24 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 62.2 ms ] thread
According to my Radio Shack SPL meter, I can hit at least 127 decibels — which is where the meter tops out.

Now, I have not yet replicated that process in a more controlled test, in a suitably calibrated environment. But I would be interested to do so.

Here's Jaime Vendera (measured at 120 db) doing it:

https://youtu.be/QGk8nXs6Aao

Apparently unless you're at the resonant frequency you need over 163 db to shatter glass:

http://decibelcar.com/menugeneric/87.html

Eh... isn't the secret of the trick to be at the resonant frequency? To brute force it seems like a superhuman feat.
From the article:

> "Even if you could excite the cup, that doesn't guarantee it would break. Fracture depends on the size of the initial defects."

I have to wonder if Jaime tapping the glass with a spoon in that video not only reveals the frequency he needs, but more crucially introduces tiny fractures.

Probably no worse than what it was subjected to in the production and shipping process.
"It's possible, but you have to be both good and lucky," says Jeffrey Kysar, a mechanical engineer at Columbia University who studies the different ways in which materials can fracture and fail.
If that's a yes you should read about 'Tansen'.

"Among the legends about Tansen are stories of his bringing down the rains with Raga Megh Malhar and lighting lamps by performing Raga Deepak."

"too long didn't click": the answer is yes.
#stopclickbait
Perhaps dang will change the title here?
No, the answer is that while possible, only few people are able to produce sounds that high and loud and even they won't be able to shatter any glass. Fractures in the glass are more important, a glass in perfect condition cannot be destroyed by a singer without amplification.

I actually found the article not clickbaity at all, I knew about the Mythbusters episode and resonant frequencies before but still learned something new.

They did this on Mythbusters and showed it was possible.
I take it you didn't read the article.

> Yet, it seems that until a couple of years ago there was no proof that any person had ever broken glass with his or her voice alone.

> Then in 2005 the Discovery Channel television show MythBusters tackled the question [...]

>Yet, it seems that until a couple of years ago there was no proof that any person had ever broken glass with his or her voice alone. Then in 2005 the Discovery Channel television show MythBusters ...*

Considering that we have had witnesses reporting that tons of times in the last 200 years, and written records of such acts (by journalists), and everything, this is a peculiar version of "proof".

We have plenty of "proof" and "witnesses" of UFO sightings as well...

I agree that a Mythbusters finding may not be proof of the highest calibre but they do go through a lot of effort to avoid false positives/negatives.

Well, there have been tons of actual UFO sightings, so that's just as well.

They might not have been aliens from another planet, but UFO just means unidentified flying object, of which tons exist.

The Memorex ad showed Ms. Fitzgerald breaking the glass live. It should be noted though that they used amplification for this purpose.
This article really resonated with me.
Worth it just for the phrase, “Although I was trained as an opera singer before becoming a science journalist.”