Now on ScienceBlogs: Oldest Human-Made Object in Space

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Built on Facts

An exploration of physics and the quest to understand our world.

Profile

profile.jpg Matt Springer is a graduate student of physics at Texas A&M university. He is also an occasional writer and tinkerer, and he is probably too curious for his own good.

Search

Twitter

Yes, I've joined the horde. @BuiltOnFacts. Follow if you'd like!

Donate

Help Matt not starve! Use this link to amazon.com when you order from Amazon, and a fraction of the purchase price will be sent to me at zero cost to you. Much obliged, and thanks for your patronage.


Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Physics/Math Blogs

My Other-Than-Physics Reading (variable, very incomplete)

« Sunday Function | Main | Power from the Earth's Magnetic Field »

Laser Safety and the Vuvuzela

Posted on: June 17, 2010 10:00 AM, by Matt Springer

As you might expect for a guy who does experimental optical physics, I get to spend a tremendous amount of time in labs with some fairly snazzy lasers. Most of them are fairly specialized pieces of equipment that aren't really designed simply to dump huge amounts of power in industrial applications. As far as danger goes, they're not going to come to life and murder you in your sleep. But still, we have open beamlines of infrared lasers with average powers on the order of 1-4 watts. Unfocused they usually won't do much to exposed skin other than make you uncomfortable (for instance, like a Christmas light pressed against the skin for the 4 watt laser). Focused they'd have no trouble poking a very clean little pinhole in you. Unfortunately your eye is a focusing lens, and direct eye exposure would be instant permanent damage. And the infrared beam is invisible to the naked eye, so that's an extra challenge.

Of course we have pretty robust safety procedures and I've never heard of any injuries in our AMO group. We also have a wide assortment of surprisingly expensive safety glasses that are designed to filter out the wavelength of particular lasers. For lasers with a continuous beam this is not so hard since all the light is emitted at pretty much exactly one frequency. For lasers that generate ultrashort pulses the light spans a wider portion of the spectrum and the glasses have to remove more bandwidth.

This particular laser is a 15 watt Nd:YLF laser we use to pump an ultrafast amplifier. While it's possible in theory to pop the lid and get a good picture of its innards, it's not a great idea to shut down and open up expensive equipment for no research-related reason. So here's a picture of some green light diffusely reflecting from the gap between the pump laser and the amplifier:

1.jpg

And here's the same thing with some safety glasses held in front of the camera:

2.jpg

Though the images are not great, you can see that the green light is totally blocked. You can still see most of the world pretty well because the glasses still let in light with longer wavelengths than green. (For the curious, these block everything from about 540nm to around 160nm. This protects against frequency doubled Nd lasers and excimer lasers, though our lab only uses the former.)

So what's this have to do with the now-infamous vuvuzela? If you've been living under a rock lately, you may have missed watching or at least seeing clips of the World Cup being held in South Africa. Apparently it's tradition to bring this instrument to the games. It sounds something like an oversized kazoo and in the aggregate makes the stadium sound like the world's biggest beehive. But in analogy to the laser, it just so happens that the sound produced by the vuvuzela is generated in a relatively narrow frequency range - mostly at 233 Hz, 466 Hz, 932 Hz, and 1864 Hz. Block those frequencies electronically and you remove that buzzing while preserving most of the rest of the noise of the games. Various news organizations have reported that some people are doing just that. Here's the web site of the guy most of the news articles mention. It's in German, but if you scroll to the bottom the before/after sound samples are easy to find. It's not quite perfect. The vuvuzela is not quite a perfectly narrowband instrument and some of those removed frequencies contain significant parts of the spectrum of the human voice which leaves vocal audio sounding a tiny bit tinny. But it's really a remarkable improvement nonetheless.

Maybe not quite as important to health as a good pair of laser safety glasses, but certainly an application of band-stop filtering that's likely to be useful to more people.

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Physical Science

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/141923

Comments

1

As I understand it, part of the problem with the vuvuzelas is that the vast majority of people blowing them don't actually know how to blow it. A well blown vuvuzela will sound more like a classic horn. But there are lots of people who are blowing them with no knowledge how to old their lips or moderate the air level or anything.

Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | June 17, 2010 10:50 AM

2

FWIW, a vuvuzela is nothing like a kazoo. A kazoo is a membranophone, in which a (usually paper) membrane vibrates sympathetically with an external sound source (usually a voice) to amplify and modify the sound. A vuvuzela is a lip-vibrated aerophone (aka trumpet). The lips are used to create a vibrating column of air within the horn, which resonates at frequencies corresponding to the normal modes of the instrument.

Ordinarily I wouldn't nitpick, but the fact that the resonant frequencies of the instrument are predictable based on its physical dimensions is what makes this technique possible. It would be impossible to do narrow band-pass filtering on a kazoo because it has (nearly) no resonant frequencies of its own.

Posted by: HP | June 17, 2010 11:08 AM

3

The instrument's output is correlated noise, which is more disruptive to voice communication than random noise at the same volume because it tends to confuse signal processing.

Posted by: 6EQUJ5 | June 17, 2010 11:50 AM

4

Good catch, HP. In general instruments with complicated geometries will usually have a more complicated mode structure. It would (probably) be easier to block out a flute playing a G sharp than a trumpet.

Posted by: Matt Springer | June 17, 2010 12:35 PM

5

One of the experiments in the group where I got my Ph.D. was to look at naturally occurring noise in a frequency band which overlaps the AM radio spectrum. (The electron cyclotron frequency in the ionosphere typically falls within this range, and at times the plasma frequency does too.) Doing the experiment involves putting a receiver somewhere out in the boonies (to cut down on the amount of broadcast signal), but not too far (the receiver needs electric power to run). One of the initial sites was about 20 miles from Fairbanks, which has a powerful AM radio station known at the time for its religious content. As part of the installation they installed such a filter (radio engineers call it a "notch filter") in order to knock 40 dB off the "Voice of God."

As for brass and woodwind musical instruments, they work by having a tube whose effective length can be changed by slide (trombone), valves (all other brass instruments), or keys (woodwinds), along with some means of selecting a particular harmonic (through keys and/or blowing technique). The overtones you hear are always harmonics (otherwise the instrument would be musically useless); you can force the higher normal modes to be harmonics by making the bore of the instrument either cylindrical (flute, clarinet) or conical (oboe, saxophone). Flutes have particularly weak harmonics, but the frequencies a trumpet puts out are equally predictable, so it is not that much harder to filter out a trumpet than a flute if both are playing pitches of similar duration.

Karaoke machines work on a different principle: usually the lead singer is centered in the stereo mix, so by inverting one of the channels you can cancel out his/her voice.

Posted by: Eric Lund | June 17, 2010 1:41 PM

6

What does the warning label say on your laser? I'm curious because I've only seen the ones on the 1 mW ones we use in class.

Posted by: CCPhysicist | June 23, 2010 12:25 AM

7

Mat & HP: Mat you should not give in to such nit picking. HP he said "It sounds something like an oversized kazoo" and did not mention any other similarity between the two as to the method of signal generation.

Posted by: zorger | June 28, 2010 1:17 PM

8

Have you seen the shockingly affordable blue laser for sale at wickedlasers.com? It's their new Arctic Blue line. At under $200, it is in the price range of just about anybody, and about as dangerous as a handgun when it comes to blinding yourself or bystanders. I don't imagine it will be long before we start seeing a flood of blinded, drunken college students popping up in courtrooms.

Posted by: David Broome | June 28, 2010 2:44 PM

9

The fact that human beings who love soccer love the vuvu thing, proves that soccer is the game of morons.

Posted by: bomoore | June 28, 2010 7:44 PM

10

Vuvuzela bizimde kafamızı sikiyor Türkiye de de izliyoruz maçı napalım

Posted by: Müzik Dinle | June 29, 2010 11:54 AM

11

Şuan dada Japonya-Paraguay maçı oynanıyor.Bakalım bu maç sonucu ne olacak.Vuvuzelada sikti beynimizi

Posted by: İbrahim Tatlıses Dinle | June 29, 2010 11:56 AM

Post a Comment

(Email address is entirely optional, but a consistent email - fake is fine - helps the system identify repeat commenters as not spam.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.