Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Have Discovered a Shape That Blocks All Sound (fastcompany.com)

Scientists have developed an "acoustic meta-material" that can catch certain frequencies passing through the air and reflect them back toward their source. When a loudspeaker was placed into one end of a PVC pipe with a 3D-printed ring of the metamaterial, the ring "cut 94% of the sound blasting from the speaker, enough to make it inaudible to the human ear," reports Fast Company. From the report: Typical acoustic paneling works differently, absorbing sound and turning the vibrations into heat. But what's particularly trippy is that this muffler is completely open. Air and light can travel through it -- just sound cannot. The implications for architecture and interior design are remarkable, because these metamaterials could be applied to the built environment in many different ways. For instance, they could be stacked to build soundproof yet transparent walls. Cubicles will never be the same.

The researchers also believe that HVAC systems could be fitted with these silencers, and drones could have their turbines muted with such rings. Even in MRI machines, which can be harrowingly loud for patients trapped in a small space, could be quieted. There's really no limit to the possibilities, but it does sound like these silencers will need to be tailored to circumstance. "The idea is that we can now mathematically design an object that can blocks the sounds of anything," says Boston University professor Xin Zhang, in a press release.
You can see a demo of the noise cancellation device here.

179 comments

  1. What about flow restrictions? by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If it lets through normal air flow, can it be used for engine exhausts?

    1. Re:What about flow restrictions? by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Informative

      rtfa: yes it allows air flow.

    2. Re:What about flow restrictions? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      If it lets through normal air flow, can it be used for engine exhausts?

      Not just exhausts, but intakes too. Intakes often have all kinds of stupid silencer junk. And I just replaced a turbo silencer with a straight pipe and now when I get on it the Sprinter sounds like it's in a field of crickets because of turbo noise. I replaced it because it came apart at the seam, but if it were round then it wouldn't need a seam.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:What about flow restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or in those open-back headphones. I can already see the advertisement: "Sound quality so high it's going Meta!"

    4. Re:What about flow restrictions? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Honda fart cans!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:What about flow restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they can make lipstick from this material

    6. Re:What about flow restrictions? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The sound is reflected, it doesn't just disappear. The echo chamber inside your engine could experience some undesirable effects from all the resonance if the sound does not find somewhere else to radiate out from.

    7. Re:What about flow restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the paper only shows 13dB max attenuation at a single frequency.
      You could use it after a regular muffler to knock down a horrible resonance.

    8. Re:What about flow restrictions? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      You just have to get larger muffler bearings and tune the oscillating resonator...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:What about flow restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These newly discovered "meta-materials" are hardly new. Military stealth technology relies on "meta-materials" and precise mathematically calculated shapes to both absorb or reflect a wide range of signals the aircraft may encounter.

    10. Re:What about flow restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Align the deflector shields, I don't want any exhaust noise to get through!

    11. Re:What about flow restrictions? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      engine exhausts yeah and .. I guess there's some designs like that in some cars tail ends already.

      what I'm more skeptical about is turbines and drones and such. as sound is generated on the airflow hitting the outside air anyways. and input side.

      and surely if it worked for that well right now, they would have used that as a demo instead of a speaker. just silence a lawnmower or something.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:What about flow restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and market it to politicians.

      Captcha: stinker

    13. Re:What about flow restrictions? by aix+tom · · Score: 2

      And don't forget to reverse the polarity!

    14. Re:What about flow restrictions? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      You must first bounce the graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    15. Re:What about flow restrictions? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      If it lets through normal air flow, can it be used for engine exhausts?

      * looks at aftermarket muffler industry *

      Uh, it doesn't look like people want to actually quiet that product...

    16. Re:What about flow restrictions? by geekmux · · Score: 0

      Or in those open-back headphones.

      You are aware that we have these products that already resolve that problem, right?

      Strangely enough, they're called closed-back headphones.

      Also, in a word? Earbuds.

    17. Re:What about flow restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, some consumers would buy those 800EUR earbuds of undetermined sound quality, but not everybody wants to use their personalized earwax collectors at home or studio. I do suspect the design framework for acoustic meta-materials which is lingering between the lines of the submission could be used to enhance the quality of even the smallest in-ear headphones.

    18. Re:What about flow restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the report, cubicle walls are the first considered target application. After that, HVAC, MRI and drones! I guess engines don't make much sound.

      I have a better list:

      the secretary's mouth in my dept
      harley motorcycles
      fat mufflers (should be illegal to begin with)
      juicers
      blenders
      coffee grinders
      factory machinery such as looms
      heavy equipment
      any worksite where there is a sign "hearing protection required past this point"
      squeeking wheel in dining hall food tray carts when I have a fever

    19. Re: What about flow restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the way you do things, lads.

      Make sure you say "Shut up, Wesley" if he gets in your face.

    20. Re:What about flow restrictions? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      If it lets through normal air flow, can it be used for engine exhausts?

      * looks at aftermarket muffler industry *

      Uh, it doesn't look like people want to actually quiet that product...

      One of the articles I read said it doesn't allow sound through- by reflecting the sound back. So if the muffler isn't making sound on the outside- and the sound is reflected back- that means the sound will likely be louder to the people inside the car.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    21. Re:What about flow restrictions? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      The sound is reflected, it doesn't just disappear. The echo chamber inside your engine could experience some undesirable effects from all the resonance if the sound does not find somewhere else to radiate out from.

      So you didn't RTFA. If you did, you wouldn't post a comment like this.

      The basic premise is that the metamaterial needs to be shaped in such a way that it sends incoming sounds back to where they came from, they say.

    22. Re:What about flow restrictions? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Yeah. 94% reduction sounds like a lot, but when you realize we hear loudness on a logarithmic scale, it's significant, but not that impressive.
      I can easily get a conventional sound attenuator for ductwork that reduces noise by 13 dB or more in the frequencies of speech and higher (lower frequencies are harder), and I won't have to know the frequency ahead of time to tune it.

    23. Re:What about flow restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the way we do things, lad, we're making shit up as we wish

    24. Re:What about flow restrictions? by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      No. Not all the people in the car. Just the ones inside the exhaust pipe. But, who cares about them anyway?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    25. Re:What about flow restrictions? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      The sound is reflected, it doesn't just disappear. The echo chamber inside your engine could experience some undesirable effects from all the resonance if the sound does not find somewhere else to radiate out from.

      So you didn't RTFA. If you did, you wouldn't post a comment like this.

      The basic premise is that the metamaterial needs to be shaped in such a way that it sends incoming sounds back to where they came from, they say.

      Yeah, that's what reflected means. It's going to bounce off whatever it came from, maybe back the same way again and it will run out of energy after a few trips but it's probably not going to reflect directly back and could go off any way depending on what's producing the sound in the first place.

      Sending it down a tube is one thing, there's only one way to go but try it in a complex machine and see what happens.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    26. Re:What about flow restrictions? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      According to the report, cubicle walls are the first considered target application. After that, HVAC, MRI and drones! I guess engines don't make much sound.

      I have a better list:

      the secretary's mouth in my dept harley motorcycles fat mufflers (should be illegal to begin with) juicers blenders coffee grinders factory machinery such as looms heavy equipment any worksite where there is a sign "hearing protection required past this point" squeeking wheel in dining hall food tray carts when I have a fever

      It's not a magic thing you can put on something to make it quiet. If it was there would a huge market in childcare.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    27. Re:What about flow restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. 94% reduction sounds like a lot, but when you realize we hear loudness on a logarithmic scale, it's significant, but not that impressive.

      What's more, that's a 94% reduction at one frequency, 460 Hz. It doesn't work much outside that frequency.

    28. Re: What about flow restrictions? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should try a dictionary. The definition of "reflect" should be in there, even if the word "gullible" is not.

    29. Re:What about flow restrictions? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Here's a handy video that shows you how to service your muffle bearings.
      Best muffler bearings.

  2. Make sure to test it on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...a bawling kid at night in an airplane at 35,000ft.
    If you could blot _that_ out I'd be well impressed.

    1. Re:Make sure to test it on... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...a bawling kid at night in an airplane at 35,000ft.
      If you could blot _that_ out I'd be well impressed.

      Ya, but stuffing a kid into a PVC pipe might be going a bit too far, unless, of course, you're on United.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Make sure to test it on... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 0, Troll

      I was wondering whether you could get one to fit Trump's mouth, but then I remembered that it's his tiny hands that you'd really want to shut up.

    3. Re: Make sure to test it on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would prefer to show the mother and her spawn out the door- at 35,000 feet.

    4. Re:Make sure to test it on... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      Please can we have these installed in shopping centers, lifts, waiting rooms, ... where the owners think it good to blast people there with people cat-a-wailing. I don't like it, many others also do not call it music.

      I am stuck in a hotel that had this racket assaulting me when I went down for breakfast. I was told ''Oh, we can't switch that off.''. I'm going to stay somewhere else the next time that I am in this area.

      Noise pollution: a plague of our times.

    5. Re: Make sure to test it on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, at your apparent age your hearing should be going any day now.

    6. Re: Make sure to test it on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would also mean you could properly spread your fat ass onto their seats when they were gone. They'd probably rather jump out than sit next to you anyway.

    7. Re:Make sure to test it on... by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      > ...a bawling kid at night in an airplane at 35,000ft
      > If you could blot _that_ out I'd be well impressed.

      Some airlines are proud to offer convenient, complimentary child muzzles.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    8. Re: Make sure to test it on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boeing has a solution! See 737max8

    9. Re:Make sure to test it on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why his mouth? Trump does all his talking out of his ass.

    10. Re:Make sure to test it on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      caterwauling - I guess autocorrect couldn't get there from "cat-a-wailing" :-)

  3. And guns, a new and more effective siliencer? by lcreech · · Score: 1

    That's the first application that come to mind.

    1. Re:And guns, a new and more effective siliencer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd be bulky AF. It'd do "something" but in a silencer you have a lot of high velocity gas that has to get baffled either way. Also it has a certain frequency range based on the size/design. You'd need a pretty long one in addition to regular baffles.

      Not a great application at all.

    2. Re:And guns, a new and more effective siliencer? by PPH · · Score: 1

      ATF here. Do you have a dog?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:And guns, a new and more effective siliencer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I don't have "a dog".
      I have 5 Great Danes, 2 Pit Bulls, 4 German Shepherds, 3 Rottweilers and 2 Cane Corsos.
      They guard my compound very well.

      Want to come over ATF?

    4. Re:And guns, a new and more effective siliencer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Predator drone will be over shortly.

    5. Re:And guns, a new and more effective siliencer? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      I have 5 Great Danes, 2 Pit Bulls, 4 German Shepherds, 3 Rottweilers and 2 Cane Corsos

      (In your best Australian accent) That's not a dog. This is a dog.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:And guns, a new and more effective siliencer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's rpg time, thanks for the heads up.

    7. Re:And guns, a new and more effective siliencer? by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 2

      Expecting a dire wolf. Was not disappointed.

    8. Re: And guns, a new and more effective siliencer? by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

      Poor doggie is sick; I has a sad.

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    9. Re:And guns, a new and more effective siliencer? by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

      I don't think that empties the magazine on a Glock 19, and especially not on a MP5 or an M4 rifle.

      All dogs do is give the cops target practice.

  4. You invented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sound dampening.

  5. That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2

    They are tuned to reflect the exhaust back at the piston to increase the compression... At least in model airplane engines that used alcohol. Haven't seen one of those in a while though.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone needs to explain the difference between hot exhaust and sound waves I guess.

    2. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Yeah I guess moving air doesn't create sound, which makes the use of a muffler on the exhaust kind of puzzling.
      What is the purpose of the muffler on an exhaust?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    3. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They are tuned to reflect the exhaust back at the piston to increase the compression...

      IME they're tuned to do the opposite, they produce vacuum so as to better scavenge the exhaust. But maybe they do both?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by BoogieChile · · Score: 2

      It stops the exhaust catching a cold

    5. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reflecting sound and reflecting air are two different things. Start there, then once you've got the basic concept, you can talk about making mufflers or whatever you want. Once you understand it's not blocking air to block sound, that is.

    6. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by thrich81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hope you aren't being snarky back to the AC (who deserves it) so I don't subsequently look like a moron in what follows, but on the off chance you aren't... The exhaust from a piston engine consists of high pressure, very hot bursts of gas at the exhaust ports. Hot, high pressure, and bursty going into relatively cool outside air -- perfect combination to create a lot of sound. Exhaust manifolds and mufflers combine and smooth out the exhaust bursts to create a smoother flowing, more uniform in time exhaust flow resulting in less noise. There are all kinds of pressure and flow reflections in a good exhaust system to help scavenge the exhaust gases during the exhaust stroke and reduce noise. Even a smooth flow is loud if it is fast and hot enough -- as exemplified by jet engine exhaust, which (I think) makes its noise from turbulent mixing in itself and with the outside air.

    7. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Oh I see. It must be another one of those unreliable wikipedia pages.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    8. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exhaust is tuned to scavenge, intake is tuned to increase pressure.

    9. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's the delta between the ambient air pressure and the pressure out of the nozzle that makes the noise, the drag is basically cavitation at a higher pitch due to medium. If tailwinded, the sound barrier speed goes up too.

    10. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unreliable part is your understanding of the words vis a vis posting that link to make your case without making one. Not the words. Words are quite reliable. You're a moron.

      Rushing gasses make sound, but there is a difference between stopping them from flowing and stopping sound waves generally using acoustic trapping, reflecting, or other pressure-resonant techniques, not mere limiting.

      Keep reading and see if the two concepts peel apart in your mind, as you find out how they're related in some applications but not the same thing. Good luck.

    11. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by _merlin · · Score: 1

      He's describing an expansion chamber exhaust system used on two-stroke engines with open ports. There's a brief period when both the inlet and exhaust ports are open. The exhaust system is designed so that, at a chosen engine speed, the exhaust pulse from the previous power combustion is reflected back, reducing the amount of unburned air/fuel mixture passing out the exhaust port and improving compression. See the description and animation on the relevant Wikipedia page.

    12. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_flow - And this is what you should have posted anyway.

    13. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Sorry, still don't see it. You must be the same guy who thinks the speed of the hammer has something to do with the glass breaking.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    14. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you aren't being snarky back to the AC

      Pretty sure he was.

    15. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Sorry, still don't see it. You must be the same guy who thinks the speed of the hammer has something to do with the glass breaking.

      The sound is vibrations within the medium. You are talking about reflecting the medium itself. The sound involved is irrelevant in that regard.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    16. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      See the description and animation on the relevant Wikipedia page.

      Wikipedia is cool, but there's more under heaven and earth than is imagined in their philosophy. The exhaust is tuned both to promote scavenging and to increase compression.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why the airflow in a pipe can't exceed the speed of sound.

    18. Re:That sounds like a two-stroke exhaust by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There are all kinds of pressure and flow reflections in a good exhaust system to help scavenge the exhaust gases during the exhaust stroke and reduce noise.

      Mostly to reduce noise. Scavenging is generally facilitated in just two places, in the header and in the H/X cross pipe... And inline engines don't have the cross pipe.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. BS article and summary by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a band reject filter, been used in acoustics for around 100 years. A narrow-band Helmholtz radiator that cuts ~1/30th of an octave in bandwidth. So it's great for a specific tone - but not broadband. And the dimensions of the elements (neck diameter, neck length, size of constrained volume) are proportional to wavelength, so what works in the demo at 1 kHz is massive at 100 Hz - and beyond house-sized at 20 Hz. This is just someone going "oh wow they can notch out a single frequency think about the impact!" when acoustics NVH guys have been doing it for 10 decades...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:BS article and summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, -94% (aka 6%, aka -12 dB by everyone that's not retarded) is not "enough to make it inaudible to the human ear" unless you started out as quiet as "Light leaf rustling, calm breathing" (10 dB).

      If something wants to claim to make sound "inaudible to the human ear," it really needs to at least -120 dB (aka -99.9999999999% for dummies).

    2. Re:BS article and summary by oic0 · · Score: 1

      I was wondering how they could cover a broad range of frequencies with a donut and read the article looking for any mention of frequencies. Nada.

    3. Re:BS article and summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      6% is 16.6 times = 24.4 dB, but agree - nowhere makes anything inaudible.

      120dB is a million times, only -99.9999% - but again, you are correct - you need this level of damping to acheive "inaudible"

    4. Re:BS article and summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a little better than grandpa's acoustic notch filter... https://journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.024302

      "Finally, in order to experimentally validate the performance of the UOM structure, a UOM has been designed with the aim of silencing sound with a frequency near 460 Hz and therefore, was fabricated with dimensions of t=5.2, r1 = 5.1, r2=7cm and =8.2. Please note that the overall size of the fabricated UOM herein is deep subwavelength in nature and, for instance, the UOM’s thickness approximates .07 whereas at 460 Hz approximates 74.5 cm"

      It is however no coincidence that the length of the metamaterial helixes is roughly half a wavelength.

      But they correctly point out that in many applications that call for noise silencing, the noise is narrowband and harmonics (i.e. fan, turbine, engine exhaust) such that the ability to remove it this way with a highly open filter would be valuable.

      It would be interesting to compare this to the acoustic equivalent of a comb filter.

    5. Re:BS article and summary by oic0 · · Score: 1

      I don't know squat about acoustics. Can you modify frequency with physical structures? Like a frequency doubler?

    6. Re:BS article and summary by jandjmh · · Score: 1

      Yep, Put some pink noise on that speaker instead of a pure tone, and I bet you could barely hear the range that was notched out.

    7. Re:BS article and summary by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

      Came here to say that. Should be top post.

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    8. Re: BS article and summary by javaman235 · · Score: 1

      So only taking out one band does little, but cant mufflers be designed as a trumpet? You basically blow a mess of noise resembling a tone into one end, and it adds its energy to a single tone via standing wave in tube out the other end. It must direct all energy into that output, there is no way a trumpet is a bandpass filter, since the output tone sounds so much louder than the input, let alone the input muted through a bandpass filter.

      Right?

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    9. Re:BS article and summary by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      their demo video uses "microphone voltage".
      0.05 with their damper and 0.25 without.

      also the article quite clearly speaks of needing modelling for different sounds so it's not "any sound" but that it can be tuned for "any frequency".

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    10. Re:BS article and summary by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      Maybe, but it ain't going to help in an MRI scanner. Whoever said that simply does not understand where the noise in an MRI scanner comes from.

    11. Re:BS article and summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, -94% (aka 6%, aka -12 dB by everyone that's not retarded) is not "enough to make it inaudible to the human ear" unless you started out as quiet as "Light leaf rustling, calm breathing" (10 dB).

      10 dB is equal to light leaf rustling? I kind of doubt that. I can't seem to get my "quiet" house to measure anything less than twice that while holding my breath, and I don't have trees shedding leaves in my living room...

    12. Re:BS article and summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you do an analysis on the video (link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd1D42dVxS0) you can see it's a 457Hz signal, no other harmonics. This makes me think the poster above is right, this is over-hyped BS

    13. Re:BS article and summary by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      The shape is a little more convenient than a Helmholz resonator for making a ventilating barrier.

    14. Re:BS article and summary by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      According to the math it will work for harmonics, presumably the open area will represent an upper limit for that though.

    15. Re:BS article and summary by jbengt · · Score: 2

      Your numbers are for the amplitude of the sound wave. I'm assuming they're talking about sound power or sound pressure, since we hear sound pressure, not amplitude. In that case:
      10^(dB/10) converts from dB to a multiplier of sound pressure.
      10* log10(P1/P0) converts from a multiplier of sound pressure to dB.
      -10 dB reduction results in 10% of the sound.
      -20 dB reduction results in 1%.
      Assuming a 94% reduction means a reduction to 6% of the original sound, we're talking around -12 dB, which is significant, but not a huge reduction in sound. The human ear has the ability to hear across a remarkable range in intensities.

    16. Re: BS article and summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is not actually much blowing going on with a trumpet. The loudness is due to resonance. The buzzing of the lips is not a mess of noise resembling a tone, it is at or close to the harmonics of the instrument. There is also no noise going into the trumpet since the sound is produced by the lips.

    17. Re:BS article and summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Shape That Blocks All Sound !!! ... can catch certain frequencies ...

    18. Re:BS article and summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Article author here--that "inaudible to the human ear" claim was from the researchers who experienced it first hand. Perhaps it doesn't mean silent, per se, but that they no longer noticed it.

    19. Re: BS article and summary by javaman235 · · Score: 1

      Iâ(TM)ve played trumpet a little though, the tone is chosen by the keys you press with lip tension choosing something like fifth or octave, so to be clear, the trumpet enforces a tone. What youâ(TM)re saying though is the resonance enforces the lips to vibrate at said tone, so if you tried it with engine, the resonance would actually be screwing up and working against engine?

      If so, I wonder if you could make a trombone muffler, that resonates with engine rpm.

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
  7. The shape of a husband's ear? by Jason+Straight · · Score: 4, Funny

    Works for me.

  8. NSFW by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm not sure of the name of the shape, but when we were younger, my wife could sit on my face so that I couldn't breathe... nowadays, I can't hear the stereo.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  9. With 3d printing, peer review should be easy by oic0 · · Score: 1

    Put up or shut up. File your patent and post the STL. I'll test it in a few hours lol.

  10. HVAC by darkain · · Score: 1

    Screw HVAC, can I please get this in the data center !?!?

    1. Re:HVAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw HVAC, can I please get this in the data center !?!?

      Screw HVAC, can I please get this in the data center !?!?

      How about this?
      Between 1U servers spaces put about 1/2" assemblies that are essentially solid plates of aluminum that water runs through. Attach it to your buildings cooling loop, so it pulls from cold and pushes into hot likely with the aid of a pump, if needed. 2/3rds of the year the heat pushed in place just helps heat the building.

      Redesign all your 1U servers to conduction cool. The servers should include a screw design such that the server height grows slightly when screwed in to friction fit. In practice almost everything will have to cool from the bottom plate, though some things like drives might cool from the top plate, which is the bottom plate of the next server. Add in cards might cool from the top plate.

      At any rate it all seems doable, thought he cost might be significantly more.

    2. Re: HVAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up fat ass

    3. Re: HVAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck all that. Submerge your gear in Fluorinert and hear nothing.

    4. Re: HVAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck all that. Submerge your gear in Fluorinert and hear nothing.

      The advantage to the conduction cooling approach is you could replace a server in 5 minutes, and not deal with a massive amount of mess, since the liquid cooling would be a permanent part of the racks, not the servers. That particular chemical appears to have a high global warming potential and wikipedia suggested not touching it.

      Conduction cooling is useful, just more expensive and harder to repair. You could add mineral oil or flourinert to the main server part, and turn it sideways, with the cooling plates also sideways, but that would also be more expensive and harder to repair, though you might be able to bump up your clock speed a bit...

  11. GET OFF MY LAWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally! You young kids with your loud music and your hula hoops...I can finally be rid of your noise noise noise! HA!

  12. Oh! I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cone of silence!

  13. Over what range of wavelengths? by Can'tNot · · Score: 2

    The article doesn't mention the limitations of this, but I'd expect that it would only work over a fairly narrow range of wavelengths. And the way it's designed doesn't seem to allow for the use of multiple rings calibrated for different wavelengths...

    That said, high pitched sounds are easy to block with (relatively) thin insulation. If this could be made to block the lower end of the spectrum, without the large amount of insulation which that normally requires, I could picture this as being a nice development. Or if you have a mono-toned source of noise, like in the demo. I don't think that's very common though.

    1. Re:Over what range of wavelengths? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it reflects the soundwaves back though, so you'll still need insulation somewhere on the box...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Over what range of wavelengths? by Can'tNot · · Score: 1

      I had assumed destructive interference, though this only works in one direction. So yeah, you'd still need some insulation. I dunno, I'm struggling to see a use case for this.

  14. Here is the actual information by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Informative

    *sigh*

    Since the editor and submitter didn't do it,

    here is the BU research alert, which includes an image of the new material, and

    here is a link to the published paper, from which you can get a DOI number if you want to read about their work.

    The acoustic suppressor looks like thick a 3-d printed bushing.

  15. Block snoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sound of my snoring goes from my bedroom, into the bedrooms of the guy upstairs, and the family next door. I need a way to block that sound.

    If I could put some of that "acoustic meta-material" on the ceiling and wall of my bedroom, and block my snoring sound, that would be great. Hopefully the material blocks the frequency of snoring.

    1. Re:Block snoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No unfortunately it blocks all sound, but snoring. It actually amplifies snoring. It's one of the limitation of this tech. Sorry.

  16. Re: Not only is that completely bullshit, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe, but her ass was amazing!

  17. Flying Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the major hurtles with flying cars is the amount of noise generated during VTOL maneuvers.

  18. Link to the paper by paazin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's the paper published in Phys. Rev. B 99 in case anyone is interested: https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.024302

    1. Re:Link to the paper by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 3

      The third images from the preview indicates that there is only dampening by 14 dB. This doesn't seem like much.

      If this works by reflection, is it even possible to stack more of these in several layers to achieve higher dampening (because the layers would themselves reflect the sound)?

    2. Re:Link to the paper by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If this works by reflection, is it even possible to stack more of these in several layers to achieve higher dampening

      Directly stack? Probably not. To put several in the same pipe? Probably, but there are likely practical limits on how close they can be to one another and still function.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clickbait.

  20. Helical tuned sound absorbers? by misnohmer · · Score: 2

    Sounds like a helical version of this: http://www.deicon.com/tuned-ac...

  21. Re:if a creimer is stuck in the door frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    No, that's your epic butthurt.

  22. Re: Not only is that completely bullshit, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not a her.

  23. Broken record by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    So, theoretically, if one were to wrap one's wife in this material, then he wouldn't be able to hear her insist that he take the garbage out during the 4th period of the Warrior-Rockets game?

    Asking for a friend.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Broken record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can take your wife out instead.
      Just remember, plastic wives go in the blue bin, all other wives go in the green bin.

    2. Re:Broken record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, if you left her in it for 3 minutes you'd probably never hear from her again.

      Sadly, it's frequency specific so it won't help with, say, the sound of police sirens.

    3. Re:Broken record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take it out at halftime you mope!

  24. The hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could it block very low frequencies ? Under 50 hertz

  25. Oh, really? by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 3, Informative

    Only for extremely small values of "All".

    Scientists Have Discovered a Shape That Blocks All Sound

    No they haven't. At least, not according to the linked video in the article. It quieted it down quite a bit, but I could still hear it EASILY with the ring in place. It wasn't inaudible, not even CLOSE. Since they didn't put a ring of the same dimensions and material but in the shape of a simple, smooth, right, regular cylinder with a right, regular, cylindrical hole through it, centered and along the same axis as the material cylinder, (just like the "magic" ring but without the magic shape on the end,) while the speaker was generating the same sound at the same volume, to COMPARE it with. At least, that is, not in THAT video.

    So this really is a non-story. Even if it quiets it quite a bit, it also occupies a LOT of the space, which RESTRICTS airflow, and likely adds a good bit of weight. (Imagine how big, thick, and therefore HEAVY it would have to be to fit the inner diameter of a big turbofan engine on a jet aircraft!) Then the output would need one too, and I understand the exhaust is pretty warm on one of those things, or at least can be. That may cause additional engineering challenges and cost, either of which could easily end up being insurmountable.

    By the way, reflecting sound energy doesn't DESTROY it. It's ENERGY. Even if it DID work and DIDN'T add too much weight, and DIDN'T occlude the flow of air into and out of the engine to an extent that makes the plane unable even to take off under its own power, AND heat from the engine's exhaust wasn't a problem, etc., then the SOUND ENERGY being reflected INTO the engine will cause it to heat up even more. What are you going to do with all that extra heat? It's a LOT of noise, (and therefore, likely, a LOT of HEAT). Oh, and you're going to need a pair of these rings for EACH engine. How much weight will the required additional cooling cost? So you obviously will need much bigger, much more powerful (and noisier) engines. That will necessitate even bigger, thicker, sturdier rings, which will cause additional heat buildup... ETC.

    If you're wondering how MUCH heat, well, it's actually pretty easy to work it out. Have you ever stood anywhere near a big turbofan jet engine, operating at, or at least near full power? Now imagine having to reproduce that sound, that same volume of noise, the same intensity... and while producing the same note, with a SPEAKER system. How big of an amplifier, in terms of Watts, would you need to do that? THAT'S how much sound power, (assuming you are somehow reflecting ALL of it,) we're talking about here. That much power is going to get trapped at BOTH ends of this hypothetical muffled engine. Where TF is it going to GO?

    I see this tech as largely an interesting oddity, and will most likely come to nothing of any particular significance whatsoever in the world. Now maybe it MIGHT have some terrestrial applications, but don't look for this to be on aircraft anytime soon... that's my prediction.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    1. Re:Oh, really? by FauxReal · · Score: 1

      Yeah it sounds like existing tuned acoustic absorber concepts. http://www.deicon.com/tuned-ac...

    2. Re:Oh, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Along time ago, scientists found a mass-less invisible 'substance' that blocks all sound of all frequencies at 100%.

    3. Re:Oh, really? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      The energy would go where most of the energy in fuel goes period, heat. It's not like a turbofan is short of cooling air flow.

    4. Re:Oh, really? by Musical_Joe · · Score: 1

      don't look for this to be on aircraft anytime soon... that's my prediction.

      My understanding of the phenomenon - which may well be wrong - is that it is already being used in acoustic dampening around aircraft engines, at least according to Wikipedia which says:

      "Helmholtz resonators are also used to build acoustic liners for reducing the noise of aircraft engines, for example"

  26. Not the HVAC... by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

    The everpresent hum of central AC is very calming. As long as the outdoor temperature isn't expected to drop below 55, I turn it on in fan mode most nights as a white noise generator. At work it keeps stress low, whenever they turn it off for maintenance the silence throws everyone off.

    1. Re:Not the HVAC... by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Hang on tight, I'm working tangential to your comment on AC sound...

      Funny you mention that, I'm addicted to fans.

      Living room, bedroom, cubicle; all have fans. Car, fan on high most of the time.

      I believe I get 20+ hours of fan every day.

      Unless it's terribly hot I camp without a fan (I camp a lot). Of course a chorus of crickets is quite similar to the drone of a fan. Winter is a test in silence, because:

      I also have tinnitus (permanent ear ringing - stupid teenager, too many concerts, too little ear protection), fans cover up the ringing.

      Total silence is something I can't experience any more. I hear a low volume high pitch tone that wavers but never goes away.

      I now carry ear protection (foam plugs) at all times, realizing I may need to protect my ears at any time.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    2. Re:Not the HVAC... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      The everpresent hum of central AC is very calming. As long as the outdoor temperature isn't expected to drop below 55, I turn it on in fan mode most nights as a white noise generator. At work it keeps stress low, whenever they turn it off for maintenance the silence throws everyone off.

      I'd do that buy mine's too loud. I have a Logitech speaker system (the $35 one) and an old iOS device plugged into it (and to power) and an app called, "Rain Rain" (one of the small number of apps I decided was worth the 2 or 3 bucks they were asking for, whatever it was,) and use a combination of the sounds "Central Air," "Airliner," and "Brown Noise," to mask all the various city and neighbor sounds. Lulls me to sleep pretty well and enables me to stay asleep. :)

      In fact, one of the noises I use the app to drown out is the sound of the AC kicking on and off, and to fill up the loud silence (I know... it's ironic) that results from the AC being off after it's been running.

      And no, I don't work for them, get paid by them, or get a commission or whatever. I tried several such apps, and this is the one I kept, in part because of a really great library of sounds, a decent interface, sleep timer, the ability to mix and control sound volumes individually, separate from each other and the master sound volume, and more. (OH MY GOD do I wish Apple built an equalizer and sound panel into the iPhone that would let me adjust individual app volumes independently of the master control. It's a real shame it doesn't have this. The Mac doesn't either, obliging me to install an app to give me that control, and that doesn't work perfectly or consistently.) Anyway, the Rain Rain app supports iPhone and iPad both (it's not an iPhone app scaled up, nor an iPad app scaled down,) and supports up to three simultaneous sounds being played on the iPhone, and up to five on the iPad.

      Raising the noise-floor does wonders for generally not hearing or being awakened by the periodic noise of screaming motorcycle or sports car engines, and fire, police, and ambulance sirens. I'd be going bonkers without this. I used to have a couple CDs, (yes, I'm old,) of soothing noises, but the sound of the CD player going silent at the end, then spinning back up while the speakers fell silent while it restarted the album would sometimes prevent me falling asleep or wake me up. (Yes, it sometimes takes longer than a CD plays to fall asleep.) The app on the other hand, plays the sound continuously WITHOUT needing to store a giant sound file, (which would also go silent when it repeats... I've tried that approach once,) so... just my two cents on this.

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    3. Re:Not the HVAC... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      Hang on tight, I'm working tangential to your comment on AC sound... Funny you mention that, I'm addicted to fans. Living room, bedroom, cubicle; all have fans. Car, fan on high most of the time. I believe I get 20+ hours of fan every day. Unless it's terribly hot I camp without a fan (I camp a lot). Of course a chorus of crickets is quite similar to the drone of a fan. Winter is a test in silence, because: I also have tinnitus (permanent ear ringing - stupid teenager, too many concerts, too little ear protection), fans cover up the ringing. Total silence is something I can't experience any more. I hear a low volume high pitch tone that wavers but never goes away. I now carry ear protection (foam plugs) at all times, realizing I may need to protect my ears at any time.

      I get that intermittently once in a great while, it usually goes away after a few seconds. But be of good cheer... hopefully as you age, and the fine hair-like structures in your cochleae stop working, the annoying noise will go away too. Of course, that is all part of getting old, I'm told. Also, I love fans too. Can you believe the nerve of those Dyson guys to charge hundreds of dollars for a "air multiplier" (hahaha) that allegedly is super quiet? That defeats one of the main reasons to HAVE a fan in the first place! :-O

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    4. Re:Not the HVAC... by turp182 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind the Dyson fan for in the living room to move air but not have to increase entertainment volume to compensate for the noise. But, yes, they are stupid expensive.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
  27. I wonder if you could spin it and adjust the freq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like interlocking spirals, so you could presumably spin it to adjust the 'length' of the spirals and change the frequency it cancels.

    Suppose there is a dominant frequency in the noise, e.g. an engine note associated with revs, you could still use it to notch out that dominant note if you could control the spin.

  28. Black Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a reason why the military's stealth helicopters come with thermite charges onboard that are to be set and ignited in the event of a crash or imminent capture. It's been LONG speculated that asymmetric props/rotors that work in conjunction with a silencer like this are one of the big secrets being protected.

  29. literally night and day by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

    literally night and day

    Science in 2019, ladies and gentlemen, they LITERALLY produced NIGHT AND DAY

    1. Re:literally night and day by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      literally night and day

      Science in 2019, ladies and gentlemen, they LITERALLY produced NIGHT AND DAY

      2019?!? Science?!? This is ANCIENT TECH! Humans have been producing night and day for a very long time. The production of day was first, with the discovery of how to produce FIRE, safely, and more or less on-demand with campfires then oil pots and lamps and then, I think, wax candles, and the production of night likely came a little later with the advent of SHUTTERS, and as time passed, eventually, the miracle of blackout curtains! It being 2019 has nothing to do with it!

      Of course, I got your point... some people literally don't know what the word literally means! ;-b

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  30. you just need a wall of these by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    you just need a wall of these around the kid and they'll reflect the sound back at the kid. I guess the size of the circles in the wall would need to depend on the frequency of the screeching. like, it's not an universal one size fits all(at least I don't see how it would be possible and they do speak about mathematically modelling for "any sound", needing different for different frequencies)

    that's the theory anyways. still, it's fastcompany reporting. also it would need to be designed for the sound.

    also I'm pretty sure you could still hear a speaker at 4%. the article doesn't make it quite clear what scale they were using. 0.05 out of .25 surely isn't 4% so maybe decibel.. the youtube demo video uses "microphone voltage level".

    anyways, if it worked on with arbitrary soundforms on anything, surely a better demo would have been a harley - but it's supposed to reflect the sound back too, not absorb it into heat.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  31. This is why a Chevy volt can be quiet on gas by technosaurus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Like the diesel electric trains, the Chevy Volt (IIRC), is only powered by electric motor. The gas engine only provides electricity to the motor/batteries, thus allowing it to operate at the most efficient engine speed when the battery is low. Since it only operates in a very narrow range, the exhaust can be finely tuned for that frequency. From what I have heard though, there is still room for improvement in this area... I'd really like to see a Sterling engine version though

    1. Re:This is why a Chevy volt can be quiet on gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with Sterling engines is the weight to thrust ratio. Those things are heavy, not ideal for motor vehicles.

      This is from someone that loves Sterling engines btw.

  32. Oh come on, nerd up a little! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All sound. Yeah, right. Clearly, the author of this article is not a nerd. Not even close.

  33. All = 94%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have paid all my bills this week!

  34. Biggest breakthrough by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    What? I'd say their biggest breakthrough is finding that 94% = 100%.

    1. Re:Biggest breakthrough by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      In medicine, 94% is "excellent".

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
  35. That's a feature, not a bug. by Chrontius · · Score: 1

    Go look into something called "resonant turbocharging" -- you can use this to increase the charge pressure without moving parts.

  36. ALL sound?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This appears to be a tuned reflector. As such, it doesn't block all sound but reflects a single frequency. Maybe harmonics as well. An informative test would be to output white noise to the loudspeaker and give the spectrum observed by the microphone with and without the device in place.

    I'm not saying this is without uses as a number of types of machine produce sounds predominantly at a single frequency. We imagine, for example, a vacuum cleaner with motor control tweaked to keep the motor at a particular speed, or an fixed speed engine in a hybrid car, or...

  37. Looks self-contradicting. Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So they are cancelling sound... but not air flow. ... Even though that is literally the same thing.
    I can only guess that it is a low-pass filter.

    And the speakers emanated an "irritatingly high-pitched" "screching", but "you would see the loudspeaker's subwoofers thrumming away".
    Which one is it?
    A single driver, or a whole loudspeaker with a tweeter and a woofer?
    I can only gues the author messed up.

    And the articles are all way too vague. I wish I could imagine, how a ring would block a pressure wave going through its middle and e.g. not its sides, yet being blocked in the middle
    I guess it only works if the pressure pushes against the ring wall too, whicb redirects it to cause destructive interference with itself on the pressure level.

    Does anyone know morr?

    1. Re:Looks self-contradicting. Anyone? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      So they are cancelling sound... but not air flow. ... Even though that is literally the same thing.

      Not really, sound is vibration waves in the air not the flow of air. If it was you wouldn't be able to hear much down wind of you.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    2. Re:Looks self-contradicting. Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, you are mistaken in the belief that air movement is the same thing as sound. Sound travels through the Air by vibrating air molecules against one another. However it travels through Stone, water, and plasma the same way. It is simply vibrating molecules. Now in Active noise cancelling scenarios as mirrored sound wave is generated. In Mathematics that is the Sin wave (the original sound wave) and a Co Sin Wave (the Exact opposite sound wave) thereby Cancelling each other out and making sound inaudible.

      What they are doing however is making a specific pattern in the material that Reflects sound waves, in essence, passively generating Co Sin waves from the original Sin wave itself, causing the sound to reflect back onto itself and cancelling itself out. This is wholly different from the current passive noise cancelling standards of just absorbing the sound.

  38. Sorry for the typos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The stupid mobile UI of /. does not support previewing, and the "Submit Anonymously" is right above the QWERT virtual keys.

    I guess there's a reason I don't log in or come here often anymore.

    1. Re:Sorry for the typos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, no-one misses you....

    2. Re: Sorry for the typos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...any morr.

  39. yay no more rap/crap/dance/disco/pop/edm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Finally. A means to stop having to hear crap.

    1. Re:yay no more rap/crap/dance/disco/pop/edm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And bitter bitter folk.

      That said, I didn't read the article, but I'm curious how well bass is stopped by said material. Then they can make cars from it...that's my biggest annoyance and something I'm bitter about...I don't mind hearing your music, it's the feeling your bass that drives me nuts.

    2. Re:yay no more rap/crap/dance/disco/pop/edm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can also stop the cries of A/C.

    3. Re:yay no more rap/crap/dance/disco/pop/edm by thomn8r · · Score: 1

      It can also stop the cries of A/C.

      Yes, they mentioned HVAC in the article.

    4. Re:yay no more rap/crap/dance/disco/pop/edm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *whoosh*

    5. Re:yay no more rap/crap/dance/disco/pop/edm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...asked the A/C...

    6. Re:yay no more rap/crap/dance/disco/pop/edm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it blocks sound.

  40. 94% is 12 dB. Not a lot reduction. by Anneco · · Score: 1
    94% looks like a lot. But the ear hears logarithmic. It is equivalent to a reduction of 12 dB for a specific frequency.

    If a talk to you, the sound is around 60 tot 70 dB. A reduction of 12 dB gives a sound of 48 to 58 dB. You can still understand me speaking.

    1. Re:94% is 12 dB. Not a lot reduction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. 24.4dB for the 6%!!!!!!!!!!! and 12dB is no the difference from 48 to 58 - please at least have simple +/- correct - dB very few understand - that is also the flaw of the original article.....

      Argh. Argh

    2. Re:94% is 12 dB. Not a lot reduction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember Apple was spin doctoring some of their product announcements in a similar fashion. When someone speaks of audio benefits in percent instead of decibels, you know the difference is not at all that impressive in practice.

    3. Re:94% is 12 dB. Not a lot reduction. by jbengt · · Score: 1

      GP was correct, you are wrong.
      It would be 24 dB if you were measuring the amplitude of the sound wave, but we hear sound pressure, not amplitude. 12 dB is correct for a sound pressure reduction to around 6%.
      And a reduction of 12 dB does take 70 dB to 58 dB (or 60 dB to 48 dB). It is a simple arithmetic subtraction when evaluating sound attenuators. It is not a simple addition when adding serveral sources together, but that's not what the sound attenuator number is.

  41. Special announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have always notice that my spouse has been acting strange but after a friend introduced acehackerlord@gmail.com. with their help I was able to know that he has been cheating on me. Please if you need help with any hacking services then you can contact them on acehackerlord@gmail.com.

  42. One day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can get a lipstick that dispense this shape...

  43. How do I mount it on a bird? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    See, I have this rooster that won't shut up...

  44. What nonsense by noodler · · Score: 1

    Come on, everything about this thing has been known for centuries (theories go back to Newtons time) and the fact that it (logically) can only work for a single frequency means it is completely useless for blocking broad spectrum signals.

    None of the proposed use cases are going to work with this thing since it only filters a single frequency and almost all noise sources have a bandwidth to them. The proposed applications are simply idiotic given what this thing does.

    Moreover, the statement that it will "cut 94% of the sound blasting from the speaker, enough to make it inaudible to the human ear," is TOTAL BULLSHIT as this represents only a drop of 12dB, which is hardly enough to render a random noise inaudible unless its already very quiet. And i say 'noise' but it is of course just a single frequency that is affected while real-world noise is just about an infinite set of frequencies.

    Man, i wish i knew the ascii for facepalm. This article and the fantasies surrounding this research is mind boggling.
    The worst part is that this is apparently a university making up fake stories to help them sell this tech.
    Fuck these lying scum universities telling scum lies to promote their own lying scum asses.

  45. Highway sound barriers by zik0 · · Score: 1

    Maybe useful as a highway sound barrier? Either as a replacement for the current walls to allow airflow, or in addition to.

  46. scraping the barrell by epine · · Score: 1

    You just know this isn't go to take the world by storm (for some as yet undisclosed reason) when the first press release you encounter is blathering on about silencing MRI machines for the benefit of people who are allergic to synthetic earplugs, and who can't, unfortunately, use the ones made out of solid steel, either, because of the intense magnetic fields.

    Marketing person grappling with harsh reality: Gee, the HVAC people have all the volume, whereas the MRI people have all the money.

    Probable end result: this fancy new technology gets installed in the HVAC system connected to the MRI room, so that no-one else in the hospital needs to listen to it hum 24/7.

    Fundamental law of marketing: those who open their wallets on a lark have no money to spend, those who have money to spend open their wallets with great reluctance. Thus the sweet spot in the early going tends to be small.

  47. So it's transparent?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lip reading
    Bouncing laser beams off vibrating objects

    So obviously not very good for privacy then. And no, they didn't say it was either.

  48. 94% != All by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Jesus fuck, Slashdot editors. Did you fail basic elementary school math as well?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  49. sdasdasda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if we can get all the riceburners to install these

  50. Will this work on: by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Wives, politicians, brat kids, crying babies that people take to restaurants etc?

  51. I Approve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I approve of Trump needing to install these in his orifices. Just so long as it is him, one of his family, or one of the many "best people" he surrounds himself with.

  52. Noise cancelling headphones? by gupg · · Score: 1

    Wonder if this would work for noise cancelling headphones too? It seems like its a ring that can be made smaller too: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub...

  53. This is how a silencer on a pistol works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nice job

  54. Slight correction, otherwise - well said. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I approve of Trump needing to have these violently shoved up his ass. Just so long as it is him, his three most prominent kids (the creepy, hairy one, the stupid one and the feckless cunt), and all of the many "best people" he surrounds himself with, including their replacements, their replacements' replacements and their replacements' replacements' replacements. For extra measure, throw in that no-spika-da-inglich wife of his, at least until her contract runs out and she can finally divorce that piece of shit.

    Emphasis mine (and most of the rest of the world).