Arrival time from two US transducers

  • Thread starter Thread starter enc08
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the difference in arrival time of ultrasound pulses from two transducers, T1 and T2, focused 2cm into liver tissue. The user calculates arrival times of 19.9 microseconds for T2 and 20.9 microseconds for T1, resulting in a difference of 1 microsecond, while the answer sheet indicates 0.4 microseconds. The conversation highlights the importance of considering sound speed in different media and mentions that refraction at the fat/liver interface may not significantly affect the results. Participants confirm that the method of calculating equivalent sound speed is valid without accounting for reflection. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the need to consider refraction for accurate results.
enc08
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Please refer to the attached image.

T1 and T2 are ultrasound transducers. The focal point of the transducers is 2cm into the liver tissue.

Q) A pulse is emitted from both transducers at the same time. Calculate the difference in arrival time at the focal point.


I seem to be getting the wrong answer. This is what I'm doing:

The arrival time from T2 is: t_{T2} = 1cm/1450 + 2cm/1540 = 19.9us

From this we can calculate an equivalent average speed across both tissue:
c_{equiv} = 3cm/19.9us = 1508.8m/s

Using this we'll calculate the arrival time for T1
t_{T1} = \sqrt{(9.6mm)^2 + (3cm)^2}/c_{equiv} = 20.9us

Thus the difference in arrival time is 1us
However the answer sheet indicates 0.4us

Thanks for your input.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    2.9 KB · Views: 402
Physics news on Phys.org
Hint: Snell's law

EDIT: On reflection (pun!) I can see that refraction of the sound wave at the fat/liver interface is not going to make a great deal of difference in the result... So perhaps your answer is correct and the given answer is not.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Thanks. We aren't expected to consider to reflection in this question.

So my approach of finding the equivalent sound speed is right?
 
enc08 said:
Hi,

Thanks. We aren't expected to consider to reflection in this question.

So my approach of finding the equivalent sound speed is right?

Sure. The method works because, not considering refraction, the ratio of the times spent in each media is the same for both paths.

If refraction was taken into account and resulted in a different ratio, then this would not be the case.
 
Thanks.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top