Talk:Anechoic chamber

message: Dear Concerned, 
I like this article a lot, but I am also getting quite confused halfway through it, as it seems to jump back and forth between acoustic and RF chambers. It woudl help , I think, if they could be basically just split into two different sections completely. They could refer to the other, where there are similarities, but overall, the two different ppl reading this are gonna be people interested in sound recording, and people interested in RF testing... and so the different sections should focus on addressing those two aduiences separately imho.
: I've rewritten things a little bit to hopefully clarify Richard☺Decal (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: confused acoustic vs rf

message: I have added several paragraphs about RF anechoic chambers as opposed to acoustic ones and I have not as yet deleted anything. I think it improves the article but it could do with a tidy up, or perhaps it might be worth splitting it into the two different types. If nobody else does I'll get back to it in a few weeks.
I think some clarification is needed about the acoustic and RF wavelengths. It is true that a typical audio frequency of 500Hz acoustic wavelength (0.7 m) is very different from 500 Hz electromagnetic (600 km) but I don't think many RF tests are done as low as 500 Hz. But 0.7 m RF wavelength I make about 454 MHz. Many tests are done around these UHF frequencies. ChrisAngove 17:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acoustic and RF (electromagnetic) anechoic chambers

message: ===Suggested Improvements===
Picture of the interior of an RF anechoic chamber if possible showing something being tested.
References to the particular international standards (a) that chambers are built to and (b) that are typically tested for in the chambers.
A picture or two showing the shell construction ie. the screened room for the RF and the 'metre thick cement' or similar for the acoustic one.
ChrisAngove 17:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Picture of the interior of an RF anechoic chamber if possible showing something being tested.
References to the particular international standards (a) that chambers are built to and (b) that are typically tested for in the chambers.
A picture or two showing the shell construction ie. the screened room for the RF and the 'metre thick cement' or similar for the acoustic one.
ChrisAngove 17:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Improvements

message: Does anybody know anything about the very high level acoustic noise testing that used to be done on components to go into space? I believe it may have been to similate launch conditions. Do they still do it or has it been superceeded? The levels would need a heavy duty chamber i think.
ChrisAngove 17:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acoustic Testing of Satellite Components

message: Why is all the information about acoustic anechoic chambers here in the discussion page rather than in the actual article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.64.252.71 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acoustic Anechoic chamber?

message: Reference 1 to the TDK RF solutions page seems to lead to a commercial website providing absorption solutions, without really benefiting the article.46.144.116.121 (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement?

message: Hi,
I think it would be of interest of many people to add a chapter about semi and hemi anechoic chambers with regard to the different measurement possibilities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.249.81 (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi or hemi anechoic  

message: the whole RAM-section contained factual errors, and had no citations or sources: (ferrite plates vs. pyramid shaped is just completely wrong since i know that the ferrite plates are less effective at HIGHER frequencies)
source: I found a ferrite plate damping curve, but there might be other/better sources.
There might be more factual errors, since large parts of this article remain unverified.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.116.159.61 (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  partly wrong 

message: Mention if caves are good s, at least electronically. Jidanni (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caves? 

message: Is this right: "In general, the interior of an anechoic chamber is very quiet, with typical noise levels in the 10-20 dBA range."  The University of Salford has a semi-anechoic chamber with only 3.8dba background noise, so this seems hard to believe. Also, the University of Salford claims an anechoic chamber with a -12.4dBA background noise level, so perhaps this Guinness record needs updating. I don't really know anything about this topic, but a quick google search yielded these. Anybody know more about this?  NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 03:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "in general" phrase is correct. Few chambers go lower than 10dBA. The dBA measurement is relatively insensitive to low frequencies, so a low dBA number might be hiding a degree of low frequency rumble. 0dBA is 20 micropascals, or the lowest level a human can hear. Going lower than zero dBA is a very rare achievement. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A thing I think is missing from the article, is the effect is has on humans. Not only is it quiet; it is so quiet that you can hear the blood run in your veins. The first time I experienced this was in an anechoic sound studio in NRK Marienlyst in Norway. It made me feel quite disconcerted, and some of the women freaked out and got claustrophobia. Also, sounds from others were dampened quite a bit since no sound was allowed to echo, so you felt like you had to yell to be heard even if somebody was right next to you. 80.203.35.234 (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acoustic anechoic chambers 

message: The sentence:
"Such risks are from RF or non-ionizing radiation and not from the higher energy ionizing radiation."
DOES THAT have the culprit reversed? 68.121.32.86 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct. Risks from high levels of non-ionizing RF include heating (burning or cooking) and electric shocks. It can also affect objects carried such as watches, spectacle frames and heart pacemakers. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this have the frequency culprit reversed??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anechoic chamber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.npl.co.uk/acoustics/facilities/airborne/ff.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anechoic chamber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130506144450/http://articles.pubarticles.com/how-to-perfect-your-antenna-testing-1362084935,1137721.html to http://articles.pubarticles.com/how-to-perfect-your-antenna-testing-1362084935,1137721.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807231935/http://www.bell-labs.com:80/org/1133/Research/Acoustics/AnechoicChamber.html to http://www.bell-labs.com/org/1133/Research/Acoustics/AnechoicChamber.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107061848/http://acs.feld.cvut.cz:80/old/komora.html to http://acs.feld.cvut.cz/old/komora.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified