Fabrication and performance of high-frequency composite transducers with triangular-pillar geometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A single-element, 40-MHz, 3-mm diameter transducer was fabricated with a geometric focus at 9 mm. The transducer was based on a piezo-composite substrate with triangular-shaped composite pillars. The 2-way bandwidth of 50% and impedance magnitude were in agreement with that predicted using finite-element modeling. A one-way radiation pattern was collected using a needle hydrophone. The one-way -3 dB beamwidth at the geometric focus was measured to be 120 microm and the -3 dB depth of field was 2.5 mm. This is in good agreement with the theoretical predictions of 112.5 microm and 2.4 mm. The triangular-pillar composite transducer was then compared with a transducer with square composite pillars with similar volume fraction of active ceramic. A 9.5 dB reduction in the amplitude of the secondary resonance was found for the triangular-pillar composite as well as a 30% gain in the 2-way pulse bandwidth. A 256-element 30-MHz linear array was fabricated as a preliminary investigation into the use of the triangular pillar as the substrate in a high-frequency linear array transducer. In vivo images were generated with both the single-element and linear-array transducers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".