Estimation of the mean power content of summed sinusoids and an application to acoustic noise measurement in shallow water

1980 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-59
Author(s):  
A.W. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Shallow Water ◽  
Acoustic Noise ◽  
Noise Measurement ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Power Content ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Acoustic Noise Measurement

Aero-Acoustic Noise Measurement of Vehicle Using Surface Microphone in Wind Tunnel

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masaki Tuchiya ◽  
Tsuyoshi Yamashita ◽  
Niels V. B\atgholm ◽  
Toshikazu Satoh ◽  
Masateru Kimura
Keyword(s):  
Wind Tunnel ◽  
Acoustic Noise ◽  
Noise Measurement ◽  
Acoustic Noise Measurement

Field Comparison of IEC 61400-11 Wind Turbines — Part 11: Acoustic Noise Measurement Techniques, Edition 3.0 and Edition 2.1

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Jozwiak ◽  
Allan Munro ◽  
Duncan Halstead ◽  
Addie Denison
Keyword(s):  
Wind Turbines ◽  
Acoustic Noise ◽  
Power Level ◽  
Measurement Techniques ◽  
Noise Measurement ◽  
Sound Power ◽  
Measurement Standard ◽  
Detailed Review ◽  
Sound Power Level ◽  
Acoustic Noise Measurement

Following the release of Edition 3.0 (2012) of IEC 61400-11 Wind Turbines – Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques, there has been a lot of interest as to how analysis results differ from methods stipulated in Edition 2.1 (2006). This paper provides a detailed review of the differences between Edition 3.0 and Edition 2.1. An analysis is provided on differences in evaluation of the apparent sound power level and tonal audibility between both versions of the measurement standard.

Acoustic noise measurement in counter-rotating propellers

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 3187-3192
Author(s):  
Pin Liu ◽  
Fumiha Odo ◽  
Tengen Murakami ◽  
Toshiaki Kanemoto
Keyword(s):  
Acoustic Noise ◽  
Noise Measurement ◽  
Acoustic Noise Measurement

scholarly journals Underwater acoustic noise measurement in test tanks

2000 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 516-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Cochard ◽  
J.L. Lacoume ◽  
P. Arzelies ◽  
Y. Gabillet
Keyword(s):  
Acoustic Noise ◽  
Noise Measurement ◽  
Underwater Acoustic ◽  
Acoustic Noise Measurement

The Influence of Training Phase on Error of Measurement in Jump Performance

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristie-Lee Taylor ◽  
Will G. Hopkins ◽  
Dale W. Chapman ◽  
John B. Cronin
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Model ◽  
Training Phase ◽  
Confidence Limits ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Random Factor ◽  
Jump Performance ◽  
Mean Error ◽  
Overload Training ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Error Of Measurement

The purpose of this study was to calculate the coefficients of variation in jump performance for individual participants in multiple trials over time to determine the extent to which there are real differences in the error of measurement between participants. The effect of training phase on measurement error was also investigated. Six subjects participated in a resistance-training intervention for 12 wk with mean power from a countermovement jump measured 6 d/wk. Using a mixed-model meta-analysis, differences between subjects, within-subject changes between training phases, and the mean error values during different phases of training were examined. Small, substantial factor differences of 1.11 were observed between subjects; however, the finding was unclear based on the width of the confidence limits. The mean error was clearly higher during overload training than baseline training, by a factor of ×/÷ 1.3 (confidence limits 1.0–1.6). The random factor representing the interaction between subjects and training phases revealed further substantial differences of ×/÷ 1.2 (1.1–1.3), indicating that on average, the error of measurement in some subjects changes more than in others when overload training is introduced. The results from this study provide the first indication that within-subject variability in performance is substantially different between training phases and, possibly, different between individuals. The implications of these findings for monitoring individuals and estimating sample size are discussed.

Carbohydrate Drink Use During 30 Minutes of Variable-Intensity Exercise Has No Effect on Exercise Performance in Premenarchal Girls

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-69
Author(s):  
C. Eric Heidorn ◽  
Brandon J. Dykstra ◽  
Cori A. Conner ◽  
Anthony D. Mahon
Keyword(s):  
Peak Power ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Fatigue Index ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Variable Intensity ◽  
Performance Effects ◽  
Power Peak ◽  
The Mean ◽  
And Performance

Purpose: This study examined the physiological, perceptual, and performance effects of a 6% carbohydrate (CHO) drink during variable-intensity exercise (VIE) and a postexercise test in premenarchal girls. Methods: A total of 10 girls (10.4 [0.7] y) participated in the study. VO2peak was assessed, and the girls were familiarized with VIE and performance during the first visit. The trial order (CHO and placebo) was randomly assigned for subsequent visits. The drinks were given before VIE bouts and 1-minute performance (9 mL/kg total). Two 15-minute bouts of VIE were completed (10 repeated sequences of 20%, 55%, and 95% power at VO2peak and maximal sprints) before a 1-minute performance sprint. Results: The mean power, peak power, heart rate (HR), %HRpeak, and rating of perceived exertion during VIE did not differ between trials. However, the peak power decreased, and the rating of perceived exertion increased from the first to the second bout. During the 1-minute performance, there were no differences between the trial (CHO vs placebo) for HR (190 [9] vs 189 [9] bpm), %HRpeak (97.0% [3.2%] vs 96.6% [3.0%]), rating of perceived exertion (7.8 [2.3] vs 8.1 [1.9]), peak power (238 [70] vs 235 [60] W), fatigue index (54.7% [10.0%] vs 55.9% [12.8%]), or total work (9.4 [2.6] vs 9.4 [2.1] kJ). Conclusion: CHO supplementation did not alter physiological, perceptual, or performance responses during 30 minutes of VIE or postexercise sprint performance in premenarchal girls.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document