[microsound] Re: microsound Digest 2 Apr 2005 08:08:29 -0000 Issue 1383

[Matt Davignon <mattdavignon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That sounds like a load of horsepucky to me - in order
for an echo to cancel the original sound out, it needs
to not only be inversely palindromic, but you would
need to be standing in the space where the returning
echo passes the still-outgoing original sound. At that
point, you'd only slightly hear the original sound,
since the echo would have less amplitude. 

If the echo was simply palindromic instead of
inversely palindromic, you wouldn't notice an echo,
but you'd hear the original quack louder. 

Still, I like the idea of selling quacking anti-radar
technology to the army (see the link). Quacking planes
could pass undetected, sure. Perhaps they could come
up with a quacking stealth-suit. It'd stand out
visually, with all the bills sticking out, but would
allow the wearer to move silently like the ninja. 

From: John Hopkins <jhopkins@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [microsound] FRPS - Fractally
Reverse-Palindromic 

>A duck's quack doesn't echo, and no one knows why
>
>http://flagonthemoon.blogspot.com/2005/03/fun-facts-about-animals.html
>
>is this true?
>anybody can explain this a little better?
>

It's certainly not an evolution-directed development,
as ducks aren't 
normally in spaces where echo/non-echo sounding is
necessary, I would 
like to see a scope of the wave-form...

I did a quick google on the phrase "Fractally
Reverse-Palindromic 
Soundwave" and also quite a few variations, with no
relevant returns 
-- I am thinking this is a joke anyway.  A palindrome
is a linguistic 
term, and fractal geometries are not described in
terms of that low 
level of Cartesian symmetry...

jh



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org