Jump to content
watson524

Anyone work in a really noisy environment that requires hearing protection?

Recommended Posts

Looking to see if we have any landscapers or other industrial types that use bluetooth over the ear hearing protection with a mic boom and enough noise canceling that you could maybe carry on a conversation with while mowing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do use the mickey mouse ear protection headphones and noise cancelling mics when testing BIG (2,500 kW) CAT, Cummins and MTU generator sets at work. Those machines are exponentially louder than a lawn mower.

But they are the very pricey, wired, professional Motorola ones. I would suppose a Bluetooth would be the same.

May favorite is the throat mic with the "on mic" or remote PTT button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always found that the microphone was the problem.

Until a dirt biker asked if I would do his helmet up. Speaker in the earpiece of foam. The microphone above & to the side to lessen moisture from his strenuous breath. Did the job good enough for 2 way conversation with cheap parts. We never found that a cloth over the microphone was needed to soak up mouth moisture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a couple sets that were in the $800 range which is way way more than I'm willing to spend just to be able to mow grass during conference calls. The 3M worktunes looked ok but I'd go into that knowing I can't talk while mowing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bose aviation headsets, but you're looking at $1k each plus whatever intercom system you'd need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My conference call is............ "  There is no toilet paper in here !  "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2018 at 5:22 PM, cyclops2 said:

My conference call is............ "  There is no toilet paper in here !  "

LOL! I wish!!! 

I am going with the 3m Worktunes with bluetooth. I found a model that doesn't have the AM/FM which is good because I'd never use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just stumbled onto this thread as I missed it.....

Back in the good old days before any of this modern tech was available, I worked the ramp for Continental Airlines.  Not unusual to be standing behind a 727 with engines running.  I remember two times while the mechanics adjusted the engines, they were ROARING.....My body would shake due to the noise those Pratts made....Stage2!  Even after 30 years it still puts a smile on my face.

While I worked TWA in JFK, watching and listening to the Concorde depart.....loved it. The whole ops tower where I worked would shake!  In the employee parking lot.,...it was so loud it would set off everybody's car alarm. It gave me a good laugh! 

When TW840 from LAX arrived and the unions were being defiant, that 747 would sit near the gate and the sound of those Pratts at idle were still very loud. When my tinnitus starts acting up, it sounds just like the TW 747 parked at the gate. I am probably a bit crazy but I love when it does that.

Always wear hearing protection even if your just cutting your grass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a WorkTunes headset for a while now, use it a good bit when I want music when mowing.  Obviously won't solve the talking part, but they're a good value at $50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, sburke91 said:

I've had a WorkTunes headset for a while now, use it a good bit when I want music when mowing.  Obviously won't solve the talking part, but they're a good value at $50.

Yep the WorkTunes is what I went with. Got my husband a pair too. I had to give up on the talking part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SST said:

Always wear hearing protection even if your just cutting your grass. 

What was that? I couldn't make it out.... Hearing protection you say?

(worked on turbines and diesels all my life and lived through some pretty horrific gun fire and shellings) In the old days, we used cigarette butt filters, since real ear protection was hard to come by back then "in the field". We thought they worked.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a combat vet and have some hearing loss.  I am also a competitive pistol shooter.  I double up on hearing protection and have pretty much given up talking at the range.  At work, I often wear plugs too but not a lot of times.  I used the molded ones I use when shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2018 at 11:46 AM, SST said:

I just stumbled onto this thread as I missed it.....

Back in the good old days before any of this modern tech was available, I worked the ramp for Continental Airlines.  Not unusual to be standing behind a 727 with engines running.  I remember two times while the mechanics adjusted the engines, they were ROARING.....My body would shake due to the noise those Pratts made....Stage2!  Even after 30 years it still puts a smile on my face.

While I worked TWA in JFK, watching and listening to the Concorde depart.....loved it. The whole ops tower where I worked would shake!  In the employee parking lot.,...it was so loud it would set off everybody's car alarm. It gave me a good laugh! 

When TW840 from LAX arrived and the unions were being defiant, that 747 would sit near the gate and the sound of those Pratts at idle were still very loud. When my tinnitus starts acting up, it sounds just like the TW 747 parked at the gate. I am probably a bit crazy but I love when it does that.

Always wear hearing protection even if your just cutting your grass. 

I feel your pain. NHRA drag racing for me and top fuel engines will cave in your chest on the starting line. My class usually followed them during qualifying during match races in the early 70's so up close and personal was the norm. I found this to be an interesting read and the class has evolved well beyond this level since it was written. 10,000 horsepower plus from 500 cubic inches.

Top Fuel Trivia
 
One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than the first 4 rows at the Daytona 500. Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1½ gallons of  nitromethane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.

A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the dragster supercharger. With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle.
 
At the stoichiometric 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for nitromethane the flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F. Nitromethane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases .Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder. Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After ½ way, the engine is dieseling from compression plus the glow of exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow. If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with sufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half. In order to exceed 300 mph in 4.5 seconds dragsters must accelerate at  an average of over 4G's. In order to reach 200 mph well before  half-track, the launch acceleration approaches 8G's.

 

Dragsters reach over 300 miles per hour before you have completed reading this sentence.

Top Fuel Engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light! Including the burnout the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load. The redline is actually quite high at 9500rpm.

The Bottom Line; Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew  worked for free, and for once NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run costs an estimated US $1,000.00 per second. The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed  time record is 4.441 seconds for the quarter mile (10/05/03, Tony  Schumacher). The top speed record is 333.00 mph (533 km/h) as measured over the last 66' of the run (09/28/03 Doug Kalitta).

Putting all of this into perspective: You are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter "twin-turbo" powered  Corvette Z06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged and ready to launch down a quarter mile strip as you pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard up through the gears and blast across the starting line and past the dragster at an honest 200 mph. The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that moment. The dragster launches and starts after you. You keep your foot down hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears your eardrums and within 3 seconds the dragster catches and passes you. He beats you  to the finish line, a quarter mile away from where
you just passed him. Think about it, from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200  mph and not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the road when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long  race course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wingnut said:

Top Fuel Trivia
 
One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than the first 4 rows at the Daytona 500. Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1½ gallons of  nitromethane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.

That is some pretty cool trivia, but really?  Not saying it's untrue, just that energy translates to thrust, and the energy produced from a 747 jet engine being 25% less than a 500ci Hemi is hard to believe, considering the thrust to weight ratio for those jet engines.  I would think the T-W ratio on a dragster is much lower than that of a 747 turbofan engine that produces around 68,000lbs of thrust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hatem said:

That is some pretty cool trivia, but really?  Not saying it's untrue, just that energy translates to thrust, and the energy produced from a 747 jet engine being 25% less than a 500ci Hemi is hard to believe, considering the thrust to weight ratio for those jet engines.  I would think the T-W ratio on a dragster is much lower than that of a 747 turbofan engine that produces around 68,000lbs of thrust

It's technically true, but misleading. (1) At about 375 mph (235 knots), 1 pound of thrust = 1 horsepower. In order to have horsepower, movement is required (work = force x distance). A 747 roaring on the run-up pad produces about 265,000 pounds of thrust at full throttle. While the p-brake will be set, and both pilots standing on the peddles sweating profusely, without movement no horsepower is produced.  (2) Finally, because the turbines produce vastly more heat at nearly the same fuel flow over the same 1 second compared to the hemi, less energy is actually produced (the heat is wasted). 

Fun to watch. Put the hemi powered dragster next to a turbine powered dragster and off the line the hemi eats its lunch.  But, down the lane a bit the turbine catches up, overruns and then blows it off the strip. 

Numbers can be twisted to match whatever story is being told. Not terribly different than when length of a boat was transom to bow, and now the swim platform is included.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Curt said:

It's technically true, but misleading. (1) At about 375 mph (235 knots), 1 pound of thrust = 1 horsepower. In order to have horsepower, movement is required (work = force x distance). A 747 roaring on the run-up pad produces about 265,000 pounds of thrust at full throttle. While the p-brake will be set, and both pilots standing on the peddles sweating profusely, without movement no horsepower is produced.  (2) Finally, because the turbines produces vastly more heat at nearly the same fuel flow over the same 1 second compared to the hemi, less energy is actually produced (the heat is wasted). 

 

Hmmm.  energy production?  Law of conservation of energy?  Definition of work?  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so my portable generator doesn't produce horsepower because it is sitting still and not moving?  My car brake torqued is not producing horsepower?  Thrust is a force, horsepower is a rate at which work is done.  There indeed is work being done on the air pushed through a jet engine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Pops said:

That was a good read.  I especially enjoyed the part where it mentions how the Nazis used it and were way ahead of everyone else in formulating it and were already using it on race cars.  Then after the war, the technology -- along with almost every other one they developed -- ended up here in the US lol.

14 hours ago, Curt said:

It's technically true, but misleading. (1) At about 375 mph (235 knots), 1 pound of thrust = 1 horsepower. In order to have horsepower, movement is required (work = force x distance). A 747 roaring on the run-up pad produces about 265,000 pounds of thrust at full throttle. While the p-brake will be set, and both pilots standing on the peddles sweating profusely, without movement no horsepower is produced.  (2) Finally, because the turbines produce vastly more heat at nearly the same fuel flow over the same 1 second compared to the hemi, less energy is actually produced (the heat is wasted). 

Fun to watch. Put the hemi powered dragster next to a turbine powered dragster and off the line the hemi eats its lunch.  But, down the lane a bit the turbine catches up, overruns and then blows it off the strip.      

In this case, though, you're referring to the comparison of acceleration as it relates to that T-W ratio and not necessarily the energy level produced, which translates to HP.  Especially when the comparison is made to a non-moving jet engine at full throttle to a dragster screaming down the 1/4 mile. 

10 hours ago, Dennis A said:

so my portable generator doesn't produce horsepower because it is sitting still and not moving?  My car brake torqued is not producing horsepower?  Thrust is a force, horsepower is a rate at which work is done.  There indeed is work being done on the air pushed through a jet engine.  

You beat me to it!  I was going to tell Curt that he's applying E=mc^2 to the 747 and E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 for the dragster!  Need to have even playing conditions to make the actual energy comparison, not one that is stationary and one that is moving.

Speaking of jet engines and racers, always  fun to see this thing which was at the Quonset airshow last month.  This thread title & conversation reminded me of it. 

Shockwave Jet Truck
It's equipped with 3 - J34-48 Pratt & Whitney jet engines that were taken out of a US Navy T2 Buckeye and braced onto this thing. It's basically powered by 3 F-16 engines to simplify things.

36,000 combined horsepower producing 21,000 lbs of thrust propelling it to 375 mph in roughly 4 seconds.  Not only does it blow your ears out (speaking of hearing protection), it leaves a bunch of smoke that suffocates the whole crowd loool.  But we loved being in the front row having our chests pounded and ears obliterated so I can get these snapshots.

img_0612-jpg.483635

img_0614-jpg.483636

img_0619-jpg.483644

img_0623-jpg.483645

img_0626-jpg.483646

img_0632-jpg.483647

img_0636-jpg.483648

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those pics. are awesome.  Would love to see that thing live.  (FWIW.  The J34 is a Westinghouse turbojet, and the J48 is a Pratt & Whitney turbojet.  Different but similar and perhaps they "merged" the two.).  To get horsepower, which defies commonsense to an extent, there must be movement.  That's the formula.  The original author's conclusion can only be true if the 747 is stationary.  The 747 is < 1 thrust to weight.  The truck is around 2.  And then finally, and not to nick pick, is the matter of fuel.  Top fuel releases more energy when burned compared to Jet-A (a.k.a. kerosene).  The numbers support the desired conclusion without context.  Context is what the author didn't provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a matter of perspective.  Just because the plane doesn't move doesn't mean work is not being done.  

Your same perspective also says that if i walk up a set a stairs and then walk down them I have done zero net work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Curt said:

Those pics. are awesome.  Would love to see that thing live.  (FWIW.  The J34 is a Westinghouse turbojet, and the J48 is a Pratt & Whitney turbojet.  Different but similar and perhaps they "merged" the two.).  To get horsepower, which defies commonsense to an extent, there must be movement.  That's the formula.  The original author's conclusion can only be true if the 747 is stationary.  The 747 is < 1 thrust to weight.  The truck is around 2.  And then finally, and not to nick pick, is the matter of fuel.  Top fuel releases more energy when burned compared to Jet-A (a.k.a. kerosene).  The numbers support the desired conclusion without context.  Context is what the author didn't provide.

Nitromethane  has about 5,000 btu/lb of fuel.  Jet A has about 18,500 btu/lb.  Nitromethane afr is about 1.7:1 and jet A is about 50-130:1.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×