[HN Gopher] Quieting the Global Growl
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Quieting the Global Growl
        
       Author : tintinnabula
       Score  : 61 points
       Date   : 2024-06-07 05:21 UTC (17 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (hakaimagazine.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (hakaimagazine.com)
        
       | lioeters wrote:
       | Recently I saw a video of a dolphin that came up to a boat and
       | was imitating the sound of a boat motor. It looked playful, but
       | perhaps it was complaining about all the noise.
        
         | telesilla wrote:
         | It think it was an orca, I saw this yesterday also. We're all
         | curious what it's trying to communicate, but I like the idea of
         | it repeating back to us what is a very annoying sound to them.
        
           | rtkwe wrote:
           | "This is what you sound like idiot, those aren't even words!"
           | -That Orca Probably
           | 
           | I've been highly amused at the tales of Orca's attacking
           | yachts over the last few years too.
        
             | cess11 wrote:
             | Yacht in this context typically refers to a rather small
             | sailing boat. It affects small-scale fishers and things
             | like that, not the large motor yachts rich people have.
        
             | dkarl wrote:
             | I remember watching a nature TV show as a kid in which the
             | presenter waxed lyrical about the way a group of dolphins
             | took one dolphin's vocalization and repeated it and riffed
             | on it, claiming that they were improvising musically
             | together like a jazz group. I remember thinking that it was
             | a very optimistic assumption, and it was just as likely
             | that the rest of the dolphin were mocking and bullying the
             | first dolphin.
             | 
             | That train of thought probably says something about what I
             | was going through at the time, but given other things we've
             | learned about dolphins, I wouldn't discount my idea.
        
           | cess11 wrote:
           | Orcas are dolphins.
        
             | lioeters wrote:
             | Thanks for pointing it out, I didn't know that orcas are
             | dolphins too. The one I saw was like a "bottlenose dolphin"
             | with the classic dolphin shape and color.
             | 
             | > The orca, or killer whale, is a toothed whale that is the
             | largest member of the oceanic dolphin family.
             | 
             | > Oceanic dolphins include several big species whose common
             | names contain "whale" rather than "dolphin", such as the
             | round-headed whales including the false killer whale and
             | pilot whale). The Delphinidae family also includes the
             | porpoise, beluga whale, and narwhal.
        
       | blackeyeblitzar wrote:
       | If you have the chance to listen to actual boat noise from an
       | underwater microphone, you'll be surprised at how loud it is and
       | how far sound can travel. It's less of a problem with pleasure
       | boats and more of an issue with commercial ones like container
       | ships. Other sounds that are loud underwater and harmful for
       | animals include wind turbine noise (from spinning giant blades)
       | and sonar pings.
        
         | ck2 wrote:
         | US Navy (and certainly others) kill many dolphins, whales and
         | other sea life with their high powered sonar.
         | 
         | US also has high powered ultra low frequency radio (ELF) for
         | communication to subs and that's got to be insane to wildlife.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Sanguine
        
           | dingnuts wrote:
           | sound and radio are of course waves in completely different
           | media. why would low frequency radio waves be insane to
           | wildlife? it's not like it's microwave (which would cook
           | them) or pressure (sound) which directly physically damages
           | their organs. almost by definition low frequency radio waves
           | are low energy, so I don't see how this would be more
           | dangerous to Flipper than my Wi-Fi router is to me
        
             | d3w3y wrote:
             | Well, some people _do_ think their Wi-Fi routers can hurt
             | them ... maybe we should make tinfoil hats for the
             | cephalopods.
        
             | bee_rider wrote:
             | Huh, sharks pick up EM signals, right? I wonder what they
             | think of this stuff
             | 
             | But just to be clear, I don't think we should suppose it is
             | damaging and try to ask the military to stop using it (good
             | luck, lol). It could be worth looking into though.
        
               | nativeit wrote:
               | I mean, we all pick up EM signals. The frequency range is
               | the distinction, I think.
        
               | bee_rider wrote:
               | Sure, but sharks use them as a sense. We all pick up
               | photons in the sense that we can all feel the warmth of
               | the sun on our skin, but also, it is sometimes
               | interesting to think about how people who aren't blind
               | perceive light.
        
             | blackeyeblitzar wrote:
             | I'm talking about sound not electromagnetics. It's like a
             | torture for marine life to be surrounded by constant noise.
             | Many also use sound to communicate or locate.
        
         | jeffbee wrote:
         | According to this (highly interesting) paper I just read, it
         | seems that the operating sounds of wind turbines come from the
         | gearbox, which makes more sense to me because the blades of
         | offshore turbines are turning very slowly. Also according to
         | the same paper, the operating noises of offshore wind farms are
         | probably not significant.
         | 
         | https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2006/309/m309p279.pdf
         | 
         | As an aside, I love discovering a researcher with such a
         | delightful niche. How many people are out there researching
         | "Acoustically mediated fin whale mating"? Amazing humans.
        
           | blackeyeblitzar wrote:
           | My experience disagrees with that claim. But I suggest an
           | easier way to verify this, which is to just go to YouTube and
           | look at videos of the sound produced by wind turbines on
           | land. You will hear the distinct loud woosh sound of the
           | actual blades and not the gearbox. Personally, I feel a lot
           | of the academic denial around this noise issue is from people
           | with an activist goal.
        
             | jeffbee wrote:
             | You seem to have missed the point of the research, which is
             | all about underwater sound propagation.
        
             | bee_rider wrote:
             | YouTube videos are not very difficult to edit. If you
             | search YouTube for "noisy windmills," I'm sure you'll
             | get... something.
             | 
             | Anyway windmills are all over the place, lots of people
             | have had the experience of being near them. If they make
             | too much noise, that's a problem of course, but I think
             | lots of people can verify the existence of non-noisy ones
             | by virtue of having seen them in person. So, sure, loud
             | designs should be avoided since there are perfectly good
             | alternatives.
        
               | teitoklien wrote:
               | > YouTube videos are not very difficult to edit.
               | 
               | And academic papers are not difficult to fudge up with
               | edited fraudulent data [1].
               | 
               | Even Ivy League colleges are committing rampant fraud
               | sometimes for activism sometimes just to get attention
               | and get more papers published.
               | 
               | It's sad that we're at a time where academia is as
               | untrustworthy as random videos on YouTube.
               | 
               | But i agree with noiseless windmills part, they should be
               | promoted more instead of noisy ones that will discourage
               | more clean energy initiatives.
               | 
               | [1](https://retractionwatch.com/)
        
               | bee_rider wrote:
               | I mean, nobody would say the academic publishing
               | ecosystem is super healthy (every academic hates it, for
               | one). But the existence of something like "retraction
               | watch" points to the fact that these aren't really
               | comparable ecosystems. Nobody need bothers to catalogue
               | the lies on YouTube because that's an impossible and
               | pointless task.
               | 
               | The academic process has always been messy and political,
               | and yet universities do keep churning out research and
               | students.
        
               | teitoklien wrote:
               | > The academic process has always been messy and
               | political, and yet universities do keep churning out
               | research and students.
               | 
               | The youtube process has always been messy and political,
               | and yet new creators do keep churning out great content
               | that people love watching and spreading awareness about
               | various issues.
               | 
               | :)
               | 
               | The youtube show : "Undecided by Matt Ferrell" is my
               | favourite
        
               | ben_w wrote:
               | Lotta clickbait, too. They need it to keep earning, even
               | if they don't like it.
               | 
               | I recall Tom Scott saying there was one video he
               | basically couldn't make, because the climax was switching
               | on a big light, which was actually silent, but it felt
               | wrong unless he dubbed a sound over that and such dubbing
               | was against his editorial standard.
        
               | bee_rider wrote:
               | That's interesting. Without knowing what the switch was,
               | I guess it is hard to say, but a switch that kicked off
               | some big process silently seems like it could be really
               | dramatic and cool.
        
           | advisedwang wrote:
           | Wind turbines are moving a lot faster than they appear. E.g.
           | Vestas v164 [1] rotates only at max 12 times per minute so
           | looks slow. But because it has 80m blades, the tip speed is
           | up to 100 meters per second (230mph). That's 1/3rd the speed
           | of sound! That can generate a lot of noise.
           | 
           | [1] https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/1419-mhi-
           | vestas-...
        
             | jeffbee wrote:
             | That explains why they would make broadband noises but not
             | peaky high-q noises like the ones in the paper.
        
         | sevensor wrote:
         | I'm not a fluid mechanics guy, but all that cavitation from the
         | screws seems like preventably wasted energy, not to mention a
         | huge source of potential surface wear.
        
           | schiffern wrote:
           | Yes you're right.
           | 
           | I'm surprised PBCF isn't more common. It essentially reduces
           | swirl and cavitation in the central vortex, converting it
           | into additional thrust while also reducing shaft torque. It's
           | an inexpensive retrofit (payoff time <6 mo) with broad
           | compatibility, and the swap can be done while unloading with
           | no downtime. And yes, it reduces rudder surface erosion which
           | is caused by cavitation.
           | 
           | Seems like a no-brainer. Maybe folks just aren't aware of the
           | technology?
           | 
           | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8PjWSeLUzY
        
             | UniverseHacker wrote:
             | Fascinating, I'm really into boating and sailing and have
             | never heard of this- no consumer grade engines or boats
             | that I know of have this.
        
             | sevensor wrote:
             | Wow, that's awesome! Looks like a big win all-around. Save
             | money, save fuel, save wear.
        
           | UniverseHacker wrote:
           | A lot of the noise is from the combustion engines themselves-
           | exhaust often releases underwater, and the engine vibration
           | transmits through the hull.
        
           | dredmorbius wrote:
           | Correct on both counts.
           | 
           | Nuclear submarines feature very large, many-bladed,
           | specially-shaped propellers _often turning very slowly_ to
           | reduce both noise and wear (though more the former: stealth
           | is key to submarine operations).
           | 
           | Cavitation on hydraulic and steam turbines, as well as other
           | hydraulic mechanisms, is a major source of wear and failure.
           | Keep in mind that cavitation is equivalent to boiling, and
           | involves both high (if localised) temperatures _and_ extreme
           | pressure fluctuations as cavitation bubbles form and
           | collapse.
           | 
           | A couple of discussions from both perspectives:
           | 
           | <https://archive.navalsubleague.org/2012/a-century-of-
           | america...>
           | 
           | <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00298
           | ...>
           | 
           | For nuclear submarines, overall efficiency isn't
           | _termendously_ important, as _when the sub needs to move
           | quickly_ the powerplant can turn out a heck of a lot of
           | power.
           | 
           | Checking just now to confirm powerplant output, I'm learning
           | that the _Virginia_ class of hunter-killer submarines, for
           | which _both_ quiet operation _and_ speed for pursuit are
           | concerns) use pump-jet propulsors rather than traditional
           | bladed propellors, specifically to reduce cavitation:
           | 
           | <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-
           | class_submarine#Propu...>
           | 
           | Top speed is in excess of 25 knots. (I suspect _considerably_
           | in excess, though
           | 
           | Powerplant is a 210 MW nuclear reactor, 280,000 HP
           | equivalent. By contrast the Maersk E-class containership
           | (largest in the world until 2012) have an 81 MW (fossil-fuel
           | based) powerplant, 109,000 HP equivalent. The still-larger
           | Triple-Es have two 31 MW engines (for lower total output),
           | and the current size giant _CSCL Globe_ 69.7 MW.
           | 
           | <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-class_container_ship>
           | 
           | <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_E-class_container_ship>
           | 
           | <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSCL_Globe>
           | 
           | And the fastest known military submarine seems to have been
           | the K-222 Soviet Project 661 "Anchar", which could reach
           | 41-45 knots (about 50 mph) submirged. The K-222 is slightly
           | shorter than the _Virginia_ class, and as hull-length has a
           | strong effect on top speed (see hull speed:
           | <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_speed>, though how this
           | relates to submarines I'm uncertain, see also Froude number:
           | <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froude_number>), I suspect
           | _Virginia_ class boats could likely achieve similar speeds
           | should the need exist.
        
         | dylan604 wrote:
         | It's one of the things that I find fascinating about Naval
         | tech. From the sonar from each boat to the network of devices
         | like SOSUS net[0], you have to be very good and deliberate to
         | sneak around in the oceans.
         | 
         | [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS
        
         | emilecantin wrote:
         | I've done some snorkeling on coral reefs in the Bahamas, and
         | it's crazy how far you can hear boats. Once you learn what
         | sound they make (it's completely different underwater), you can
         | hear one very clearly but when you pop your head up it's way
         | off in the distance. And this is just for smaller, outboard-
         | powered boats.
         | 
         | I've never really had the chance to hear a big ship underwater,
         | but my home is right by the St-Lawrence seaway (the one they
         | talk about in the article) and when it's quiet at night I can
         | feel the rumble they make through the ground when one passes in
         | front of the house.
        
         | UniverseHacker wrote:
         | Even the above water noise is awful... I am sensitive to noise,
         | and do engineless sailing partly because the sound of motors is
         | awful, and ruins the fun of boating for me.
        
           | te0006 wrote:
           | Try a modern electric motor. There are some really quiet ones
           | now.
        
         | edem wrote:
         | when i was a kid we often camped near a river. every morning i
         | heard music but i couldn't identify the source. "it comes from
         | the other side" my uncle said. that day i learned how far sound
         | can travel in the water
        
       | sdenton4 wrote:
       | If you make incredibly loud noises above water, humans will
       | complain, and you'll end up reducing the noise, due to some
       | combination of workplace safety regulations, litigious neighbors,
       | and self-regulation.
       | 
       | People don't experience underwater noise directly, though, and so
       | it is allowed to be arbitrarily loud and has gone almost
       | completely unchecked, and is undoubtedly harmful got marine
       | ecosystems. It is thought to be a major factor in whale
       | beachings, for example.
        
         | spinach wrote:
         | Humans in cities have also got used to the noise. Go from a
         | quiet forest or rural area in the middle of nowhere to a city
         | or residential area where you have cars, trains, lawn mowers,
         | leaf blowers, air planes, loud barking dogs, etc. It's
         | shockingly noisy. It's surprising that people don't want to do
         | more about the noise pollution but it seems many just got used
         | to it.
        
           | chasd00 wrote:
           | on a tangent, I was living about 15min SW of DFW airport when
           | 9/11 happened. When the FAA grounded all air traffic i
           | remember going outside and thinking how strange it was not
           | hearing planes in the sky. I had become acclimated to all the
           | air traffic and when there was none it was pretty eery.
        
           | marssaxman wrote:
           | Rural areas can be noisy, too, depending on the ecosystem:
           | birds, frogs, crickets, and cicadas can all kick up quite a
           | ruckus. One can get used to just about anything.
        
             | ericd wrote:
             | True, those sounds are somehow less grating, though. I hate
             | two stroke motors with a passion.
        
       | mycologos wrote:
       | If you're a layperson interested in these sensory questions, I
       | highly recommend the book _An Immense World_ by Ed Yong. It 's a
       | 400-something page tour through the many senses animals have and
       | we (mostly) don't. It might have the highest density of truly
       | cool animal facts per page of anything I've ever read, despite
       | being written for adults who maybe haven't considered themselves
       | the audience for fun animal facts in decades.
        
         | cactusplant7374 wrote:
         | Which fact did you find the most interesting?
        
         | pixelmonkey wrote:
         | +1, a truly great book.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-06-07 23:01 UTC)