hey, ive got a stupid idea about absorption!

[giraffe]

could it be done (hypothetically) with a wall of speakers?
they'd probably have to be specially made etc......

but, the vibrations in the room would be turned into electricity (see "microphone") which could be "dumped" into like flashlight bulbs or some grave like that.


just thinking.....







look people, it says it's a stupid idea right in the title.

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by giraffe

could it be done (hypothetically) with a wall of speakers?
they'd probably have to be specially made etc......

but, the vibrations in the room would be turned into electricity (see "microphone") which could be "dumped" into like flashlight bulbs or some grave like that.


just thinking.....







look people, it says it's a stupid idea right in the title.

Cool idea. Acoustic energy is very very small though, so wouldn't provide much electricity.

[andyhix]

Someone told me years ago that speakers make for good absorbtion, which at the time made sense. They move, obviously, in a way that could/should cushion/absorb the soundwaves. I never bothered looking on the internets to see if there is any trutyh to this. I also realized that a few sheets of rigid fiberglass is a whole lot cheaper than a stack of decommisioned bass amps.

[scrubs]

Yeah, but you could reverse-wire all the speakers and turn them into a wall of microphones!!!

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by scrubs

Yeah, but you could reverse-wire all the speakers and turn them into a wall of microphones!!!

I think that was the point. But instead of using them for mics, trying to produce electricity.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by giraffe

could it be done (hypothetically) with a wall of speakers?

Not stupid, and your basic thinking is correct. However, loudspeakers cost much more than rigid fiberglass, and they won't absorb over as wide a range of frequencies.

I think it was the Bag End loudspeaker company that a few years ago developed an active bass trap based on a large woofer. I haven't heard much about that lately, probably because it was very expensive ($1,000) and was not as good as conventional bass traps. However, being active it had the potential to be highly effective at very low frequencies. If you had about 10 of them.

--Ethan

[giraffe]

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


i'm apparently not stupid
(at the moment )

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by giraffe

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


i'm apparently not stupid
(at the moment )

No... The idea's not stupid, we never said anything about you...

Kiddin'