4.7 Article

Cross-frequency couplings in non-sinusoidal dynamics of interacting oscillators: Acoustic estimation of the radial position and spatial stability of nonlinear oscillating bubbles

期刊

ULTRASONICS SONOCHEMISTRY
卷 51, 期 -, 页码 424-438

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018.07.026

关键词

Cross-frequency coupling; Phase locking value; Multi-frequency bubble driving; Active acoustic-field manipulation; Sonoluminescence

资金

  1. ANPCyT [PICT 2014-1966]
  2. UNCuyo SeCTyP, Argentina [05/C016]
  3. CONICET

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, the analysis of cross-frequency couplings (CFC) is introduced in the context of nonlinear acoustics related to the dynamics of bubble(s)-resonator systems. The results obtained from experiments specifically designed to untangle the causal connection between the CFC patterns observed at the signal level and the underlying physical processes, are discussed. It was found that causal amplitude-to-amplitude (AAC) and amplitude -to-phase (APC) couplings emerge in the system dynamics as a consequence of the bubble(s)-resonator mechanistic interaction in the oscillatory steady-state. In these CFC patterns, the amplitude of the fundamental frequency component (f(0)) effectively modulates the amplitude and relative phase of the harmonic components (Nf(0)). Moreover, these AAC and APC couplings give rise to epiphenomenal phase-to-amplitude (PAC) and phase-to-phase (PPC) couplings, in which the link between modulating and modulated parameters represents a correlation rather than a causal connection. It is shown that these CFC patterns can be exploited to determine the presence, spatial stability and radial position of nonlinear oscillating bubble(s) trapped within the acoustic chamber. Potential applications of the proposed techniques are also discussed. Substantial evidence is presented showing that CFC patterns emerging from quasi-periodic non-sinusoidal waveforms are informative on the interaction between underlying oscillators.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据