Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="newusername" data-source="post: 3499317" data-attributes="member: 562064">The only downside to Don&#039;s testing methodology is that it measures a series of variables from which an extrapolation is made, rather than an actual measurement of the resonance (both frequency and amplitude); basically, measuring physical damping is preferable.&nbsp; He and Sean (who does relatively similar testing for several major clients with a $350K scanning laser vibrometer) had a long and interesting discussion on SSA about improving the effectiveness of the test, but the end result is that a 100% accurate test is well beyond the scope of an enthusiast in terms of financial viability and time constraints, much less acquiring the necessary knowledge to be able to interpret and process results effectively.However, what Don&#039;s test is really A+++ (eBay talk) for is identifying three things:1. Which manufacturers out and out lie about their products.2. Which manufacturers know what they are doing with their products.3. Which objective qualities can be used to make general estimates of a product&#039;s performance.&nbsp; Though the qualities described cannot possibly account for every variable and do not provide a &quot;final result&quot;, they do at least call attention to analysis of what I would consider a series of previously misunderstood products.I remember Anthony of SecondSkin made a very interesting anecdote...something to the effect of &quot;I know more about my competitors products than they do&quot; and I would wager that holds true in several instances.Anyways, all rants aside, I have nothing but respect for the work that Don has done.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="newusername, post: 3499317, member: 562064"] The only downside to Don's testing methodology is that it measures a series of variables from which an extrapolation is made, rather than an actual measurement of the resonance (both frequency and amplitude); basically, measuring physical damping is preferable. He and Sean (who does relatively similar testing for several major clients with a $350K scanning laser vibrometer) had a long and interesting discussion on SSA about improving the effectiveness of the test, but the end result is that a 100% accurate test is well beyond the scope of an enthusiast in terms of financial viability and time constraints, much less acquiring the necessary knowledge to be able to interpret and process results effectively. However, what Don's test is really A+++ (eBay talk) for is identifying three things: 1. Which manufacturers out and out lie about their products. 2. Which manufacturers know what they are doing with their products. 3. Which objective qualities can be used to make general estimates of a product's performance. Though the qualities described cannot possibly account for every variable and do not provide a "final result", they do at least call attention to analysis of what I would consider a series of previously misunderstood products. I remember Anthony of SecondSkin made a very interesting anecdote...something to the effect of "I know more about my competitors products than they do" and I would wager that holds true in several instances. Anyways, all rants aside, I have nothing but respect for the work that Don has done. [/QUOTE]

Verification