Sound waves

[Richard Brekne]

Stephen Birkett wrote:
> 
> Del writes:
> 
> > Well, by Stephen's definition practically every moving molecule in the known
> > universe is part of a sound wave and since they move they all are part of a
> > transducer of some sort. Unfortunately, using such broad definitions of
> > words leaves them essentially useless for any kind of real discussion.
> 
> Hey. Not my defintion. It's them physicists. And it isn't just random
> motions. There are some rules because we are speaking of vibrations:
>  - elastic medium
>  - oscillatory motion of individual particles
>  - localized rarefactions and compressions

Course thats the problem... arriving at a working definition
that suits the present disscusion needs. 

> 
> Actually, what I tried to point out is that there are at least two
> distinct meanings attached to the term "sound" - the general and the
> human-centric.
> 

At the very least two ...yes

> 
> 
> I kind of lost track what we are debating here...

Which is the most natural of things when the debatants allow
themselves to write paragraphs and paragraphs delving into
the most remote (relative to the origional discussion theme)
possibilities of redefining, and refining those
redefinitions. But if you want to know... it appears you are
all talking about the basic definition of sound as it
relates to the discussion about sound waves, as it relates
the the impedance question, and partially at least... as
that related to the modal analysis question... we could no
doubt go back a bit further. 

Actually, tho one has wandered far and wide in this
discourse... its been kind of interesting imho.

> 
> Stephen
> 
> Stephen Birkett Fortepianos
> Authentic Reproductions of 18th and 19th Century Pianos
> 464 Winchester Drive
> Waterloo, Ontario
> Canada N2T 1K5
> tel: 519-885-2228
> mailto: birketts@wright.aps.uoguelph.ca


-- 
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no