Any feedback appreciated (aesthetic criticism most welcome) on some designs done in Pd.
http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/effect-synthetic-thunder-21.mp3 http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/effect-synthetic-thunder-34.mp3 http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/effect-synthetic-thunder-57.mp3
If anyone has a copy of these papers I would be very grateful. I can't afford to pay the gatekeepers of knowledge.
H. E Bass, Propagation of Thunder Through the Atmosphere Acoust.soc. Am. 67, 1959-1966 (1980)
A.A. Few, "Acoustic Radiations from Lightning" CRC Handbook of Atmospherics, pp. 257-290. Vol. 2, edited by H. Volland (1982)
H.L. Brode, The Blast Wave in Air Resulting from a High Temperature High Pressure Sphere of Air" Res. Mem. RM-1825-AEC, The Rand Corporation, SantaMonica, CA {1956).
I am working with Ribner and Roy and Angelo Farinas papers right now, kindly given to me by another researcher.
cheers, Andy
hi andy, the samples sound very complex already, how did you create them? I had more the impression of explosions, though, than thunder. regarding books, do you know if any of these books are available as pdfs at all? otherwise do you want paper copies??? at least the second article is available online at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=898&page=46 marius.
Andy Farnell wrote:
Any feedback appreciated (aesthetic criticism most welcome) on some designs done in Pd.
http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/effect-synthetic-thunder-21.mp3 http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/effect-synthetic-thunder-34.mp3 http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/effect-synthetic-thunder-57.mp3
If anyone has a copy of these papers I would be very grateful. I can't afford to pay the gatekeepers of knowledge.
H. E Bass, Propagation of Thunder Through the Atmosphere Acoust.soc. Am. 67, 1959-1966 (1980)
A.A. Few, "Acoustic Radiations from Lightning" CRC Handbook of Atmospherics, pp. 257-290. Vol. 2, edited by H. Volland (1982)
H.L. Brode, The Blast Wave in Air Resulting from a High Temperature High Pressure Sphere of Air" Res. Mem. RM-1825-AEC, The Rand Corporation, SantaMonica, CA {1956).
I am working with Ribner and Roy and Angelo Farinas papers right now, kindly given to me by another researcher.
cheers, Andy
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:01:59 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
hi andy, the samples sound very complex already, how did you create them? I had more the impression of explosions, though, than thunder.
Yes, interesting feedback. Theres three models I've got atm. The Wright Mendorp and N-Wave model are expensive so I can only render with a certain density. To get close ups with a proper BANG! you need a lot of density. Where I fill in with noise based models (cheating) it loses the detail.
But the aftershocks and late reflections are sounding okay I think. I'm trying two ways, one with a giant multi-tap and filters, which is like a monster FIR filter, and another using convolution in Csound. Not sure which is best yet. Definitely not real-time models, but they could possibly be simplified for real-time execution.
regarding books, do you know if any of these books are available as pdfs at all? otherwise do you want paper copies??? at least the second article is available online at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=898&page=46 marius.
Nice one!! Good find Marius. Obviously pdfs are good because I can copy and paste refs and search, but thanks for finding me A.A Few. Will read this one tonight.
best,
Andy
Andy Farnell wrote:
Any feedback appreciated (aesthetic criticism most welcome) on some designs done in Pd.
http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/effect-synthetic-thunder-21.mp3 http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/effect-synthetic-thunder-34.mp3 http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/effect-synthetic-thunder-57.mp3
If anyone has a copy of these papers I would be very grateful. I can't afford to pay the gatekeepers of knowledge.
H. E Bass, Propagation of Thunder Through the Atmosphere Acoust.soc. Am. 67, 1959-1966 (1980)
A.A. Few, "Acoustic Radiations from Lightning" CRC Handbook of Atmospherics, pp. 257-290. Vol. 2, edited by H. Volland (1982)
H.L. Brode, The Blast Wave in Air Resulting from a High Temperature High Pressure Sphere of Air" Res. Mem. RM-1825-AEC, The Rand Corporation, SantaMonica, CA {1956).
I am working with Ribner and Roy and Angelo Farinas papers right now, kindly given to me by another researcher.
cheers, Andy
just a suggestion:
i think the reason why they sound a bit like explosions, rather than thunder, is because the cracks of thunder are propogated directly in front of you. maybe some sort of spatialization could make the crack appear more overhead, and then the rumble lower down?
You're spot on there. I will develop the stereo image as I work on the environment model.
But interestingly enough, lightning _is_ an explosion, one hell of a big explosion. The plasma is as hot as the Sun for an instant and that's why the air expands, the energy in a lightning bold makes most bombs seem like little fireworks. The difference is, and this is unusual, it radiates in a cylinder not a sphere, and sound comes from a simultanoeus extent (because the bolt moves at the speed of electricity which is closer to the speed of light than the speed of sound)
What I have is still a bit too much like Scooby Doo Castle thunder. Having once been caught in a storm with bolts hitting a few hundred meters from me I know from experience it sounds nothing like that, it's a very difficult sound to capture synthetically.
The way I'm trying now is a kind of physical model, taking into account thousands of tiny wavelets called N-waves that each come from a kink in the lightning bolt - strangely (because of interference patterns that cancel out) the shape of the lighning bolt has a direct correlation to the sound.
cheers, a.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:29:11 +0900 "hard off" hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
just a suggestion:
i think the reason why they sound a bit like explosions, rather than thunder, is because the cracks of thunder are propogated directly in front of you. maybe some sort of spatialization could make the crack appear more overhead, and then the rumble lower down?
- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk [2008-02-05 23:33]:
You're spot on there. I will develop the stereo image as I work on the environment model.
But interestingly enough, lightning _is_ an explosion, one hell of a big explosion. The plasma is as hot as the Sun for an instant and that's why the air expands, the energy in a lightning bold makes most bombs seem like little fireworks. The difference is, and this is unusual, it radiates in a cylinder not a sphere, and sound comes from a simultanoeus extent (because the bolt moves at the speed of electricity which is closer to the speed of light than the speed of sound)
Isn't the noise happening when the light/plasma channel is collapsing after the lightning happened?
regards, Peter
Yes. That's part of it.
According to Ribner and Roys first paper the vacuum collapse model is refuted - well, they don't use that exact word - more like they suggest it is replaced...
"As recently as the late 1800's, four theories of thunder were in competition: The vacuum collapse theory, the explosive electrolysis theory (recombination of electrolyzed water), the steam expansion theory, and the Ohmic heating theory (resistive heating and consequent expansion due to heavy current discharge). The last, proposed by M. Hirn in 1888, is now accepted, being supported by a large body of consistent experimental data and theory."
However I disagree, since it is one necessary flip side of the favoured primary cause - collapse happens after the expansion (in a remarkably short time frame) Therefore the vacuum collapse theory must be incorporated into a complete model, being responsible for the negative impulse of the N-wave.
"One prevailing theory proposed that thunder was produced when lightning, passing through the air, caused a vacuum to form. When this vacuum collapsed, the air rapidly rushing back in produced a thunderous explosion."
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/thunder1.htm
As I see, the unipolar vacuum collapse theory only makes sense, if there is a chemical reaction that removes CO2, H2O, O2 or N2 from the atmosphere, (and one assumes no matter is transformed to energy) - well NO2 and O3 are produced, but that doesn't account for the volume.
Vacuum collapse theory ?? (< 1800) Steam theory of R.V. Reynolds (1903) Electrolysis theory R.S. Mershon (1870) Ohmic heating theory M. Hirn in 1888
In a 1888 article in Scientific American, M. Hirn advanced the theory that
"thunder is due simply to the fact that the air traversed by an electrical spark, that is, a flash of lightning, is suddenly raised to a very high temperature, and has its volume, moreover, considerably increased. The column of gas thus suddenly heated and expanded is sometimes several miles long, and as the duration of the flash is not even a millionth of a second, it follows that the noise burst forth at once from the whole column, though for a observer in any one place it commences where the lightning is at the least distance....the beginning of the thunderclap gives us the minimum distance of the lightning, and the length of the thunder clap gives us the length of the column."
So, in summary, there is no single cause and all these theories are sensibly incorporated into the process.
Least likely is perhaps Mershon - but in a plasma we know the gasses are monatomic and there is still a lot of stuff to be discovered in plasma physics, so he may have been on to something after all.
Reynolds clearly contributes something sensible, because water vapour has the highest thermal expansive coefficient.
And the vacuum collapse theory _must_ be incorporated if the Ohmic expansion theory holds.
a.
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:00:58 +0100 plessas@mur.at (Peter Plessas) wrote:
- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk [2008-02-05 23:33]:
You're spot on there. I will develop the stereo image as I work on the environment model.
But interestingly enough, lightning _is_ an explosion, one hell of a big explosion. The plasma is as hot as the Sun for an instant and that's why the air expands, the energy in a lightning bold makes most bombs seem like little fireworks. The difference is, and this is unusual, it radiates in a cylinder not a sphere, and sound comes from a simultanoeus extent (because the bolt moves at the speed of electricity which is closer to the speed of light than the speed of sound)
Isn't the noise happening when the light/plasma channel is collapsing after the lightning happened?
regards, Peter
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Yes. A rapid expansion and collapse of air pressure would most definitely be inseparable causes.
~Kyle
On Wed, Feb 6, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote:
Yes. That's part of it.
According to Ribner and Roys first paper the vacuum collapse model is refuted - well, they don't use that exact word - more like they suggest it is replaced...
"As recently as the late 1800's, four theories of thunder were in competition: The vacuum collapse theory, the explosive electrolysis theory (recombination of electrolyzed water), the steam expansion theory, and the Ohmic heating theory (resistive heating and consequent expansion due to heavy current discharge). The last, proposed by M. Hirn in 1888, is now accepted, being supported by a large body of consistent experimental data and theory."
However I disagree, since it is one necessary flip side of the favoured primary cause - collapse happens after the expansion (in a remarkably short time frame) Therefore the vacuum collapse theory must be incorporated into a complete model, being responsible for the negative impulse of the N-wave.
"One prevailing theory proposed that thunder was produced when lightning, passing through the air, caused a vacuum to form. When this vacuum collapsed, the air rapidly rushing back in produced a thunderous explosion."
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/thunder1.htm
As I see, the unipolar vacuum collapse theory only makes sense, if there is a chemical reaction that removes CO2, H2O, O2 or N2 from the atmosphere, (and one assumes no matter is transformed to energy) - well NO2 and O3 are produced, but that doesn't account for the volume.
Vacuum collapse theory ?? (< 1800) Steam theory of R.V. Reynolds (1903) Electrolysis theory R.S. Mershon (1870) Ohmic heating theory M. Hirn in 1888
In a 1888 article in Scientific American, M. Hirn advanced the theory that
"thunder is due simply to the fact that the air traversed by an electrical spark, that is, a flash of lightning, is suddenly raised to a very high temperature, and has its volume, moreover, considerably increased. The column of gas thus suddenly heated and expanded is sometimes several miles long, and as the duration of the flash is not even a millionth of a second, it follows that the noise burst forth at once from the whole column, though for a observer in any one place it commences where the lightning is at the least distance....the beginning of the thunderclap gives us the minimum distance of the lightning, and the length of the thunder clap gives us the length of the column."
So, in summary, there is no single cause and all these theories are sensibly incorporated into the process.
Least likely is perhaps Mershon - but in a plasma we know the gasses are monatomic and there is still a lot of stuff to be discovered in plasma physics, so he may have been on to something after all.
Reynolds clearly contributes something sensible, because water vapour has the highest thermal expansive coefficient.
And the vacuum collapse theory _must_ be incorporated if the Ohmic expansion theory holds.
a.
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:00:58 +0100 plessas@mur.at (Peter Plessas) wrote:
- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk [2008-02-05 23:33]:
You're spot on there. I will develop the stereo image as I work on the environment model.
But interestingly enough, lightning _is_ an explosion, one hell of a big explosion. The plasma is as hot as the Sun for an instant and that's why the air expands, the energy in a lightning bold makes most bombs seem like little fireworks. The difference is, and this is unusual, it radiates in a cylinder not a sphere, and sound comes from a simultanoeus extent (because the bolt moves at the speed of electricity which is closer to the speed of light than the speed of sound)
Isn't the noise happening when the light/plasma channel is collapsing after the lightning happened?
regards, Peter
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Use the source
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:19PM +0000, Andy Farnell wrote:
As I see, the unipolar vacuum collapse theory only makes sense, if there is a chemical reaction that removes CO2, H2O, O2 or N2 from the atmosphere, (and one assumes no matter is transformed to energy) - well NO2 and O3 are produced, but that doesn't account for the volume.
Really? I'm not so sure about that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminesence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_shrimp http://youtube.com/results?search_query=pistol+shrimp&search_type=&search=Search
Chris.
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:58:49 -0500 Chris McCormick chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:19PM +0000, Andy Farnell wrote:
As I see, the unipolar vacuum collapse theory only makes sense, if there is a chemical reaction that removes CO2, H2O, O2 or N2 from the atmosphere, (and one assumes no matter is transformed to energy) - well NO2 and O3 are produced, but that doesn't account for the volume.
Really? I'm not so sure about that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminesence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_shrimp http://youtube.com/results?search_query=pistol+shrimp&search_type=&search=Search
I'd love to believe that sound can turn matter into energy, it would really cheer up my day. But I think esoteric explanations of sonoluminesence are quite unnecessary, This looks like plain old "pumping" to me. The smoking gun is the colour...blue-green which is the 337nm emission of nitrogen... which is in air. So it's electronic in nature. No need for mini-black hole theories, the energy comes from the sound and somehow (probably by dipole movement) becomes electromagnetic, excites the nitrogen shell and is re-emitted as a 337nm quanta. Show me a repeatable experiments that demonstrates a clearly measurable change in mass and I'm all for it though.
Andy Farnell wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:58:49 -0500 Chris McCormick chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:19PM +0000, Andy Farnell wrote:
As I see, the unipolar vacuum collapse theory only makes sense, if there is a chemical reaction that removes CO2, H2O, O2 or N2 from the atmosphere, (and one assumes no matter is transformed to energy) - well NO2 and O3 are produced, but that doesn't account for the volume.
Really? I'm not so sure about that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminesence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_shrimp http://youtube.com/results?search_query=pistol+shrimp&search_type=&search=Search
I'd love to believe that sound can turn matter into energy, it would really cheer up my day. But I think esoteric explanations of sonoluminesence are quite unnecessary, This looks like plain old "pumping" to me. The smoking gun is the colour...blue-green which is the 337nm emission of nitrogen... which is in air.
337nm is invisible ultraviolet. See the spectrum here, it is multicoloured: http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/nitrogen.html Here's one of air: http://www.scitechantiques.com/MMs_project/reference%20paper/Air_Spectrm_5mm... It seems to depend on the amount of water in the air what colour you get, the hydrogen makes it more red.
So it's electronic in nature. No need for mini-black hole theories, the energy comes from the sound and somehow (probably by dipole movement) becomes electromagnetic, excites the nitrogen shell and is re-emitted as a 337nm quanta.
The sound is a result of the expansion of the ionized air in the channel that was suddenly heated by the passage of huge numbers of electrons.
Martin
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:27:32 -0500 Martin Peach martin.peach@sympatico.ca wrote:
Andy Farnell wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:58:49 -0500 Chris McCormick chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:19PM +0000, Andy Farnell wrote:
As I see, the unipolar vacuum collapse theory only makes sense, if there is a chemical reaction that removes CO2, H2O, O2 or N2 from the atmosphere, (and one assumes no matter is transformed to energy) - well NO2 and O3 are produced, but that doesn't account for the volume.
Really? I'm not so sure about that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminesence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_shrimp http://youtube.com/results?search_query=pistol+shrimp&search_type=&search=Search
I'd love to believe that sound can turn matter into energy, it would really cheer up my day. But I think esoteric explanations of sonoluminesence are quite unnecessary, This looks like plain old "pumping" to me. The smoking gun is the colour...blue-green which is the 337nm emission of nitrogen... which is in air.
337nm is invisible ultraviolet. See the spectrum here, it is multicoloured: http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/nitrogen.html Here's one of air: http://www.scitechantiques.com/MMs_project/reference%20paper/Air_Spectrm_5mm...
Ah yes, so it is. Thanks Martin. I still think that sonoluminesence blue is coming from Nitrogen though, call it a hunch :)
It seems to depend on the amount of water in the air what colour you get, the hydrogen makes it more red.
Yeah, I've seen that, and orange lighning too.
So it's electronic in nature. No need for mini-black hole theories, the energy comes from the sound and somehow (probably by dipole movement) becomes electromagnetic, excites the nitrogen shell and is re-emitted as a 337nm quanta.
The sound is a result of the expansion of the ionized air in the channel that was suddenly heated by the passage of huge numbers of electrons.
Yes, we're clear on that. I was responding to Chris suggesting that maybe there's some nuclear interactions at work in lighning (which I am open minded about but sceptical), and he mentioned sonoluminesence, which I believe has a rather more established explanation (ie it isn't fusion or anything weird)
andy
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 05:37:06AM +0000, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:27:32 -0500 Martin Peach martin.peach@sympatico.ca wrote:
Andy Farnell wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:58:49 -0500 Chris McCormick chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
Yes, we're clear on that. I was responding to Chris suggesting that maybe there's some nuclear interactions at work in lighning (which I am open minded about but sceptical), and he mentioned sonoluminesence, which I believe has a rather more established explanation (ie it isn't fusion or anything weird)
Hey Andy,
I didn't mean to imply that. I thought you were saying that you didn't think a vacuum could be created without a chemical reaction. I was saying that I think a bubble of vacuum can be created in a medium using purely physical forces like in sonoluminescence.
Best,
Chris.
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 00:38:46 -0500 Chris McCormick chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 05:37:06AM +0000, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:27:32 -0500 Martin Peach martin.peach@sympatico.ca wrote:
Andy Farnell wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:58:49 -0500 Chris McCormick chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
Yes, we're clear on that. I was responding to Chris suggesting that maybe there's some nuclear interactions at work in lighning (which I am open minded about but sceptical), and he mentioned sonoluminesence, which I believe has a rather more established explanation (ie it isn't fusion or anything weird)
Hey Andy,
I didn't mean to imply that. I thought you were saying that you didn't think a vacuum could be created without a chemical reaction. I was saying that I think a bubble of vacuum can be created in a medium using purely physical forces like in sonoluminescence.
Best,
Chris.
Oh, okay. That's quite interesting. Sorry I got the wrong end of that. But it would violate causality? (as I see it)
In the model that makes sense to me:
The current flow causes heating, which causes expansion of gasses, which then cool leaving a low pressure volume which then rapidly collapses again.
How could the discharge create physical force without going through a thermodynamic step?
In the thinking that preceded Mershons electrolysis theory, there seems to be an idea that somehow the bolt just annhilated the air. The sudden appearance of a low pressure zone would make sense if a chemical reaction took place leading a lower volume, and Mershon makes that an exothermic recombination of electrolized H + O2.
I don't know what experimental evidence says that _doesn't_ happen. If one was brave enough to fly a plane with sensitive detectors through a storm and find traces of uncombined H2 then there might be some life in it. But you'd have to be quick because hydrogen doesn't hang around.
hmmm, sorry, we've turned this into the physics forum today haven't we :) a.
Robert Henke (Monolake, Ableton) has a little Youtube video that talks about simulating thunders with a delay matrix comprised of several granular delays and an initial impulse. Here is the video. I don't know more than that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL4MMJMXEFk
~Kyle
On Mon, Feb 4, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:01:59 -0500 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
hi andy, the samples sound very complex already, how did you create them? I had more the impression of explosions, though, than thunder.
Yes, interesting feedback. Theres three models I've got atm. The Wright Mendorp and N-Wave model are expensive so I can only render with a certain density. To get close ups with a proper BANG! you need a lot of density. Where I fill in with noise based models (cheating) it loses the detail.
But the aftershocks and late reflections are sounding okay I think. I'm trying two ways, one with a giant multi-tap and filters, which is like a monster FIR filter, and another using convolution in Csound. Not sure which is best yet. Definitely not real-time models, but they could possibly be simplified for real-time execution.
regarding books, do you know if any of these books are available as pdfs at all? otherwise do you want paper copies??? at least the second article is available online at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=898&page=46 marius.
Nice one!! Good find Marius. Obviously pdfs are good because I can copy and paste refs and search, but thanks for finding me A.A Few. Will read this one tonight.
best,
Andy
Andy Farnell wrote:
Any feedback appreciated (aesthetic criticism most welcome) on some designs done in Pd.
http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/effect-synthetic-thunder-21.mp3 http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/effect-synthetic-thunder-34.mp3 http://www.obiwannabe.co.uk/sounds/effect-synthetic-thunder-57.mp3
If anyone has a copy of these papers I would be very grateful. I can't afford to pay the gatekeepers of knowledge.
H. E Bass, Propagation of Thunder Through the Atmosphere Acoust.soc. Am. 67, 1959-1966 (1980)
A.A. Few, "Acoustic Radiations from Lightning" CRC Handbook of Atmospherics, pp. 257-290. Vol. 2, edited by H. Volland (1982)
H.L. Brode, The Blast Wave in Air Resulting from a High Temperature High Pressure Sphere of Air" Res. Mem. RM-1825-AEC, The Rand Corporation, SantaMonica, CA {1956).
I am working with Ribner and Roy and Angelo Farinas papers right now, kindly given to me by another researcher.
cheers, Andy
-- Use the source
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Andy Farnell -
Chris McCormick -
hard off -
Kyle Klipowicz -
marius schebella -
Martin Peach -
plessas＠mur.at