science easier, since it allows researchers to model different designs in much greater detail, without having to physically build them.
      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    4. Re:Good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An interesting anecdote about this. They had severe instability problems in the F-1 that could lead the engine to...uh...explode. In order to investigate the phenomenon, engineers would initiate the instabilities on demand during testing by using small explosive charges. As they refined the design, it eventually got so good that even using the explosives they couldn't get the instabilities to propogate.

    5. Re:Good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Do you have a link for that? Pogo oscillations are not shockwaves...

  3. I've been a member of slashdot for some time by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 5, Funny

    and the subject line for this article has finally convinced me that cowboy neal is in fact art bell.

  4. Vibrator?? by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is that a rocket in your pocket? Finally I could satisfy a woman! :(

    1. Re:Vibrator?? by russlar · · Score: 0, Troll

      Is that a rocket in your pocket? Finally I could satisfy a woman! :( Do you even know what a woman looks like?
      --
      Anybody want my mod points?
    2. Re:Vibrator?? by compro01 · · Score: 5, Funny

      of course. we've got lots of pictures. =D

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Vibrator?? by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      I woke up with a lot of courage today.
      What the gp asked and what the parent referred to.

    4. Re:Vibrator?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that a rocket in your pocket? Finally I could satisfy a woman!

      we're not interested. Thanks in advance,
      Women.

    5. Re:Vibrator?? by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>>> Do you even know what a woman looks like?

      >>of course. we've got lots of pictures. =D

      Yeah, and I know all about womens emotions and stuff. Like, chicks HATE it when you call them broads.

    6. Re:Vibrator?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just ruined sequence of funnies, asshole.

  5. I can finally be of use to science by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if they'd be interested in analyzing the smoking ruins of at least 5 toilet bowls I have personally destroyed with mysterious oscillating rocket powered sound waves.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    1. Re:I can finally be of use to science by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wonder if they'd be interested in analyzing the smoking ruins of at least 5 toilet bowls I have personally destroyed with mysterious oscillating rocket powered sound waves.

      Oh great, Mr. Goatse himself is now posting on slashdot.

    2. Re:I can finally be of use to science by NevarMore · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh great, Mr. Goatse himself is now posting on slashdot.


      Thats impossible. In order to get a good sound out of that it'd have to be a bit tighter and able to make a good PHHHHHHBBBBBTTT sound. The way Mr. Goatse is now it would just kind of go phooooo. Even then I doubt if there is enough of a seal left to keep it from leaking out long enough to build up sufficient volume and pressure to do anything noticable.
    3. Re:I can finally be of use to science by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Funny

      It scares me that you have devoted that much time thinking about the physics of that.

    4. Re:I can finally be of use to science by flynns · · Score: 1

      Wow, man. Just... wow.

      phoooooo.

      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
    5. Re:I can finally be of use to science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ha! he has blown grippers.

    6. Re:I can finally be of use to science by xLittleP · · Score: 1

      Maybe Mr. Goastse is posting on Slashdot...

      --
      When is Slashdot going to add a -1 moderation option for people who actually RTFA?
    7. Re:I can finally be of use to science by zolaar · · Score: 1

      Remember: it isn't the voltage that kills you -- its the amperage

      --
      One man's constant is another man's variable.
  6. What TFA leaves out by garett_spencley · · Score: 2, Funny

    When analyzing the acoustic oscillations scientists discovered something quite striking. The sine wave was exactly identical to the master recording of Britney Spears' "Hit Me Baby One More Time".

    1. Re:What TFA leaves out by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Britney Spears couldn't make the paparazzi explode. It's the Overture of 1812 that could take a rocket down.

    2. Re:What TFA leaves out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing, since it was previously believed that the resonance of those waves could only cause a career to crash and burn.

    3. Re:What TFA leaves out by holmedog · · Score: 1

      LEAVE Britney aloooone!!!

    4. Re:What TFA leaves out by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      but, it's time for the harvest

  7. Nothing new here by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The Tacoma Narrows Bridge http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsCBK-fRNRk was essentially destroyed by low frequency sound waves.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Nothing new here by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      And this is the exact same thing as these spinning sound waves generated by these rockets?

    2. Re:Nothing new here by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      nothing to see here, this reply is just to remove an incorrect mod.

    3. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wind?

    4. Re:Nothing new here by evwah · · Score: 1

      5kHz isn't exactly low frequency sound

    5. Re:Nothing new here by interiot · · Score: 1

      What uses 0.2hz waves for acoustic communication? Even an elephant on sulfur hexafluoride doesn't get that low.

    6. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was not. The effect was in reality an areodynamic vortex sheding(sp?) problem.

  8. Defense System? by BountyX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could be implemented in a way to defend against rocket\missle attacks? Possibly in a better way than Star Wars program.

    --
    Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    1. Re:Defense System? by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ever watch the movie Dune?

      Moha deeb.... rocket go boom

    2. Re:Defense System? by evanbd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. We're talking about pressure waves inside the engine, at pressures measured in tens or hundreds of psi, that resonate with the injector to build power -- think about blowing across the top of a beer bottle. The small power input from your breath induces a higher power oscillation. Same effect, where the bottle is replaced by the combustion chamber and your breath by the injectors. Except the power involved is a hundred million times higher (maybe more, I didn't do the math very carefully).

      These waves can't be set up unless the engine will support them, and if it will then they'll happen on their own. If you could deliver that much energy to the engine remotely, you could just as easily destroy the rocket. It's the *resonance* that's the problem, not the fact that there's a crapload of sound energy available.

    3. Re:Defense System? by Hojima · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Almost instantly you can see that it would be very impractical to use sound to destroy rockets. Unless you blast the sound waves constantly, you wont be able to destroy the rockets since they travel much faster than sound (that and air is a terrible medium to transfer the waves through with the Doppler effect hindering it, so they'll never reach the missiles with enough strength). Lasers are still tricky, but there wont be a better alternative to them in the future, when their strength and our tracking systems will be at a prime. Though the best missile defense is undoubtedly diplomacy.

    4. Re:Defense System? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. We're talking about pressure waves inside the engine, at pressures measured in tens or hundreds of psi, that resonate with the injector to build power



      These waves can't be set up unless the engine will support them, and if it will then they'll happen on their own. If you could deliver that much energy to the engine remotely, you could just as easily destroy the rocket

      What about those ultrasonic sound wave inducers that sea vessels use against pirates? (No joke intended, it was on /. a while back). IIRC, they use a directed ultrasonic beam. Could those be used to create resonance inside an incoming rocket engine, or would a frickin' laser beam be more feasable?
    5. Re:Defense System? by evanbd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The laser beam is way more feasible, even if you ignore considerations of range. Not to mention that when a liquid-fueled military rocket is operating, it's going to be either over the horizon or in vacuum -- we're not talking about small tactical missiles here.

      We're talking about loud sounds here -- and not just a little bit loud. 1 pascal of pressure wave is 94dB SPL -- a fairly loud sound. 1 psi is 6894 pascals; we're talking about many psi of pressure variation. A 10 psi wave would be 190dB. That's not just loud enough to cause hearing damage; that's well past loud enough to knock over buildings. Overpressure from large bombs is less than that at the edge of the blast radius.

      It should be obvious why that's destructive when it happens inside a rocket chamber, especially since oscillations like that tend to start small, grow *rapidly*, and not stop growing until something breaks. It should also be obvious why you won't be able to create such a wave via external influence unless the chamber can already resonate in that mode. When developing the F1 (Saturn V main engine) NASA had trouble with instability; in order to see whether the engine was barely stable or had plenty of margin, they had to find techniques to induce these waves. What they developed, and still use today, is a set of techniques for putting an explosive charge *inside* the engine, bringing the engine up to normal operating conditions (making the charge survive this is nontrivial), and *then* detonating it to see how the engine responded.

    6. Re:Defense System? by amirulbahr · · Score: 1

      1. Launch rocket
      2. Excite spinning sound waves in rocket
      3. ???
      4. Profit!

    7. Re:Defense System? by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      Could be implemented in a way to defend against rocket\missle attacks? Possibly in a better way than Star Wars program. Yeah, all you'd need to do is mount an extremely hardy, remote-controled loudspeaker inside the combustion chamber of every rocket your enemy had.

      That sounds WAY more easy than star wars, as long as you arrange it all before they launch.

      Actually, maybe there isn't as much in it as I thought.

    8. Re:Defense System? by RKBA · · Score: 1

      So they need to find a shape for the combustion chamber/nozzle that has no single large fundamental resonance frequency, but without sacrificing too much thrust efficiency. It will be interesting to see what sort of shape, or baffling system, they devise. Maybe they could use some of the expertise from the manufacturers of firearm sound suppressors who face similar problems, though less serious and demanding. Although resonance isn't the problem firearm suppressors are designed to address, they do considerably reduce the sound levels as the exhaust gases exit the barrel. Maybe tomorrow's spacecraft will launch with a Paladin Armory sound suppressor attached to it. ;-)

    9. Re:Defense System? by jstott · · Score: 1

      Could be implemented in a way to defend against rocket\missle attacks? Possibly in a better way than Star Wars program.

      In space, no one can hear you scream.

      -JS

      --
      Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...
    10. Re:Defense System? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they need to find a shape for the combustion chamber/nozzle that has no single large fundamental resonance frequency, but without sacrificing too much thrust efficiency. It will be interesting to see what sort of shape, or baffling system, they devise.
      Fractal structures are emergent in nature wherever there is energy transfer (damage done) by oscillations, or for that matter, any random (noise) variation of forces. I'd expect a non-resonant shape to be some sort of fractal.
    11. Re:Defense System? by GanjaManja · · Score: 1

      how long has it been so obvious to you that the acoustic waves' resonance was created by circulation around the combustion chamber? you shoulda told someone!

      i wonder if they can simply change the shape or add some fins into the chamber to dampen these circulating waves.

    12. Re:Defense System? by evanbd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sutton discusses that resonant mode (spinning tangential) briefly in Rocket Propulsion Elements (pg 353, 7th ed). There are plenty of more detailed discussions of combustion instability in general elsewhere in the literature. There are a variety of other resonant modes as well, this just happens to be the one the researchers looked at.

      You can indeed add features to the chamber to de-tune it. It's anything but simple, though, and is mostly trial and error at present. Making the features not burn up is tricky; that part of why they're often added as part of the injector, since the injectors are cooled by the propellant flowing through them.

  9. If you play them backwards by xs650 · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you record them and play them backwards they will install Vista on your computer.

  10. Jimi at Berkeley by elronxenu · · Score: 1

    The Captain has known since 1986 that sound waves, particularly the very potent tones of Jimi at Berkeley, can destroy oncoming rockets.

    Reference: Riders of the Storm

  11. And then... by adona1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dr No will fish them out of the water and pass the rockets on to SMERSH....I don't like the sound of that!

    --
    Between the falling angel and the rising ape
  12. Re:Didn't Nikola Tesla talk about something like t by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I remember reading about Nikola Tesla using sound waves to demolish a building or something like that.

    Wow, he invented Britney Spears also?

  13. Summary is a bit off by evanbd · · Score: 5, Informative

    The new result here isn't acoustic instabilities; those have been known for a long time. The interesting result is a new set of imaging techniques that give a better understanding of *why* they occur, rather than simply observing on pressure traces that they *do* occur. After a bit more research, this may turn into techniques to more reliably avoid them in the design stage, rather than having to go through various tweaks on the injector / combustion chamber to remove them should they appear.

    This is very cool work. Of course, it's rocket science, not rocket engineering, so it's unlikely to impact new designs for several years yet.

    1. Re:Summary is a bit off by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Interesting
      A problem with dealing with acoustic resonance is just how to manufacture the rocket nozzle to avoid the buildup of these dangerous resonances. Modelling them is the first step, but how can you build the nozzle with sufficient strength while building in structure to interrupt the phase of the wave repeats? Experimentation is a lot cheaper when you can simulate the results. I could imagine moving to non-round shapes might solve the problem, or heterogenious structures - possibly by introduction of dissimilar materials in the bell, perhaps a strapped interspersion of titanium and stainless? I wonder how difficult that could be to model.

      Or I could be full of crap, which is also a distinct possibility.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    2. Re:Summary is a bit off by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, you're on the right track, but not quite there. Computational techniques are only barely able to simulate rocket chambers well; combustion dynamics are complex and not well understood. That's a large part of what makes this work interesting (the other part being the imaging techniques to actually photograph the waves).

      The problem isn't actually the chamber or nozzle walls resonating, it's the acoustic cavity -- exactly analogous to an organ pipe. There are a variety of techniques used to de-tune the resonance modes. (It also happens in the chamber, not the nozzle -- gas in the expansion portion of the nozzle is locally supersonic, so sound can't propagate backwards, which means no resonance.) For example, the SSME has some of the injectors protruding further into the chamber than others, creating interruptions in the flat surface of the injector face. There exist other techniques, and some google searching will turn up some. Also, playing with the metals in the chamber wall is probably right out -- they're basically already decided by thermal considerations, and high performance engines almost universally use copper.

      Historically, the design process has involved experienced engineers, rules of thumb, and lots of testing. Computer models will help, but they'll never really replace the "lots of testing" stage. At least for small engines (up to several thousand pounds of thrust), it's cheaper, easier, and more accurate to just build the thing.

    3. Re:Summary is a bit off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High performance rocket engines use copper combustion chambers b/c of thermal considerations? Why not titanium (melting point of ~1900K > copper's at ~1350K)? Or even just steel, since the chambers are regeneratively cooled anyway, iirc?

    4. Re:Summary is a bit off by jake-in-a-box · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you answered your own question. Copper is the best conductor of the materials you mentioned. The engines are cooled by circulating the fuel around them prior to its introduction into the combustion chamber. Heat conduction is analogous to electrical conduction, so copper is probably the best combination of inherent strength and heat conduction available. Still probably alloyed because pure copper is soft.

      --
      To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.
    5. Re:Summary is a bit off by evanbd · · Score: 5, Informative

      Titanium may melt at 1900K, but rocket chambers operate in the realm of 2500-3500K. They have to be cooled, and copper is the material of choice for the same reason it makes good CPU heat sinks -- excellent thermal conductivity. Some older thrust chambers were made of steel (WAC Corporal, iirc), and it works at low chamber pressures (less heat flux), but it doesn't work as well and there are corrosion issues in storage. As performance increases and chamber pressures rise, metals other than copper look less and less appealing.

      Some nozzles are uncooled in the aft portion (as the gas expands and accelerates, it cools down, so the environment gets easier to handle). The Kestrel engine used in the Falcon 1 upper stage, for example, has a radiatively cooled Niobium nozzle. Titanium has been used, but Niobium and a few others tend to perform better in that environment -- the combination of hot reactive gases is hard to handle.

    6. Re:Summary is a bit off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO, not only combustion dynamics are not well understood, the computation cost of supersonic acoustic waves may be very high, because you need a very dense spatial resolution to catch the phenomena.

    7. Re:Summary is a bit off by pla · · Score: 1

      After a bit more research, this may turn into techniques to more reliably avoid them in the design stage, rather than having to go through various tweaks on the injector / combustion chamber to remove them should they appear.

      "I cannot be played on [rocket engine] X".

      Everything has resonant frequencies. Most phenomena do not input enough energy at those frequencies to cause damage to arbitrary man-made devices, but when they do - Watch out Tacoma Narrows.

      In the case of a rocket engine, you have a LOT of energy (enough to hurl a many-ton vehicle off-planet) across a rather broad range of frequencies. It surprises me much more that these things can work at all - But as you point out, they currently have to do tedious manual tweaking of the injectors and reaction chamber specifically to avoid at least the dominant resonances that would appear.

    8. Re:Summary is a bit off by XNormal · · Score: 1

      > This is very cool work. Of course, it's rocket science, not rocket engineering, so it's unlikely to impact new designs for several years yet.

      Especially considering the fact that major new liquid-fueled rocket engines are designed at a rate of about one per decade...

      --
      Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    9. Re:Summary is a bit off by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Everything has resonant frequencies. Most phenomena do not input enough energy at those frequencies to cause damage to arbitrary man-made devices, but when they do - Watch out Tacoma Narrows.



      Tacoma narrows had very little to do with resonance. The problem there was that a small amount of torsion changed the aerodynamic profile of the bridge so that it would pick up more energy from the wind, which increased the amount of torsion, which changed the aerodynamic profile even more, which caused the bridge to pick up even more energy (repeat ad bridge collapse). It's a bit similar to what happens when you try to burn paper with a lens - at first, not much happens (since paper is white an reflects much of the light), but as soon as the temperature increase causes the paper to darken just a little, it rapidly starts to smoke/burn.


      The bridge was not oscillating at its actual natural frequency when it collapsed.

    10. Re:Summary is a bit off by sconeu · · Score: 1

      "I cannot be played on [rocket engine] X".

      Mr. Tortoise? Is that you? Now that you've messed up Mr. Crab's hi-fis, you've decided to screw up his rockets too?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    11. Re:Summary is a bit off by evanbd · · Score: 1

      The problem is one of Q factor. Resonant modes in an engine *will* be excited -- engines tend to have fairly distinctive character when you look at the FFT of the chamber pressure trace (a fancy way of saying engines have their own unique sound). If the resonance has a high Q factor, then the modest input power available at that frequency will build rapidly, and couple into the combustion process or injector and gain even more energy. If the Q factor is low, then it will only show up as a small peak above the white noise floor in the FFT, and there will never be a problem. It's the difference between a clock pendulum and a much cruder pendulum with a high friction bearing (say, a strip of wood with a rough hole in it hanging from a peg) -- a tiny energy input will cause the clock pendulum to make large swings, if presented at the correct frequency. But the crude pendulum will make tiny swings for a tiny energy input, whether you have the frequency perfect or not.

    12. Re:Summary is a bit off by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this also occurs in Aerospike engines? It would seem a bit easier to get access to any part of the exhaust plume or 'virtual nozzle' you wanted, but perhaps harder to anchor sensors...

    13. Re:Summary is a bit off by evanbd · · Score: 1

      All this is happening in the chamber, not the nozzle. After the nozzle throat (the constriction before the expansion bell), the gas is supersonic and so can't really resonate (sound waves can't travel backward). The oscillations in question happen right at the injector face. Aerospike engines have a very different nozzle, but everything before the throat is fairly conventional -- so they'd exhibit the same problems, and measurement would be no easier.

      People have built see-through chambers before, at varying levels of sophistication. This includes everything from liquid-cooled silica glass with LOX/LH2 engines to low-pressure oxygen/acrylic hybrids. The problem isn't seeing through the engine wall, it's seeing through the flame. That's what makes the photography they did so clever.

  14. Dune? by B5_geek · · Score: 1

    House Atreides was not available for comment.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
  15. This has got to be joke by Riktov · · Score: 4, Funny

    Come on, an expert on rocket fuel technology named Professor Ben Zinn?

    1. Re:This has got to be joke by dosh8er · · Score: 1

      I don't think so... Ben Zinn

      --
      This useless space for sale, inquire at front desk.
    2. Re:This has got to be joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benzin

    3. Re:This has got to be joke by icebrain · · Score: 1

      I took his thermodynamics class. He doesn't make it easy, but you definitely know your stuff at the end.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    4. Re:This has got to be joke by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least it wasn't Ben Grimm. Although in that case, we might have been able to blame Klaw for all this...

    5. Re:This has got to be joke by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 1

      You don't end up going around in cricles then?

  16. Weapon by MrGHemp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't help but wonder if understanding this won't lead to some powerful weapons... think about it a sonic cannon, that might make some interesting CNN coverage during war time.

    1. Re:Weapon by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Like some guy in Iraq or Afghanistan aiming a weird device at an Apache helicopter and shouting CHAAAAA-AKSA! followed by the Apache turning into a fireball? Quite possible, that with the Harko--err Haliburton protecting the CHOAM--er US stranglehold on the region's spi--err oil reserves.

      I believe that a beginning like that will be a delicate time...

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
  17. Re:Didn't Nikola Tesla talk about something like t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    well hey, thanks for posting. something you might have heard about somewhere about a subject you very likely have no knowledge about whatsoever. i can guess that by the complete lack of anything useful in your post. let me go way out on a limb here and guess that your age is 14 years or less. 15 tops. in the future, be useful or silent. thanks!

  18. If sound waves can destroy rockets... by New_Age_Reform_Act · · Score: 1

    I bet given enough strength, your fart can break the toilet too.

    --
    "The New Age. The New Beginning."
    1. Re:If sound waves can destroy rockets... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That is highly unlikely. You have a couple of factors involved that would prevent it without some special devices.

      First, a toilet doesn't have enough of a seal around your ass to stop airflow from escaping. Second, there is generally a gap between the seat and the rim of the bowl that pressure could escape. Finally, the weak link is you. If you where to fart hard enough to create enough pressure that would cause damage to it, you would simply be thrown off first.

      I know this second hand from a person I used to work with that came up missing for a while. Evidently, he bent ocer to look at the size of his crap from the gap between his balls and the seat. He couldn't see anything so he lit his lighter attempting to shine some light on the situation. Gases had built up and exploded when they reached the flame which in turn racked him harder then he has ever felt before and threw him off the seat to hit his head on a metal and wood cloths hamper a few feet away. Not being able to stand and with a big gash in the side of his head, his wife/girlfriend called 911 which decided he should goto the hospital and have his family jewels looked at. The paramedics started laughing in a fit when carrying this guy down the stairs and dropped him breaking his arm and leg in the process. There is some debate over a cracked rib being from the shitter explosion or the fall.

      So you see, even if your fat, the amount of pressure needed to break the toilet is more then the amount needed to remove you from it. This is because the toilet still supports your own weight which means you need more pressure then your weight can deliver to break it. And as a biological fact, nobody gets launched into the air by their own farts. Even if you ignite them. And that's if it didn't just push the water and fart though the plumbing system first.

  19. Missile defense? by Laughing+Dog · · Score: 1

    So is gangsta rap going to be the new missile defense? Instead of dedicated stations, we could have a volunteer rapid response unit consisting of Honda Civics.

  20. Sound Wave superior... by moriya · · Score: 1

    Rocket-cons inferior...

    1. Re:Sound Wave superior... by 1337W422102 · · Score: 1

      That was hilarious. Mod that the hell up.

  21. Nigel Tufnel Explains by reSonans · · Score: 2, Funny

    *Blank stare* - "These go to eleven."

    --
    Light the blue touch-paper and retire immediately.
  22. Misprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should read:
    and bring scientists a little closer to being able to understand and generate them.

  23. Interesting by mjaworsk · · Score: 1

    I wonder if these sound waves might be put to good use... such as setting off a series of timed explosions creating a "traveling wave" that induces rotation... This might come in real handy if, say, the core of the earth were to stop spinning for some reason... hmmmm... oh crap, this justifies a terrible movie.

  24. Experiment IV by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 1

    They told us
    All they wanted
    Was a sound that could kill someone
    From a distance.

    Instead, it killed the rockets!

  25. Powerful sound waves? by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Funny

    Heavy Metal can destroy even rockets now.

    1. Re:Powerful sound waves? by Da+Fokka · · Score: 1

      Yes but you have to go to eleven.

    2. Re:Powerful sound waves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, with ours, we can turn it up to eleven.

  26. Turn it inside out. by camperdave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Rocket engines typically have a round cross section, which, if it doesn't aid the production of these circular waves, probably does little to dampen them. I wonder if the "inside out" design of a linear aerospike engine suffers from the same problem.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Turn it inside out. by evanbd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Aerospike engines still have an enclosed chamber; it's only the nozzle that's been changed. The chamber is where the problems occur, not the nozzle. The odd chamber shapes certainly make things complicated, but I have no idea whether they hurt or help overall. The usual technique to get rid of these involves various ways to de-tune the engine -- for example, some of the SSME injectors protrude deeper into the chamber to interrupt the otherwise flat injector face.

    2. Re:Turn it inside out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the reason why has more to do with closed chambers than symmetry, probably so. However, that leads to the interesting question of whether an annular aerospike would also suffer in similar ways.

    3. Re:Turn it inside out. by kylegordon · · Score: 1

      Aerospikes have enclosed chambers? I don't recall seeing one on the test videos, and as far as I recall the aerospike uses outside air pressure as the bell. Having just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine, it seems to confirm what I thought. The included illustration doesn't depict a chamber either.

    4. Re:Turn it inside out. by MickLinux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I seem to remember back in 1987/8, working at VA Tech on a project where they were considering scalloped semicircles all around the edge of the cross section. It seems to me that the purpose was to get a more even burn (read, reduce some of the acoustic/shock wave artifacts of the combustion).

      Of course, this was long ago, and I was at the bottom level of the work, and only worked a very short time on that.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    5. Re:Turn it inside out. by icebrain · · Score: 3, Informative

      It does depict them, you just aren't looking hard enough. On a traditonal rocket engine, the chamber is a bulbed or cylindrical chamber above the nozzle. It narrows down, then expands into a bell shape to allow the combusted hot gasses to expand and accelerate.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aerospikeprinciplediagram.gif

      In the linked illustration on the right, look along the top edge of the aerospike, where the flames are coming from. All of the little canisters along both edges (where the flames come out) are combustion chambers. You just have a bunch of small ones instead of one large one. Compare that to the image on the left (a standard bell nozzle)--notice that you have a chamber at the top, which narrows down to a throat, and then opens back up. Basically, an aerospike does is cut off at the throat and turn the nozzle inside out. You then have an inner wall to expand against, with the outside atmosphere providing the outer wal.

      Read this site for more: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/aerospike/main.shtml

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  27. Repeat after me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sim-harmon-mosh :) You had to be there around '93 to get it.

  28. Re:Didn't Nikola Tesla talk about something like t by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

    well hey, thanks for posting. I wanted to name my kitty Tesla! ;D
    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  29. More importantly by game+kid · · Score: 1

    ...will the Civics play Soulja Boy, and will "Superman that" be slang for attacking an incoming warhead?

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  30. Look, I can see science media dumbing it down by onion_joe · · Score: 1
    for the masses, but this is unacceptable! "Acoustic" waves? Puhhhhhhllleeeezzzzzzzzzzz. High temperature pressure waves in a gas medium constrained by a metallic cone is the proper description.

    For crying out loud (sorry;) we are talking ROCKET SCIENCE HERE!!!!

    --
    sig sig sig siggy sig
    1. Re:Look, I can see science media dumbing it down by Forbman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      pressure waves...acoustic waves... Hmm... I'm having a hard time seeing the difference. I think they use "acoustic" because of their frequency is probably between 20Hz-20KHz... otherwise known as "acoustic".

      I'm wondering if the waves are just something related to how the energy goes out at such high pressures and it being a bit opposite in how the soda bottle "vortex generators" work. Pressure is high enough so that all the fluid flows out axially instead of rotating around the axis to some degree, but these rotating acoustic waves are just a form of conservation of (angular) momentum in the fluid flow that under less pressured circumstances would want to make a vortex?

    2. Re:Look, I can see science media dumbing it down by evanbd · · Score: 1

      No, there's no angular momentum involved. The waves progress around the circumference, but the net average angular motion of the gas is zero. It's purely a wave phenomenon, and there are plenty of other resonant modes -- radial, tangential, etc. This just happens to be the mode they studied first.

  31. Dr. No by breadlord · · Score: 1

    Yeah, yeah, we've been through this before. Dr. No, evil genius with his own Caribbean island, guano empire. Bond on the beach with Honey Rider, bang-boom, no more "interference" with our rockets. Guess we throw the Russkies a bone on this one, in the name of our newfound cooperation.

  32. Pogo Oscillations by orospakr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This phenomenon sounds very similar to Pogo Oscillations, which incidentally caused the engine 5 shutdown on the Apollo 13 Saturn V.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_oscillations

    1. Re:Pogo Oscillations by evanbd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Similar, but different. Both are oscillations, but pogo is characterized by low frequency variations in chamber pressure coupling through the thrust structure and into the propellant feed system (and from there back to the chamber pressure). These are high frequency (kHz, no tens of Hz) acoustic modes, contained entirely within the chamber. They're much harder simulate and much harder to get rid of, and much less well understood. They couple from local chamber pressure to the injectors, and operate much like an organ pipe.

    2. Re:Pogo Oscillations by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I presume the frequency of these oscillations is measured as "pogomips".

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:Pogo Oscillations by TomRK1089 · · Score: 1

      I thought the problems with the Apollo 13 mission stemmed from the fuel cell lines? If I recall correctly, there was basically an explosive reaction in one of the tanks from an electrical fault. Or did they have this problem earlier in the mission? The one-line Wikipedia reference is ambiguous.

    4. Re:Pogo Oscillations by dpilot · · Score: 1

      The failure in Apollo 13 was due to a heater thermostat in one of the fuel cells that was jammed during testing. The testing verified that the heater could turn on, but didn't verify "off," and was not long enough to detect the pressure buildup. When the full system was powered up on the pad, the fuel cell heater was turned on and stayed that way. It didn't hit overpressure until after the lunar injection burn.

      The reference I read indicated that there was a pogo fault on the center engine on the first stage, and that engine was shut down to prevent system failure. I remember listening to early liftoff coverage, hearing the various points where they could lose 1 engine and still make orbit, then 2 engines, etc. Evidently the center engine pogo failure was late enough that it didn't matter.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:Pogo Oscillations by TomRK1089 · · Score: 1

      Wow, you've done quite a bit of research on this it seems. Thanks for the correction.

    6. Re:Pogo Oscillations by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Years ago I read a very good article on the Apollo 13 fuel cell problem. They gave no names, but it was right down to an initially defective set of thermostat contacts, and a person who forced things to fit, instead of flagging the problem. When the fit was forced, the thermostat was jammed. Plus during test, in order to get it done faster, they used overvoltage, welding the contacts together.

      Rather frightening, because while they named no names, I'm sure it's right down to a sequence of 2 or 3 people who caused the problem by not following proper procedures. I'd hate to have been one of them.

      The pogo things was a few minutes with Google. I'd never heard of pogo oscillations before.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  33. Energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this exploding power be used to generate power?

    1. Re:Energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but just the one time.

  34. "Strange wave phenomenon" = resonance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The summary makes it sound like this is a new and mysterious phenomenon. It isn't.

    Resonant frequencies inside the fuel pumps and associated plumbing is one of the major problems of getting a real rocket engine run in a stable cycle. This is a 50-year-old problem. There are also 50-year-old solutions, mostly involving re-shaping the plumbing so that resonances are dampened.

    See also Pogo oscillation and the famous case of Apollo 13.

    1. Re:"Strange wave phenomenon" = resonance by evanbd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pogo, pump-related oscillations, and plumbing related oscillations are all low frequency (tens of Hz, sometimes less). These are acoustic modes internal to the chamber, in the kHz range. They're very distinct phenomenon, with distinct causes and distinct solutions. They're still a 50 year old problem with 50 year old techniques to solve them, but they're by no means understood in any meaningful sense -- the current technique mostly involves testing the engine and then tweaking it until they go away.

      The new and interesting work here is the modelling, combined with the photography techniques. Seeing pressure waves at the injector face through the chamber full of flame is not trivial.

  35. hmm by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    Doesn't everything have a frequency at which it breaks? I mean, human rib cages, crystal glasses have been known to break with just the right tone. In the case of a former engine of mine (non-rocket), it was right around 133Hz (8000rpm/60seconds=133 Cycles per second).

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:hmm by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Not really. It depends on the material and shape. If you look at objects as oscillators. an important factor is the Q (quality factor). That determines how quickly the object loses energy when excited at its resonant frequency. A bell cast from brass has a high Q when compared to a bell made from fiberglass. You need a high Q to accumulate and store energy. An object with a low Q just quickly dissipates the energy as heat.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  36. Re:Didn't Nikola Tesla talk about something like t by SiriusStarr · · Score: 1

    While the power of standing waves is well-documented, (see the aforementioned Tacoma Narrows Bridge) this story is commonly considered to be an urban legend, as far as I can tell. They did try it on Mythbusters, though. There were issues with Tesla's designs, so they were forced to build their own. While they were unable to even slightly harm a small-scale model, they did have some success making an actual suspension bridge vibrate. Still, vibration is far from destruction; while much damage to buildings during earthquakes is due to standing waves, in those cases we are talking about faarrrr greater amounts of energy than Tesla's oscillator.

    --
    Fear the penguin.
  37. Wierding Modules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can now revive my hopes having a wierding module...and that my name will be a killing a word!

  38. 'Cisco-- by ciscoy2g1 · · Score: 1

    This is amazing. It's incredible how the accoustics of a barrel can make the physical state of a metal to something that's entirely unknown because it is being bombarded with such energy that it is entirely unknown. The heat radiation that it gives off, as well as the amount of energy released as light, those waves are just bouncing off. Of course, I surely don't mean that it may be a complete possibility, but we simply don't know. What if a total chaotic environment throws off the marks of physics once more to a completely different level, the sound spectrum, the beyond. String theory is portrayed as strings or strands of energy in acoustic resonance with itself, or not, some are broken, making some sounds as neutral. Maybe I'm getting off track here. Whatever, this is all new, so let's begin!

  39. The Sound Village Ninjas (oh no!) by prajjwal · · Score: 1

    I know, its the sound village ninjas from Naruto upto their old tricks again!!!

  40. Re:Didn't Nikola Tesla talk about something like t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point of Tesla's experiments were that you didn't need a huge amount of force, just a small force at just the right frequency for the particular object. The small oscillations would reinforce the previous ones and grow into a more powerful force that eventually cause collapse... Even mythbusters gave this a plausible.

  41. Addicted to bass... by roxtafari · · Score: 3, Funny

    Looks like an audio engineering issue. While not being a rocket engineer myself, I assume the combustion chamber is somewhat symmetrical. It is likely acting as a resonance chamber and increasing the amplitude of the soundwave to the point of physical damage. I shattered the rear window in my '96 Camaro twice with a 1200W Fosgate and a single 10" bazooka tube. Tell NASA to crack the window when they turn up the bass!

  42. Hmmm... by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this knowledge can be used to build an anti-rocket defense system.

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
  43. Sonic Tools by Professr3 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So THAT'S how the Doctor's screwdriver works...

    1. Re:Sonic Tools by endlessoul · · Score: 1

      It would certainly account for the fact that seemingly ordinary locks spark when unlocked by the sonic screwdriver.

  44. Re:Didn't Nikola Tesla talk about something like t by SiriusStarr · · Score: 1

    Of course. I never denied the theory behind it, and I do know they listed it as plausible (see "some success making an actual suspension bridge vibrate"). My point is simply that Tesla didn't actually destroy a building. He simply showed that it is theoretically possible.

    --
    Fear the penguin.
  45. Re:Didn't Nikola Tesla talk about something like t by GuNgA-DiN · · Score: 2, Informative
    From the New York World-Telegram -- July 11, 1935:
    http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko/delo/10896

    [Nikola Tesla:] "I was experimenting with vibrations. I had one of my machines going and I wanted to see if I could get it in tune with the vibration of the building. I put it up notch after notch. There was a peculiar cracking sound.

    "I asked my assistants where did the sound come from. They did not know. I put the machine up a few more notches. There was a louder cracking sound. I knew I was approaching the vibration of the steel building. I pushed the machine a little higher.

    "Suddenly all the heavy machinery in the place was flying around. I grabbed a hammer and broke the machine. The building would have been down about our ears in another few minutes. Outside in the street there was pandemonium. The police and ambulances arrived. I told my assistants to say nothing. We told the police it must have been an earthquake. That's all they ever knew about it."

    Watch Out, Mr. Smith

    Some shrewd reporter asked Dr. Tesla at this point what he would need to destroy the Empire State Building and the doctor replied: - "Five pounds of air pressure. If I attached the proper oscillating machine on a girder that is all the force I would need, five pounds. Vibration will do anything.- It would only be necessary to step up the vibrations of the machine to fit the natural vibration of the building and the building would come crashing down. That's why soldiers always break step crossing a bridge."

  46. Tell me about it... by DamienRBlack · · Score: 0

    Whenever my x-girlfriend started singing, it would destroy my rocket, she had a voice like a crow. Wait, that isn't what we're talking about is it?

  47. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Houston,
    Whats the story on the center engine cutoff?? ...(beep)...

  48. Finally news-like news! by holywarrior21c · · Score: 1

    It can surely destroy those loud bass hipsters right? xkcd:bass

  49. How simple can this be? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    All you've got to do is to wrap the rocket in sound deadening materials - or negate the sounds by amplifying the same sound out of phase.
    What's so hard about that?
    Rocket science.... Hrumph!

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  50. Muad'Dib by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We Fremem have known the secret Bene Gesserit ways of harnessing destructive sound waves for centuries.

    "My own name is a killing word. Will it be a healing word as well?" - Paul "Maud'Dib" Atreides

    These killer sound waves come in really handy when some obese Harkonnen swine tries to make off with YOUR spice!

  51. Ithorians by ross.w · · Score: 1

    Four throats. Very powerful.

    --
    If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  52. More technology to misuse by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    "excited spinning sound waves" sounds like something which will be sold next year to the owner of the car ahead of us.

  53. What does sound have to do with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honest question. Isn't sound merely an organic perception of certain frequencies of vibration? Talking about sound waves seems to only make sense in the context that it affects the ear. I assume these rockets broke apart due to intense vibration, not the particular noise that was being made.

    1. Re:What does sound have to do with it? by FlyingGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And so the old question foes, "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise?

      Well by the definition of sound there are three components:

      1. A source
      2. A medium to transmit is through
      3. A detector

      Hence the phrase, "In space no one can hear you scream.". Now that was a movie, but it is never the less true. We have all seen the experiment where you take an electric bell, place it in a vacuum chamber. As the air is pumped out the, softer the sound of the bell gets until it can no longer be heard.

      No medium, no pressure wave, it's that simple. Now there is liquid fuel in pipes, that is being pushed hard into the combustion chamber by pumps. Ever seen what happens to a jet engine during a compressor stall? The high pressure exhaust comes out he front! YIKES, not a good thing at all. Now those pumps are pushing the liquid fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber against combustion pressure. The ONLY thing preventing the combusting fuel and oxidizer mix from going right back UP those pipes and making the whole damn thing blow up are the pumps. I would imagine that all sorts of pressure waves are transmitted back up into the inner working of the rocked via the medium of the fuel. Imagine if the pump "stalled" ie the pump vanes out paced the fuel supply? The pump impellers would effectively stall and pressure in the delivery lines to the combustion chamber would drop and allow back flow until the pump caught up and started pushing fuel again, I think this would definitely cause some pressure waves all over the place. It would also cause lots of vibration, perhaps enough to cause failure,

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    2. Re:What does sound have to do with it? by number6x · · Score: 1

      If you are an English major and a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, there is no sound.

      Physicists define sound as compression waves traveling through a medium, like air. So a Physicist does not need an observer for the sound to exist. as long as the falling tree starts a series of compression waves in the compressible media around it (air, water, ground) there is sound.

    3. Re:What does sound have to do with it? by Bobb+Sledd · · Score: 1
      I challenge your definition of the word "sound" and "noise" and assert that you are mixing the terms:

      Dictionary.com says the definition of "sound":

      Def. 2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level. Merriam-Webster, "sound":

      1.c. mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing OK, then what about the word "noise":
      Dictionary.com again, "noise":

      Def. 2. a sound of any kind Merriam-Webster, "noise":
      Hmmm... the closest definition is:

      2.b. any sound that is undesired or interferes with one's hearing of something So, no mention of a detector other than only on the Merriam-Webster definition of "noise" might a detector be needed.... although that is subjective on whether you desire the sound of a tree falling. Otherwise, a "detector" is not necessary for sound to exist. Plainly, it is nothing more than vibration. Since it would seem impossible for a tree to fall without making vibrations, it *must* make a sound. Does it make a noise? That is dependent on your subjectiveness of the sound it makes at worst.

      Yes, I am being nitpicky. :-)
      --
      "They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
    4. Re:What does sound have to do with it? by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      Not so sure of that....

      Since what I know about I learned in both physics class and in the US Navy when I undertook SONAR training.

      I will agree that a pressure wave is a pressure wave, but does light make a sound? Depending on your POV it is either a wave or a particle, So if in the examination of light, if one considers it as a wave with a compression and rarifraction, a given frequency if you will, either as visible light or in the ultraviolet, visible or infrared spectrum, is it therefor a sound as well, or simply a pressure wave, or is it, as it has been commonly named in agreement for lo these many years, just light?

      I would think that "sound" is an organic principle since only organic beings, at least as far as I know, are the only things that can perceive it as such, because we have a sensor tat will translate those pressure waves into an electrical impulse that is then perceived by an organic processor, namely the brain.

      Suppose one sets up a transducer that has the capability of detecting, say the ultraviolet spectrum and then displays that spectrum on an oscilloscope. There is a medium, there must be even if light is traveling through space, their must be a source as the light exists and is detectable, it is perceived by the transducer and is shown to exist on the oscilloscope, but is it sound?

      I can only conclude that is must not be, but I could be wrong.

      I therefor conclude, that sound cannot exist, without an appropriate receiver that classifies it, as sound.


      Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum
      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
  54. Combustion instability is an old problem by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Combustion instability is an old problem with rocket engines. The Saturn V main engine had serious combustion instability problems, which were fixed by trial and error testing. The Apollo booster people had to resort to setting off small bombs inside engines on test stands to induce instability, then trying different patterns of holes in the plates the distributed fuel to find a stable configuration.

    The SR-71 engine had serious combustion instability. That, too, was fixed with something of a hack, an automated "sympathetic unstart" system which, when one engine had a stall, would stall the other one, then restart both.

    Better simulation tools in that area can't hurt. Not many big supersonic engines are designed any more. As Scott Crossfield pointed out just before he died a few years ago, every aircraft that went significantly over Mach 3 is now in a museum.

    1. Re:Combustion instability is an old problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old problem. Grumman and Bell rocket systems had significant resonance problems with the LM's Ascent engine (the one used to go from the surface of the moon back into Lunar Orbit) they eventually solved the problem with pure trial-and-error, with some help from the guys at Rocketdyne, in California. they ended up mixing and matching parts between two designs until the thing would run stable.

    2. Re:Combustion instability is an old problem by randyjparker · · Score: 2, Informative

      I worked on the SR-71 engine (the J-58, aka JT-11D) at Pratt & Whitney. The inlet unstart problem was not related to combustion instability, but to the difficulty of sealing the inlet spike shock to the nacelle lip as atmospheric conditions changed. You run into meteorological changes quickly when you're flying faster than a .50 caliber bullet. When the inlet shock did not meet the lip, some of the pressure behind the shock would "spill" out of the compressor and cause an engine flame-out. http://mobiledyne.com/about/j58

    3. Re:Combustion instability is an old problem by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      As Scott Crossfield pointed out just before he died a few years ago, every aircraft that went significantly over Mach 3 is now in a museum. There is little if any need now for piloted aircraft that can reach those speeds. Even as early as the 1960s, it was clear to everyone involved that guided missiles would obviate the need for supersonic manned bombers and other similar weapons systems. The mach 3+ reconnaissance aircraft survived somewhat longer in the form of the aforementioned SR-71 but even that eventually fell by the wayside as satellites and now remote piloted (and cheap) drones have replaced it too. The military value of tremendous speed, or speed that was both attainable and sustainable in a manned aircraft, has also been greatly diminished over time as missiles and radar systems have continued to improve so there is little incentive to reintroduce aircraft like the SR-71 which relied not on stealthiness but raw speed to outrun trouble in the form of antiquated (by the standards of today) soviet era air defense systems, not to mention that such systems are of limited utility in fighting enemies like Al-Qaeda and other non-state actors who don't have any air defenses to speak of anyway.
  55. My 2 cents by borat4president · · Score: 1

    Talking of rockets and waves, I was at the launch pad at the Baikonur cosmodrome on Tuesday and our crew almost got arrested for using Motorola walkie-talkies. They told us we had been interfering with telemetric systems and the live TV feed from the rocket.

  56. I Call It The "Dutch Oven" Effect by Skeetskeetskeet · · Score: 0

    Farting in an enclosed area under a quilt will result in the almost immediate destruction of any relationship.

    --
    Yeah, my karma sucks....but so do the mods.
  57. Somthing Wrong Here. was Re:Nothing new here by FlyingGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ok, before parent gets any farther this has to be de-bunked. Sound waves did not destroy the bridge. A sound wave, in any medium consists of a compression and a rarifraction ., that is a leading pressure wave followed by a area of lower pressure that propagate in a known fashion. The intensity of a sound wave obeys the inverse square law.

    What happened to the Tacoma Narrows Bride was caused be an error in aerodynamic calculations on the part of the design engineer. Air passing around the bridge deck acted exactly like air does when presented with a crude airfoil, it formed an area of low pressure leeward of the bridge deck and a low pressure area leeward and below the bridge deck. Th resulting high pressure and low pressure vectors imparted a twisting moment to the bridge deck.

    The twisting moment was resisted by the torsional rigidity of the bridge deck. This caused the deck to twist to and build torsional tension. The twisting caused the aerodynamic profile of the bridge deck to change. The resulting change allowed the bridge deck to revert back to its original shape and aerodynamic profile, rinse and repeat. Thus the repeated twisting caused enough of the riveted and bolted joints to fail which led to a cascade failure as the remaining joints failed under the bridges weight and twisting motion.

    This was not "low frequency sound waves" although the structures oscillations did cause some very low frequency sounds waves, it was destroyed by nothing more then bad aerodynamics.

    --
    Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    1. Re:Somthing Wrong Here. was Re:Nothing new here by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      This was not "low frequency sound waves" although the structures oscillations did cause some very low frequency sounds waves, it was destroyed by nothing more then bad aerodynamics.

      "As God as is my witness, I thought bridges could fly" -- The Engineer who designed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Somthing Wrong Here. was Re:Nothing new here by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IIRC engineers are still disputing the cause so I don't think the de-bunking is coming to a conclusion anytime soon. Yes, the mythbusters failed induce resonance when they tried, but they also failed to mention the Wobbly Bridge.

      The wave argument is that the "rinse and repeat" frequency just happened to be the same as the resonant frequency of the main bridge cables, this took the areodynamicly induced twisting motion and turned it into opposing waves of maximum amplitute along the two main cables. If you watch the video it's quite easy to see that the cables are indeed carrying waves.

      I accept that the deck of a suspension bridge is designed to move in the wind like tall buildings do, and also that bad areodynamics could easily induce a twisting of the deck in the right conditions. However it's a long bow to draw to say that the deck flapped itself to destruction in a 40mph wind while at the same time totally dismissing the compounding effects of resonance.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Somthing Wrong Here. was Re:Nothing new here by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      and also that bad areodynamics could easily induce a twisting of the deck in the right conditions.



      The point is that the problems don't end here - the twisting of the deck gives the wind a larger angle of attack, which leads to more twisting ... it's a positive feedback cycle which has nothing to do with the actual natural frequency of the bridge.


    4. Re:Somthing Wrong Here. was Re:Nothing new here by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "the twisting of the deck gives the wind a larger angle of attack, which leads to more twisting"

      I accept that. What I don't understand is how does that mechanisim rule out amplification by resonance, what makes you so sure?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Somthing Wrong Here. was Re:Nothing new here by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      What I don't understand is how does that mechanisim rule out amplification by resonance, what makes you so sure?



      The natural frequency (the one at which it is in resonance) can be determined, and it was different from the frequency the bridge actually oscillated at before is collapsed. The brigde may not have had enough damping at the latter frequency, but it wasn't the frequency at which it would have been in resonance.

    6. Re:Somthing Wrong Here. was Re:Nothing new here by Four_One_Nine · · Score: 1

      What happened to the Tacoma Narrows Bride was caused...

      I've been to weddings in Tacoma. There are NO narrow brides there.
      --
      I did it for Johnny.
    7. Re:Somthing Wrong Here. was Re:Nothing new here by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Even though the movement of the bridge was started by aerodynamics, the aerodynamic forces added energy with the same frequency at which the bridge swayed. Therefore, it was a resonance.

      I don't think changing the natural frequency would have helped since the frequency of the forces would have followed. Most of the time engineers observe resonant frequencies where the force frequency is not a function of the natural frequency of the object(like a building in an earthquake). The force frequency just happens to be close the the natural frequency of the object by coincidence. In the case of Tacoma Narrows the forces exerted on the bridge were a function of the bridge's natural frequency. Destruction was inevitable.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    8. Re:Somthing Wrong Here. was Re:Nothing new here by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "but it wasn't the frequency at which it would have been in resonance."

      My main point was and still is, engineers are still in disagrement so I don't know how you or I can come up with a definitive answer.

      Your answer is a leading theory but I have found no definite evidence that rules out the influence of other mechanisims. What I am essentially arguing is that there was more than one mechanisim at play and in my mind the waves in the cables (resonant or not) are evidence of one such mechanisim. Interestingly, if you watch the video after the first section falls, the remaining section immediately changes from a twisting motion to a classical wave with a smaller amplitude.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  58. Master Blaster by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Mysterious sound waves" like years of speeches by a lying president who cancels NASA programs, lies about a Mars mission, and instead converts NASA to Star Wars "missile defense"?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  59. No, those are not sound waves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those weren't sound waves. Waves on a jumprope aren't sound waves and neither were those on Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

    1. Re:No, those are not sound waves by SQLGuru · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the waves reach the ear drum and are interpreted, would they become sound? Sound is vibration through a medium that is perceived by something. If I make waves in a jump rope at the right frequency, I'm pretty sure I can hear it. Just because the device (human ear) isn't sensitive enough to detect it doesn't mean it isn't sound.

      Layne

  60. Coriolis Effect in Vortex Combustion by Baldrson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This racetrack instability is actually a well known problem with annular combustion chambers such as those used with the toroidal aerospike engine. One of the main virtues of vortex engines, like Orbital Technologies or the ultracentrifugal one invented by Roger Gregory and myself, is that the coriolis effect distorts the wave front sending it into the wall of the combustion chamber. In theory, at least, this should disrupt the resonance enough to prevent destructive standing waves. Experiments have not been conducted to test this theory yet to the best of my knowledge.

    1. Re:Coriolis Effect in Vortex Combustion by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      This racetrack instability is actually a well known problem with annular combustion chambers such as those used with the toroidal aerospike engine. One of the main virtues of vortex engines, like Orbital Technologies or the ultracentrifugal one invented by Roger Gregory and myself, is that the coriolis effect distorts the wave front sending it into the wall of the combustion chamber. In theory, at least, this should disrupt the resonance enough to prevent destructive standing waves.

      Experiments have not been conducted to test this theory yet to the best of my knowledge. Pretty much any adaptation which broke the circularity of any of the problem designs would work, no? Graphite vanes, a la V2 steering, only farther up the bell. Grooves down the length of an aerospike. Injectors in the bell which shoot the fuel/oxidizer at alternating angles with pseudo-randomly (slightly) different pressures. Or even building in just enough pogo oscillation to disrupt it. Of course these are just hacks on the present designs, not new designs which address the problem. The hybrids I've seen have all had a pogo effect of sorts, farting their way up. Any idea if they suffer from this problem at all?
      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    2. Re:Coriolis Effect in Vortex Combustion by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      I was wondering, If there is this much force coming via acoustical waves, there must be a way to harness it. maybe by etching spirals (with some kind of downward lip) into the cyclinder we can force those waves out in a straight usable manner?

      I know that sound waves do have the ability to be directed, and reflected, but at what point can those deflections become useful energy?

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  61. Destructive sound waves by zymano · · Score: 0

    Emanates from 'American Idol' and the mouths of annoying redneck singers Miley Cyrus and Jessica Simpson.

  62. Ex-Rocket Scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been a problem since the start of rockets. When I used to make them in the 1980's and 90's, we used to call it a ballistic or acoustic "anomaly". Shows how much we knew by how we characterized it. All we knew was that is was rocket design-specific and had something to do with the internal physical configuration and burn profile. We also knew it could be a sure death to a program since there were no known ways to eliminate it. (Although I think some used anti-resonance rods in the old days.) Trial and error sometimes worked, but that's how all rocket motors are developed to some extent! Sometimes your lucky; sometime not.

  63. Odd solution by Wowsers · · Score: 1

    What they need is an Oddball at launches to demand people stop sending out "negative waves".

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
  64. The sound is called .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Cosmic Fart.

    or

    Moby Dick (as in 'Thar she blows!')

  65. blue box in the control room? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sonic Screwdriver? I THINK SO!

  66. Finally, vindication! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    For you see, I am a professional acoustician, and now I have PROOF that playing with sound IS rocket science!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  67. Broken link by TapeCutter · · Score: 1
    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  68. Harmonics by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    I'm not a rocket scientist, but I think they call it harmonic oscillation. Everything has a resonant frequency, hit it and it will "blow up". Think of the glass shattering in the Memorex commercials.

    1. Re:Harmonics by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Once the dB level of sound starts to approach that which is experienced in the engine of a rocket, it isn't even resonance anymore, it's just plain extreme force.

      It generally takes about 110dB to shatter a wine glass via oscillation, but it isn't direct exposure to the pressure that causes that.

      Depending on the quality, glass will begin to shatter above 160-165 dB, independant of its resonant frequency. Of course, if you are dealing with flexible glass, that value will increase.

      It is quite possible to have a sound wave impact with enough force on a specific area in a rocket engine to cause enough fatigue which will result in a failure without actually resonating.

      So why is this news? Because depending on the atmospheric pressure, once you get above 194 dB, the soundwave becomes distorted, it would be difficult enough to model a soundwave in a motionless, inactive engine, but I can't even begin to comprehend how complex the modeling must be of an engine that is generating sound waves in excess of 200dB in such an extreme and dynamic environment.

      That they are able to model this is amazing.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    2. Re:Harmonics by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Once the dB level of sound starts to approach that which is experienced in the engine of a rocket, it isn't even resonance anymore, it's just plain extreme force.
      Yeah, at some point, regardless of harmonics, it's a big ol' pressure wave, commonly known as an explosion.
  69. Shuttle launches and Gatornationals... by kcdoodle · · Score: 1

    Living in Florida, I have seen the Shuttle launch a few times in person.

    From about 7 miles away, that thing literally "shakes the sky".

    I also like auto racing. The Gatornationals are drag races which include those Nitrous burning funny cars and dragsters. You can get 20 feet away from them down by the fence when they launch. Now those things do not just "shake the sky" --- THE SHAKE YOU. It feels like the dang time-space continuum is being warped and you are too. It is absolutely worth the price of admission (bring earplugs).

    So those sound waves getting destructive really are a serious issue!

    --

    - I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
  70. This is a slashdot story! by number6x · · Score: 1

    Reading this story and the linked article at Georgia Tech made me flash back about 10 years to when I first discovered Slashdot.

    Great article, classic Slashdot!

  71. Why stop the waves? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    I know TFA is about the imaging technique using a simulator... but now that they can analyze the problem... why not see it as a happy accident and attempt to harness the energy that is causing the problems?

    Maybe in addition to finding a way to stop the pressure waves they should also be looking for a way to enhance them and direct them... preferably in a way that creates additional propulsion or possibly a standing wave of some sort.... would be really cool if this led to a method of hovering... the military would love that, rockets that could station keep in mid-air waiting for the right time to strike.

    For the rest of us, speeder bikes here we come, w00t

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  72. I DID IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look! It's a rocket!

    BRRREEAAAAAAK!!!!!!!!!! JYNX!!!!!!! heh heh .... stupid rocket.

  73. favorite past time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My favorite pass time is recording records, remember them?, that would break my friend's latest hifi record player.

  74. Rock-based missle defense by philspear · · Score: 1

    I'm probably not the only one who realizes what this means: we can defend ourselves against nuclear war with the power of ROCK AND ROLL!

  75. Klingon by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    Sonic Disruptors next?

    Or, can we mount it on a Humvee, and call it mass extraordinary interrogation?

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  76. Could be useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like these oscillations if harnessed for good could increase the thrust of engines.

  77. I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a graduate student studying acoustics, i'm surprised that this is a new discovery. They're pumping a lot of energy into a cylindrical cavity and getting azimuthal modes. Maybe its a poorly written article and the point is not the waves but the modeling techniques. Either way, i was under the impression that GA Tech has some knowledgeable professors doing research in acoustics. I hope that they're yelling at the rocket scientists for this publication.

  78. Might actually be a usable phenomenon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems from what's known about it now, it's destructive. But if better understood, what's to keep engineers from making it actually do something useful? Might be a way to design a resonance chamber to pump fuel or something like that.

    Also understanding the phenomenon in more detail is likely to help designers of ramjets and valveless pulse jets. I'd even take a guess that the latter depends on this phenomena to actually work in the first place.

  79. Why get rid of the sound waves? by Velocir · · Score: 1

    If you propagate and direct them outside of the missile, you get a stripe of sonic destruction! :]

  80. Standing Waves? by Mike610544 · · Score: 1

    Is the problem simply that waves of a certain frequency reinforce when bouncing back and forth between the walls of the rocket engine? Art Garfunkle and former president James Taylor had a similar problem while recording. They installed some bass traps in the corners and made sure there were no parallel surfaces ... But I'm sure you Slashdotters could care less about our resort town ways.

    --
    ... also, I can kill you with my brain.
  81. Werner von Braun noise by GastonTheTruck · · Score: 1

    Just to make it funny again.

  82. In other news... by obeythefist · · Score: 1

    The RIAA has initiated court action against the US Department of Defense for unauthorised reproduction of a copyrighted work...

    --
    I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  83. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... After changing your trousers, of course.