Talk:Acoustic impedance

message: This article has weaknesses.  Is this the standard way to present this material?  It feels show-off-y rather than trying to be useful.  99% of readers can get a useful understanding of impedance without hitting them over the head at the very beginning with a confusing Fourier/Laplace duality and a similar time domain / frequency domain schizophrenia.  In my opinion, this kind of information, if included at all, should be moved to the end--i.e. after the useful stuff-- and the reader should be gently led into it as the underpinnings of a frequency-domain interpretation.
108.51.128.84 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to differs from the electrical definition of impedance in that wave conductors and organ pipes would be considered transmission lines, not components, and would have a characteristic impedance.  — Omegatron 18:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Very well observed, Omegatron: the input impedance of a wave conductor will vary with its termination and a great deal of its impedance is explained by transmission line behavior. Think about it in physical terms: you can in fact "look through" a wave conductor. A sound wave within the conductor will be affected by the reflection at the end of the tube and the measured impedance at the entrance will vary accordingly. A closed-end organ pipe is maybe an exception, since its impedance can be expressed as a "fixed" (but still cyclical) component. The termination finds an electrical analogy in a short circuit. In reality however, the acoutical short circuit in an organ pipe is not ideal. The closed end is not optimal rigid and often vibrates. The sound wave will therefore loose some energy and will not be 1:1 reflected.Witger 06:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the analogy is actually closer.  Electrical transmission lines and impedances are idealisms anyway.  I believe a closed and open organ pipe is equivalent to a short circuit or open circuit terminated transmission line.  Of course there is no such thing as a perfect short or perfect open, and some leakage will occur.  — Omegatron 02:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Very cool.  That should probably be added to the article.  — Omegatron 13:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

message: There seems to an error relating to acoustic impedance here.
Taking the Kinsler 'fundamentals of acoustics' book as authority (sect 10.4):
Rayl is the unit of specific (and characteristic?) acoustic impedance,z, not acoustic impedance, Z,  (the units Pa.s/m in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayl support this - that section makes this mistake too though).  The unit of acoustic impedance is the acoustic ohm (Pa.s/m^3)
Also, looking at the external link http://www.sengpielaudio.com/RelationshipsOfAcousticQuantities.pdf
the term acoustic impedance there actually refers to specific acoustic impedance.
Presumably people often use the term 'acoustic impedance' to mean 'specific acoustic impedance', but since both are defined here we should keep them distinct.
I'm still fairly new to acoustics (and wikipedia), so would appreciate comment before I amend the article.
Pgj98r (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Impedance confusion

message: I deleted a paragraph of uncited reasoning about the phase. Once the conclusions will be convincingly backed up by reliable references, the paragraph may be restored. --Maxim 62.149.15.226 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Phase

message: I don't see the point of mentioning molecules or particles in the introduction.  A basic understanding does not requite reference to atomic theory, and in fact acoustics was well developed in the 19th century before Einstein's work on Brownian motion firmly established atomic theory.  The fact that acoustics did not establish atomic theory shows that atomic theory is not needed to understand acoustics.  One needs to think of mater as a bulk medium to understand sound, but the reader should be saved the extra effort of deriving bulk properties from the properties of the constituent molecules.  "Particle velocity" should be written as something like velocity of the medium or matter velocity.  David R. Ingham (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Molecules" and "particle velocity"

message: It seems that the analogy to electrical impedance should be mentioned peripherally but early on, because some people such as electrical engineers are familiar with electrical impedance but not with acoustic impedance.  David R. Ingham (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Electrical impedance

message: Is the unit name (or symbol) spelt "rayl" or "Rayl"? See discussion on this talk page.  Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  rayl or Rayl? 

message: I just notice this after recently finding Mechanical impedance. First, it would seem that a See also might be nice. But also that Mechanical impedance is closely related to acoustic impedance, especially in solid objects. Gah4 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a See also entry. ~Kvng (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mechanical impedance]]