Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
What is the kind of turntable called with the old big round needle
holder and pen tip-like needles? Apparently it is what I need to play home recorded vinyl and/or most 10" 78's. I have forgetten what it is called. Mostly I'm wondering if there are any of those types that have any audio outputs, or if they just have built in speakers. I'd like to record from it straight to my PC is possible. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Yeah, I think Victrola's use that, but so do other kinds...it's the
type of needle and cartridge that I'm looking for. wß wrote: wrote: What is the kind of turntable called with the old big round needle holder and pen tip-like needles? Apparently it is what I need to play home recorded vinyl and/or most 10" 78's. I have forgetten what it is called. Mostly I'm wondering if there are any of those types that have any audio outputs, or if they just have built in speakers. I'd like to record from it straight to my PC is possible. antique... Just kidding. Victrola maybe? |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
alice wrote ...
What is the kind of turntable called with the old big round needle holder and pen tip-like needles? Sounds like the old "acoustic" phonograph players where the needle would move the round diaphragm on the end of the tone arm, and the sound would go down the arm and into a big horn ("mechanical" amplification). Apparently it is what I need to play home recorded vinyl and/or most 10" 78's. No, the acoustic phonographs were just the "state of the art" ~100 years ago. It doesn't mean that is what you need to play it today. You just need to use a modern turntable with the right size/type of stylus for the particular disc. There are people on these newsgroups who are experts at this, like Scott Dorsey. Note that playing those old discs is not as strightforward as playing a black-vinyl 33rpm LP disc. If you don't use the right stylus, cleaning, etc. you could permanently destroy the recording (and/or the equipment). |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Richard Crowley wrote:
alice wrote ... What is the kind of turntable called with the old big round needle holder and pen tip-like needles? Sounds like the old "acoustic" phonograph players where the needle would move the round diaphragm on the end of the tone arm, and the sound would go down the arm and into a big horn ("mechanical" amplification). Apparently it is what I need to play home recorded vinyl and/or most 10" 78's. No, the acoustic phonographs were just the "state of the art" ~100 years ago. It doesn't mean that is what you need to play it today. You just need to use a modern turntable with the right size/type of stylus for the particular disc. There are people on these newsgroups who are experts at this, like Scott Dorsey. Note that playing those old discs is not as strightforward as playing a black-vinyl 33rpm LP disc. If you don't use the right stylus, cleaning, etc. you could permanently destroy the recording (and/or the equipment). Any turntable with the 78 R.P.M. speed would do, and there are more modern cartidges with appropriate stylii available for 78's. You may need to account for different equalizations, though it seems to me that was early LP's, not 78's. Mark Z. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Richard Crowley wrote:
alice wrote ... What is the kind of turntable called with the old big round needle holder and pen tip-like needles? Apparently it is what I need to play home recorded vinyl and/or most 10" 78's. No, the acoustic phonographs were just the "state of the art" ~100 years ago. It doesn't mean that is what you need to play it today. You just need to use a modern turntable with the right size/type of stylus for the particular disc. There are people on these newsgroups who are experts at this, like Scott Dorsey. Note that playing those old discs is not as strightforward as playing a black-vinyl 33rpm LP disc. If you don't use the right stylus, cleaning, etc. you could permanently destroy the recording (and/or the equipment). Get out a DVD called Desperate Man Blues - a biopic of an amazing 78rpm blues record collector. He discusses this in simple language. I'm not so impressed with his disk cleaning technique ... see deleted scenes. Cheers Goaty -- _--_|\ John Lamp - in beautiful downtown Highton / \ DoD#:1906 Ulysses#:10185 Vulcan Nomad \_.--._/ Phone: 0409 512 254 v Hear no Evo, See no Evo, Fear no Evo Militant Agnostic - I don't know and you don't either |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote ...
Any turntable with the 78 R.P.M. speed would do, and there are more modern cartidges with appropriate stylii available for 78's. Right. Never try playing a 78 with an LP stylus. You may need to account for different equalizations, though it seems to me that was early LP's, not 78's. Other way around. CBS's 33-1/3 RPM "LP" format tended to also standardize the EQ as I recall. OTOH, There were dozens (or more?) different EQ curves used for cutting 78s. Modern preamps made for playing 78s have several selections for various EQ settings. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... You may need to account for different equalizations, though it seems to me that was early LP's, not 78's. Other way around. CBS's 33-1/3 RPM "LP" format tended to also standardize the EQ as I recall. OTOH, There were dozens (or more?) different EQ curves used for cutting 78s. Modern preamps made for playing 78s have several selections for various EQ settings. That's the least of the problems, since you can re-adjust equalisation to suit in any good wave editor *after* the recording is made. There may be a better choice to start with than standard RIAA, but that's probably the easiest place to start for most people. MrT. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
... "Mark D. Zacharias" wrote ... Any turntable with the 78 R.P.M. speed would do, and there are more modern cartidges with appropriate stylii available for 78's. Right. Never try playing a 78 with an LP stylus. You may need to account for different equalizations, though it seems to me that was early LP's, not 78's. Other way around. CBS's 33-1/3 RPM "LP" format tended to also standardize the EQ as I recall. Not really; there were a whole bunch of different curves to play 33's, including the LP curve (Columbia), the NAB curve, the AES curve, the FFRR curve, a couple that only applied to one or two small labels. Then there was the curve RCA Victor used, which in 1955 became standardized as the RIAA curve. OTOH, There were dozens (or more?) different EQ curves used for cutting 78s. Modern preamps made for playing 78s have several selections for various EQ settings. Yup. Basically there were about half a dozen rolloff frequencies for the treble and an equal number of transition frequencies from midrange to bass. Some of the latter specified a third frequency in the bass where the curve would stop rising; others didn't. Lots and lots of possibilities. Ideally you choose the treble and bass curves independently for playback. To the original poster: you do *not* want an acoustic phonograph for playing your 78s, and evern more emphatically you do not want one for playing home transcriptions. Not with the typical acoustic phonograph tracking force of several ounces (as opposed to a few grams with a modern turntable); an acoustic phonograph will grind a home transcription to nothing. Peace, Paul |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
OTOH, There were dozens (or more?) different EQ
curves used for cutting 78s. Modern preamps made for playing 78s have several selections for various EQ settings. I'm not an expert on 78 EQ. However, there _were_ multiple LP EQs -- each major label had its own, and preamps offered multiple curves. In fact, some even had separate turnover and rolloff switches! The RIAA curve in 1954 ended this silliness. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
William Sommerwerck wrote:
OTOH, There were dozens (or more?) different EQ curves used for cutting 78s. Modern preamps made for playing 78s have several selections for various EQ settings. I'm not an expert on 78 EQ. However, there _were_ multiple LP EQs -- each major label had its own, and preamps offered multiple curves. In fact, some even had separate turnover and rolloff switches! The RIAA curve in 1954 ended this silliness. Correct. Until the RIAA sorted it in 1954, there were at least the following being used:- Am. Col. AES NAB NARTB (slightly different from NAB) RCA new and old Decca HMV & Brit. Col (used same characteristic) Nixa (two different characteristics were used) DGG (used the same characteristics for LPs as they did for 78s) If anyone's interested, I can send them the characteristics for the above. S. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote ... Any turntable with the 78 R.P.M. speed would do, and there are more modern cartidges with appropriate stylii available for 78's. Right. Never try playing a 78 with an LP stylus. You may need to account for different equalizations, though it seems to me that was early LP's, not 78's. Other way around. CBS's 33-1/3 RPM "LP" format tended to also standardize the EQ as I recall. OTOH, There were dozens (or more?) different EQ curves used for cutting 78s. Modern preamps made for playing 78s have several selections for various EQ settings. I wondered about that - but I was thinking that using the earliest acoustic recording and playback techniques, equalization as we think of it today would have been impossible (?). I knew there were various EQ curves which predated the RIAA standard, just didn't know when they came into the picture. Mark Z. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote: alice wrote ... What is the kind of turntable called with the old big round needle holder and pen tip-like needles? Sounds like the old "acoustic" phonograph players where the needle would move the round diaphragm on the end of the tone arm, and the sound would go down the arm and into a big horn ("mechanical" amplification). Apparently it is what I need to play home recorded vinyl and/or most 10" 78's. No, the acoustic phonographs were just the "state of the art" ~100 years ago. It doesn't mean that is what you need to play it today. You just need to use a modern turntable with the right size/type of stylus for the particular disc. There are people on these newsgroups who are experts at this, like Scott Dorsey. Note that playing those old discs is not as strightforward as playing a black-vinyl 33rpm LP disc. If you don't use the right stylus, cleaning, etc. you could permanently destroy the recording (and/or the equipment). I didn't see the original post, but I will say that there were some electrical pickups with steel needles which were popular in the early 1930s before jeweled pickups completely took over. They destroy records. If you want to play home recordings, your goal is to get as light tracking force as possible because the material is so soft. Acoustic phonographs have tracking forces measured in KILOGRAMS, not in grams. This is not good for records. If the original poster is looking to play back 78s, she would be good to look at a Thorens 126, which shows up reasonably priced on the used market. Combine this with a Grado DJ-100 cartridge with the 2.7 mil 78 stylus. This isn't optimal for most 78s and it is WAY off for acoustic discs, but it's serviceable and it won't ruin records. Add the Re-Equalizer from Esoteric Sound to help you get the emphasis right... 78s predate the modern RIAA standard emphasis curve so there is always some tweaking involved. you should be able to find a complete system for around $800 if you shop around and buy the turntable used. The next step up would be to buy a cartridge with a wide variety of different sized styli. This can be a huge improvement in tracking distortion and allow you to play a lot more different kinds of records properly, but it costs you. For most 78s you can just wash them in a good detergent cleaner like Alconox and towel them down. A higher grade ultrasonic machine helps but isn't absolutely necessary. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Mark D. Zacharias wrote:
I wondered about that - but I was thinking that using the earliest acoustic recording and playback techniques, equalization as we think of it today would have been impossible (?). I knew there were various EQ curves which predated the RIAA standard, just didn't know when they came into the picture. They pretty much came into the picture at the beginning of the electrical recording era. Folks started using emphasis in order to make records sound better as soon as they possibly could. Acoustics are another ball of wax. Acoustics have all sorts of interesting mechanical and acoustical resonances in the recording process, and how to deal with them often becomes a religious issue because it can be hard to tell what is part of the singer's voice and what is part of the horn. I won't touch acoustics myself, but I know plenty of folks who work with them and it's very subjective work. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Scott Dorsey wrote: If you want to play home recordings, your goal is to get as light tracking force as possible because the material is so soft. Acoustic phonographs have tracking forces measured in KILOGRAMS, not in grams. Actually, to be precise, forces are NEVER measured either in kilograms or grams, with very few exceptions, the turntable business being one of them. Kilograms and grams are not units of force, they're units of mass. Force is measured in netwons or dynes. The confusion comes from the fact that a mass exhibits a down ward force due to gravity that's proportional to its mass. Zero- balance a tone arm, out one grams of mass at the stylus, and now you have an unbalanced force at the stylus of 1 g * 980cm/sec^2 or 980 dynes. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: If you want to play home recordings, your goal is to get as light tracking force as possible because the material is so soft. Acoustic phonographs have tracking forces measured in KILOGRAMS, not in grams. Actually, to be precise, forces are NEVER measured either in kilograms or grams, with very few exceptions, the turntable business being one of them. Kilograms and grams are not units of force, they're units of mass. Force is measured in netwons or dynes. But we can use ounces and pounds to measure both! But then, you can also measure fluid volume with ounces... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Scott Dorsey wrote: Actually, to be precise, forces are NEVER measured either in kilograms or grams, with very few exceptions, the turntable business being one of them. Kilograms and grams are not units of force, they're units of mass. Force is measured in netwons or dynes. But we can use ounces and pounds to measure both! Actually, we don't. When you buy a pound of flour, you're buying the equivalent mass that results in 1 lbf (pound-force). The problem being is that the imperial system of units is grossly inconsistent, and "pounds" can mean any number of things. Try to use the inconsistencies in equations, and you get nonsensical answers. But, to repeat, gram and kilogram are NOT units of force, they're units of mass. Forces are measured in dynes and newtons. "Weighing" means measuring force. Take 1 gram of mass say a piece of water at about 4C measuring 1cmx1cmx1cm and weigh it at the equator, and weigh it near the poles: you will get two different, albeit small, answers, because the net acceleration of gravity is different in these two places. Now, weigh it on the moon, and you get something radically different. Yet, it's still a 1 gram mass. But then, you can also measure fluid volume with ounces... That would be "floz" vs "oz", of course. :-) |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Actually, to be precise, forces are NEVER measured either in kilograms or grams, with very few exceptions, the turntable business being one of them. Kilograms and grams are not units of force, they're units of mass. Force is measured in netwons or dynes. But we can use ounces and pounds to measure both! Actually, we don't. When you buy a pound of flour, you're buying the equivalent mass that results in 1 lbf (pound-force). But we measure gas pressure in psi or lbs/inch^2 if you prefer. Not pfsi. --scott Don't mind me, I'm just being picky today. But it's true that the old standard system is very sloppy about this, which is fine as long as you aren't working with both mass and force at the same time. -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... Acoustics are another ball of wax. Acoustics have all sorts of interesting mechanical and acoustical resonances in the recording process, and how to deal with them often becomes a religious issue because it can be hard to tell what is part of the singer's voice and what is part of the horn. I won't touch acoustics myself, but I know plenty of folks who work with them and it's very subjective work. Boy, ain't that the truth. I just got done restoring 49 acoustic recordings, and it was a wild ride. I made the decision, early on, that I wasn't going to try to mess with those little resonances, and it was still a highly subjective exercise. Yow. Fun, though (good music). Peace, Paul |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Scott Dorsey wrote: wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Actually, to be precise, forces are NEVER measured either in kilograms or grams, with very few exceptions, the turntable business being one of them. Kilograms and grams are not units of force, they're units of mass. Force is measured in netwons or dynes. But we can use ounces and pounds to measure both! Actually, we don't. When you buy a pound of flour, you're buying the equivalent mass that results in 1 lbf (pound-force). But we measure gas pressure in psi or lbs/inch^2 if you prefer. Not pfsi. No, "we" measure gas pressure in pascals. My dausghter just finished her third year in mechanical engineering with the hydraulics and pneumatics course. Coincidentally, she saw a sprinkler pipe burst at the bottom of a 10 story building, and was thorouoghly impressed with the display. SHe's abosultely aced every math course she took blindfolded, but in trying to calculate in her head what the pressures and likely volumes involved were, sho got herself thoroughly tied in knots trying to do it in lbs and feet and such, and did it in about 3 seconds when she switched to SI. Don't mind me, I'm just being picky today. But it's true that the old standard system is very sloppy about this, which is fine as long as you aren't working with both mass and force at the same time. Which many people dealing with turntables do and end up coming to bogus conclusions. For example, they often assume that adjusting the counterweight to add "1 gram" of tracking force increases the moving mass of the tone arm by one gram. In fact, it reduces the moving mass somewhat. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Scott Dorsey wrote: wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Actually, to be precise, forces are NEVER measured either in kilograms or grams, with very few exceptions, the turntable business being one of them. Kilograms and grams are not units of force, they're units of mass. Force is measured in netwons or dynes. But we can use ounces and pounds to measure both! Actually, we don't. When you buy a pound of flour, you're buying the equivalent mass that results in 1 lbf (pound-force). But we measure gas pressure in psi or lbs/inch^2 if you prefer. Not pfsi. --scott Don't mind me, I'm just being picky today. But it's true that the old standard system is very sloppy about this, which is fine as long as you aren't working with both mass and force at the same time. For the very brief time I ever used it, it used to drive me nuts. Thank heavens for MKS and then SI. There's poundals too btw. Graham |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: If you want to play home recordings, your goal is to get as light tracking force as possible because the material is so soft. Acoustic phonographs have tracking forces measured in KILOGRAMS, not in grams. Actually, to be precise, forces are NEVER measured either in kilograms or grams, with very few exceptions, the turntable business being one of them. Kilograms and grams are not units of force, they're units of mass. Force is measured in netwons or dynes. But we can use ounces and pounds to measure both! But then, you can also measure fluid volume with ounces... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." If we keep poundal-ing this topic it could turn in to a slug fest, though there may be a grain of truth here. Later... Ron Capik -- |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
wrote:
No, "we" measure gas pressure in pascals. My dausghter just finished her third year in mechanical engineering with the hydraulics and pneumatics course. Coincidentally, she saw a sprinkler pipe burst at the bottom of a 10 story building, and was thorouoghly impressed with the display. SHe's abosultely aced every math course she took blindfolded, but in trying to calculate in her head what the pressures and likely volumes involved were, sho got herself thoroughly tied in knots trying to do it in lbs and feet and such, and did it in about 3 seconds when she switched to SI. It's way worse than that. I work with some folks who, in the same control room, use psi, psf, kg/cm3, inches of water, inches of mercury, millimeters of mercury, millibars, pascals, and torr. But if she got around 250 psi, that would seem about typical. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's way worse than that. I work with some folks who, in the same control room, use psi, psf, kg/cm3, inches of water, inches of mercury, millimeters of mercury, millibars, pascals, and torr. Oh, yes, and that psi could either be psia or psig depending on the measurement... and there's at least one thing calibrated just in "atmospheres" too... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Edison invented the phonograph, but he go one thing a bit wrong. He cut
vibrations perpendicular to the surface of the record (up and down), whereas Victor figured out how to cut the vibrations laterally (side to side). Victors idea was eventually adapted to make stereo records possible by altering the angles a bit so that the surfaces of the grove would be at 90 degrees of each other and left and right signals could be distinguished as twist on the cantilever in two different planes. James. ) wrote in message oups.com... What is the kind of turntable called with the old big round needle holder and pen tip-like needles? Apparently it is what I need to play home recorded vinyl and/or most 10" 78's. I have forgetten what it is called. Mostly I'm wondering if there are any of those types that have any audio outputs, or if they just have built in speakers. I'd like to record from it straight to my PC is possible. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
wrote in message
ups.com... Okay, then I ask, why don't the trunks of giant sequoia trees explode under the pressure of the sap? They do, just like maple trees -- didn't you hear NPR's expose of that a year ago April? Peace, Paul |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
wrote in message
ups.com Scott Dorsey wrote: wrote: She's absolutely aced every math course she took blindfolded, but in trying to calculate in her head what the pressures and likely volumes involved were, sho got herself thoroughly tied in knots trying to do it in lbs and feet and such, and did it in about 3 seconds when she switched to SI. It's way worse than that. I work with some folks who, in the same control room, use psi, psf, kg/cm3, inches of water, inches of mercury, millimeters of mercury, millibars, pascals, and torr. But if she got around 250 psi, that would seem about typical. Well, the fun began when I asked her to compare the fluid pressure effects in a 30-story high-rise building. Call it 300 feet. Very quickly, I figured static water column pressure of 9 atmospheres. Why? Standard atmosphere is 0.76 meters mercury column. Mercury is some 13 times denser than water, so equivalent water column is 13 times 0.76 meters or 9.88 meters, damned near 33 feet. so a 300 foot tall building with a pipe filled with water will have, static, 9 atmospheres (300/33) of pressure at the bottom. You might blame the following on the fact that my 8th grade science teacher was a skin diver, but here's the answer done simply and purely in U.S. weights and measures: A cubic foot of water weighs about 63 pounds. Divide by 144 to get 0.44 PSI. Multiply by height in feet to obtain pressure for water column that height. 300* 0.44 = 131 PSI = about 8.9 atmospheres |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
wrote in message
Well, the fun began when I asked her to compare the fluid pressure effects in a 30-story high-rise building. Call it 300 feet. Very quickly, I figured static water column pressure of 9 atmospheres. Why? Standard atmosphere is 0.76 meters mercury column. Mercury is some 13 times denser than water, so equivalent water column is 13 times 0.76 meters or 9.88 meters, damned near 33 feet. so a 300 foot tall building with a pipe filled with water will have, static, 9 atmospheres (300/33) of pressure at the bottom. Sure, but "A pint a pound the world around" and a a gallon is a little less than eight cubic feet, so figure 64 lbs for a cubic foot of water. 12 inches per foot, 144 square inches per square foot, so a column a foot high exerts a force of .44 lbs on every square inch. 300 feet tall gives you 132 psig at the base, one atmosphere is 14.7psi, so that's nine atmospheres. No need to worry about how much mercury weighs or anything. And as for why a redwood doesn't explode, I bet if you cut all the needles off it suddenly, it would. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote in message Well, the fun began when I asked her to compare the fluid pressure effects in a 30-story high-rise building. Call it 300 feet. Very quickly, I figured static water column pressure of 9 atmospheres. Why? Standard atmosphere is 0.76 meters mercury column. Mercury is some 13 times denser than water, so equivalent water column is 13 times 0.76 meters or 9.88 meters, damned near 33 feet. so a 300 foot tall building with a pipe filled with water will have, static, 9 atmospheres (300/33) of pressure at the bottom. Sure, but "A pint a pound the world around" and a a gallon is a little less than eight cubic feet, so figure 64 lbs for a cubic foot of water. 12 inches per foot, 144 square inches per square foot, so a column a foot high exerts a force of .44 lbs on every square inch. 300 feet tall gives you 132 psig at the base, one atmosphere is 14.7psi, so that's nine atmospheres. No need to worry about how much mercury weighs or anything. And as for why a redwood doesn't explode, I bet if you cut all the needles off it suddenly, it would. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Or, from SCUBA basics, one atmosphere is about 33 feet in fresh water, a bit less in salt water. Later... Ron Capik -- |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
In message , Scott Dorsey
writes wrote in message Well, the fun began when I asked her to compare the fluid pressure effects in a 30-story high-rise building. Call it 300 feet. Very quickly, I figured static water column pressure of 9 atmospheres. Why? Standard atmosphere is 0.76 meters mercury column. Mercury is some 13 times denser than water, so equivalent water column is 13 times 0.76 meters or 9.88 meters, damned near 33 feet. so a 300 foot tall building with a pipe filled with water will have, static, 9 atmospheres (300/33) of pressure at the bottom. Sure, but "A pint a pound the world around" and a a gallon is a little less than eight cubic feet, so figure 64 lbs for a cubic foot of water. 12 inches per foot, 144 square inches per square foot, so a column a foot high exerts a force of .44 lbs on every square inch. 300 feet tall gives you 132 psig at the base, one atmosphere is 14.7psi, so that's nine atmospheres. No need to worry about how much mercury weighs or anything. And as for why a redwood doesn't explode, I bet if you cut all the needles off it suddenly, it would. --scott Apart from the fact that in most of the English speaking world, a pint is 20 fluid ounces rather than the 18th century 16 fluid ounces that the Americans stayed with. (Quaint people these 'Merkins!) -- Chris Morriss |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Sure, but "A pint a pound the world around" and a a gallon is a little less than eight cubic feet, A gallon is a lot less than eight cubic feet. -- Eiron No good deed ever goes unpunished. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Chris Morriss wrote:
Apart from the fact that in most of the English speaking world, a pint is 20 fluid ounces rather than the 18th century 16 fluid ounces that the Americans stayed with. (Quaint people these 'Merkins!) It's just part of an English conspiracy to get more beer. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Eiron wrote in :
Scott Dorsey wrote: Sure, but "A pint a pound the world around" and a a gallon is a little less than eight cubic feet, A gallon is a lot less than eight cubic feet. He meant an eighth of a cubic foot. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Carey Carlan wrote:
Eiron wrote in : Scott Dorsey wrote: Sure, but "A pint a pound the world around" and a a gallon is a little less than eight cubic feet, A gallon is a lot less than eight cubic feet. He meant an eighth of a cubic foot. I believe that would be 0.8 cubic feet. Eight cubic feet would be a two foot cube: 2'x 2'x 2'...wouldn't fit in my fridge. jak |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
jakdedert wrote: Carey Carlan wrote: Eiron wrote in : Scott Dorsey wrote: Sure, but "A pint a pound the world around" and a a gallon is a little less than eight cubic feet, A gallon is a lot less than eight cubic feet. He meant an eighth of a cubic foot. I believe that would be 0.8 cubic feet. No, it wouldn't. A gallon is 3.8 liters. A cubic foot is 28.3 liters. Therefore there are 28.3/3.8 or just about 7.5 gallons per cubic foot. That means a gallon is 1/7.5 gallons/ft^3 or 0.13 cubic feet per gallon. And since a liter of water is 1000 cm^3 of water, and a cc of water is 1 gram, therefor a liter of water is 1000 kg. And since there are 28.3 liters per ft^3, the mass of a cubic foot, or 28.3 liters of water is 28.3 kg. And since a mass of 1kg exerts a force due to gravity of 2.2 lbs, 28.3 kg of water, at the earth's surface exerts a force due to gravity (or "weighs") 2.2 lbs/kg times 28.3 kg or 62.3 lbs. Q.E.D Eight cubic feet would be a two foot cube: 2'x 2'x 2'...wouldn't fit in my fridge. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
And as for why a redwood doesn't explode, I bet if you cut all the needles
off it suddenly, it would. The water in a redwood is not standing in a column. It permeates the tissue by capillary action (surface tension), and intermingles with the tree's very strong structural fibers. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
On 8 Jul 2006 13:46:48 -0700, wrote:
A gallon is 3.8 liters. A cubic foot is 28.3 liters. Therefore there are 28.3/3.8 or just about 7.5 gallons per cubic foot. That means a gallon is 1/7.5 gallons/ft^3 or 0.13 cubic feet per gallon. No, you are thinking of those mean, short-measure US gallons. A *real* gallon of water weighs 10 pounds. And there are 4.546 litres (*not* liters) in a gallon. There are 0.16 cubic feet per gallon. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Old turntable question | Pro Audio | |||
Question of value of stereo equipment | Audio Opinions | |||
Need help with interpreting turntable strobe | Tech | |||
Panasonic Turntable Repair | Tech |