Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Antennal-Based Strategies for Sound Localization by Insects

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that mosquitoes can use nonlinear distortion products from the interaction of male and female flight tones to resolve rapid frequency modulations that the Gabor time–frequency limit would otherwise forbid.

desk verdict A clean, checkable scaling law for how insects might use distortion products to beat the Gabor limit, but the biological claim rests on an unquantified assumption about high-order DP readout. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04020 v1 pith:FQ7CPYHO submitted 2025-05-06 physics.bio-ph

Justin Faber , Alexandros C Alampounti , Marcos Georgiades , Joerg T Albert , Dolores Bozovic This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords insecthearingantennalearsGaborlimitdistortionproductsfrequencymodulationHopfoscillatorsoundlocalizationmosquitocommunication
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that antennal insects, especially mosquitoes, face a physical limit: a transient signal lasting only a short time cannot carry arbitrarily precise frequency information, so fast frequency modulations in brief mating encounters should be undetectable. It then proposes that because mosquito ears are nonlinear, they generate distortion products at combination frequencies, and these products inherit any frequency modulation scaled by the distortion-product order. The central result is that the minimum resolvable frequency deviation drops from $4 f_{\rm mod}$ to $4 f_{\rm mod}/p$, where $p$ is the order of the distortion product, thereby bypassing the Gabor limit. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a concrete physical mechanism, grounded in known mosquito hearing behavior, for how small insects extract fine frequency information from transient signals.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the nonlinear auditory detector modeled as a Hopf oscillator, whose response to two simultaneous tones contains distortion products at $f_{p,q} = p f_1 - q f_2$. The Gabor limit sets the pixel budget of a spectrogram: with window $T_{\text{window}}$, frequency bins are $1/T_{\text{window}}$ wide, and resolving a modulation requires at least two windows per modulation period, giving $\delta f_{\min} = 4 f_{\rm mod}$ for the primary tone. Because the $p$-th distortion product carries the same frequency modulation scaled by $p$, Equation (8) replaces $f_{\rm mod}$ with $f_{\rm mod}/p$, and that scaling is the entire mechanism that evades the limit. The paper also develops the dipole velocity field of wingbeats, Doppler-shift scaling, and phase-shift-induced amplitude modulation as complementary cues, but the distortion-product argument carries the central claim.

What would settle it

Record from Johnston's organ neurons in a mosquito while presenting two tones, one frequency-modulated at $f_{\rm mod}=12.5$ Hz with peak deviations $\delta f$ from 20 to 50 Hz, and measure the phase-locked neural response at the distortion-product frequencies $f_{p,q}$; if the highest accessible order $p$ is too low to bring $4 f_{\rm mod}/p$ below $\delta f$, the proposed escape from the Gabor limit fails. A complementary behavioral test would mask the distortion products while leaving the primary tones intact and ask whether the rapid-modulation mating response disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery claim is that nonlinear distortion products, already known to mediate mosquito acoustic communication, relax the Gabor uncertainty bound for frequency-modulation detection by an integer factor equal to the distortion-product order. For a tone modulated at rate $f_{\rm mod}$, linear spectrogram analysis with optimal windowing resolves only frequency deviations $\delta f \ge 4 f_{\rm mod}$; reading the same modulation off the $p$-th distortion product lowers the bound to $4 f_{\rm mod}/p$. In the reported mosquito mating context ($f_{\rm mod} \approx 12.5$ Hz, peak-to-peak deviations of 20–200 Hz), linear analysis would miss many signals because $\delta f_{\min} \approx 50$ Hz, while a product of order $p \ge 3$ would bring the bound below 20 Hz. The paper concludes that mosquitoes, and possibly other antennal insects, can resolve frequency changes that the Gabor limit would otherwise restrict.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the insect's auditory system can read out distortion products of sufficiently high order $p$ even though the paper notes their amplitude falls off with increasing order and provides no quantitative sensitivity or noise estimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the argument holds, mosquito mating-call detection does not require violating the Gabor limit; the nonlinear ear already lowers the in-principle resolution bound by a factor $p$.
  • The proposed mechanism transfers to other antennal insects whose flight-tone interactions generate distortion products, such as midges, flies, and honeybees.
  • The windowing derivation predicts that no linear spectrogram analysis can recover the reported 20–200 Hz modulations at $f_{\rm mod}\approx12.5$ Hz, so any neural strategy based on linear filtering would be ruled out.
  • The dipole velocity-field analysis adds three independent cues to the fly-by signal—amplitude-envelope shape, Doppler shift, and rapid phase shift—so the paper's picture is that insects combine these cues for localization and frequency extraction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial: the paper does not estimate the signal-to-noise ratio at high distortion-product orders, so a natural next step is to combine Equation (8) with realistic neural noise to predict the maximum usable order $p$.
  • Editorial: the same windowing argument applies to any nonlinear sensor, suggesting a general design principle—nonlinear preprocessing can lift time–frequency resolution limits for modulation detection as long as the sensitivity cost is affordable.
  • Editorial: if high-order products are read out, one would expect narrowly tuned neural elements at distortion-product frequencies rather than at the primary tones, a prediction that could be tested with single-neuron recordings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper discusses the physical constraints on sound localization in antennal insects, which detect particle velocity rather than pressure. It derives a dipole velocity field with 1/r^3 falloff and a spectrogram-based bound on frequency resolution for transient signals, δf_min = 4 f_mod for a primary tone. The authors propose several cues available during fly-bys, including amplitude envelopes, Doppler shifts, and rapid phase shifts, and then argue that mosquitoes can circumvent the Gabor-based resolution bound by reading out nonlinear distortion products (DPs), for which the bound relaxes to δf_min = 4 f_mod / p (Eq. 8). A Hopf oscillator simulation is used to illustrate FM transfer to DPs. The central conclusion is that mosquitoes, and possibly other antennal insects, can resolve rapid wingbeat frequency modulations that would be unresolvable at the primary tone.

Significance. The paper is clearly written and makes a falsifiable, quantitative prediction: the distortion-product order p needed to resolve a given modulation scales as 4 f_mod / δf. It gives a transparent derivation of the dipole velocity field and the spectrogram resolution bound, and it connects to independent experimental evidence for DP use in mosquito hearing (refs. [32,36]). The main strength is the proposal of a concrete nonlinear signal-processing strategy with a simple analytic formula. The main weakness is that the biological plausibility of the central claim is not established quantitatively: no estimate is given for the amplitude of the distortion products that would need to be read out, nor for the neural noise floor, so it remains unknown which order p is actually accessible. If the accessible order is low (p ≤ 2), the proposed circumvention fails for the smaller reported modulation depths.

major comments (3)
  1. [Rapid frequency modulation by mosquitoes, Eq. (8), Appendix C] The conclusion that distortion products allow mosquitoes to resolve frequency modulations below the Gabor-based limit requires knowing which distortion-product orders are detectable. The paper does not provide a quantitative DP-amplitude model or a sensitivity threshold, and Appendix C explicitly states that 'the magnitude of these distortion products falls off with increasing order.' With the cited parameters (f_mod ≈ 12.5 Hz, δf from 20 to 200 Hz, ref. [34]), resolving the smallest reported modulation (≈20 Hz) requires p ≥ 3, but the paper offers no SNR argument showing that third- or higher-order DPs are readable in the presence of the 1/r^3 falloff of Appendix A. Please either supply such a calculation or explicitly scale the claim back to a testable hypothesis.
  2. [Rapid frequency modulation by mosquitoes] The central DP-circumvention proposal is supported by citation to the authors' companion preprint [37], rather than derived in the present manuscript. The derivation of Eq. (8) and the claim that DPs 'are not subject to the Gabor limit' therefore rest on work that is not available to the reader. Please include a self-contained derivation or clearly indicate which results are taken from [37] and are not yet peer-reviewed.
  3. [Rapid frequency modulation by mosquitoes; Discussion] The statement that distortion products 'are not subject to the Gabor limit' is technically imprecise. A distortion product is itself a finite-duration signal, so the Gabor uncertainty relation applies to it; what Eq. (8) captures is that the frequency deviation is amplified by p, which relaxes the minimum resolvable deviation at the primary frequency. This distinction should be stated plainly, as the current phrasing overstates the physical mechanism.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction; Discussion] In the Introduction and Discussion, 'spacial' should be 'spatial'.
  2. [Rapid frequency modulation by mosquitoes] In the sentence defining Eq. (5) and in the description of fp,q, 'the the' appears before 'primary tones'; please correct.
  3. [Eq. (8)] In Eq. (8), the order parameter p is the coefficient of the modulated tone f1 in fp,q = p f1 - q f2; please state this explicitly, because for conventional DP order p+|q| the label may confuse readers.
  4. [Eq. (6)] The criterion 'at least two pixels per modulation period' that yields the factor 2 in Eq. (6) is asserted; a sentence justifying it as a standard sampling condition would help readers assess the constant 4 in Eq. (7).
  5. [Fig. 3 and Appendix C] Around Fig. 3, the phrase 'the magnitude of modulation increases with increasing distortion-product order' conflicts with Appendix C's statement that DP amplitudes fall off with order; the text should distinguish between increasing frequency-modulation depth and decreasing spectral amplitude.
  6. [Doppler shift] The Doppler-shift discussion would benefit from stating the sign convention for dR/dt in Eq. (2), because the instantaneous frequency during approach versus departure depends on it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (8) is a derived rescaling of the Gabor bound, not a fitted input; the DP premise has independent experimental support.

full rationale

The derivation of the Gabor ceiling (Eqs. 4–7) is self-contained spectrogram bookkeeping: Twindow × Δf = 1, two pixels per modulation period, δf ≥ 2/Twindow, yielding δfmin = 4 fmod. The DP relaxation (Eq. 8) follows from the paper's own definition fp,q = p f1 − q f2, so a modulation δf on f1 appears as pδf in the DP; this is a derived consequence, not an input fitted to the conclusion. The premise that mosquitoes use nonlinear distortion products is grounded in independent experimental work (refs. 32 and 36), not solely in the authors' own preprint [37]. The one author-overlapping citation, [37], is attached to the proposal sentence 'We therefore propose that detection of nonlinear distortion products allows insects to circumvent the Gabor limit and extract precise frequency information' but is not load-bearing: Eq. 8 and Fig. 3 are derived in the present manuscript. Appendix C concedes that 'the magnitude of these distortion products falls off with increasing order' and no SNR analysis establishes which order p is physiologically accessible, but that is a plausibility/completeness gap, not a circular reduction. No equation is secretly equal to its inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the dipole approximation, velocity sensing, near-field truncation, the Hopf model, and the assertion that insects can read out distortion products. None of these are tested in this paper; values for lambda0, R0, v, and f_mod are taken from the cited experimental literature.

free parameters (1)
  • Hopf oscillator parameters (mu, f0, omega0, tau_ps) = mu=-0.1, f0=0.01, omega0=1; tau_ps=10, 3, 0.5
    Chosen for illustration of phase-shift response and DP generation in Figs. 2-3; not fitted to data and not load-bearing for the analytic bound Eq. (8).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Insect wingbeats can be approximated as acoustic dipole sources.
    Invoked to derive the velocity field Eq. (17) and the 1/r^3 falloff; based on refs [19,21,25], not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Antennal ears detect particle velocity rather than pressure.
    Used to justify velocity-field sensing and the reduced range argument; based on refs [10,11].
  • domain assumption Near-field condition r/(2*pi*lambda) << 1 holds at communication distances.
    Used to truncate Eq. (16) to Eq. (17); for mosquitoes lambda about 1 m and R0 about 0.1 m, r/(2*pi*lambda) about 0.016.
  • domain assumption Hopf oscillator normal form (Eq. 18) is a valid model of auditory detection.
    Used for Figs. 2-3 to show phase-shift amplitude modulation and DP generation; based on refs [29,30].
  • domain assumption Nonlinear distortion products generated in the receiver can be read out by the insect.
    Central proposal that mosquitoes use DPs to detect rapid FM; relies on refs [27,32,36] and companion preprint [37].
  • standard math Standard form of the Gabor time-bandwidth inequality.
    Eq. (1) with delta_t*delta_f >= 1/(4*pi); accepted physics.
  • ad hoc to paper Two pixels per modulation period is the minimum needed to resolve a modulation.
    Assumption used to derive Eqs. (6)-(7); a different sampling criterion would change the constant 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Antennal-Based Strategies for Sound Localization by Insects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FQ7CPYHO

@misc{pith2026250504020,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Antennal-Based Strategies for Sound Localization by Insects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FQ7CPYHO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04020}
}
read the original abstract

Insects rely on their hearing in order to communicate, identify and locate potential mates, and avoid predators. Due to their small sizes, many insect species are not able to utilize the interaural time and intensity differences employed by vertebrates for the localization of sound, but have instead evolved other mechanisms to perform this task. One such mechanism is the antenna, which provides directionally sensitive acoustic information. In the current work, we discuss the physical limitations imposed by the Gabor limit and the nature of acoustic radiation as small length scales. We then propose mechanisms that antennal insects may use in order to localize sound and extract precise frequency information from transient signals, thereby circumventing these physical limitations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04020 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (A) Velocity field of an acoustic dipole at one instance in time. The heatmap illustrates dependence of the field strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Amplitude modulation in the response of a Hopf oscillator to a phase shift in the stimulus waveform. The red, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spectrogram of the response of a Hopf oscillator in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (A) Sinusoidal signals with Gaussian amplitude en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    A Mosquito-Inspired Theoretical Framework for Acoustic Signal Detection

    J. Faber, A. C. Alampounti, M. Georgiades, J. T. Al- bert, and D. Bozovic, A Mosquito-Inspired Theoret- ical Framework for Acoustic Signal Detection, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05576 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.05576 2025

  2. [27]

    M. P. Su, M. Andr´ es, N. Boyd-Gibbins, J. Somers, and J. T. Albert, Sex and species specific hearing mech- anisms in mosquito flagellar ears, Nat. Commun. 9, 10.1038/s41467-018-06388-7 (2018)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06388-7 2018

  3. [32]

    Warren, G

    B. Warren, G. Gibson, and I. J. Russell, Sex Recognition through Midflight Mating Duets in Culex Mosquitoes Is Mediated by Acoustic Distortion, Curr. Biol. 19, 485 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [36]

    P. M. Sim˜ oes, R. Ingham, G. Gibson, and I. J. Rus- sell, Masking of an auditory behaviour reveals how male mosquitoes use distortion to detect females, Proc. Roy. Soc. B, Biol. Sci. 285, 11 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [34]

    P. M. V. Sim˜ oes, G. Gibson, and I. J. Russell, Pre-copula 7 acoustic behaviour of males in the malarial mosquitoes Anopheles coluzzii and Anopheles gambiae s.s. does not contribute to reproductive isolation, J. Exp. Biol. 220, 379 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [1]

    A. J. Hudspeth, Integrating the active process of hair cells with cochlear function, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 15, 600 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [2]

    Reichenbach and a

    T. Reichenbach and a. J. Hudspeth, The physics of hear- ing: Fluid mechanics and the active process of the inner ear., Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 076601 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [3]

    Grothe, M

    B. Grothe, M. Pecka, and D. McAlpine, Mechanisms of Sound Localization in Mammals, Physiol. Rev. 90, 983 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 38 references
  1. [4]

    H. C. Bennet-Clark, Acoustics of Insect Song, Nature 234, 255 (1971)

    1971

  2. [5]

    H. C. Bennet-Clark, Size and Scale Effects as Constraints in Insect Sound Communication, Philos. Trans. Biol. Sci. 353, 407 (1998)

    1998

  3. [6]

    J. T. Albert and A. S. Kozlov, Comparative Aspects of Hearing in Vertebrates and Insects with Antennal Ears, Curr. Biol. 26, R1050 (2016)

    2016

  4. [7]

    R¨ omer, Directional hearing in insects: Biophysical, physiological and ecological challenges, J

    H. R¨ omer, Directional hearing in insects: Biophysical, physiological and ecological challenges, J. Exp. Biol.223, jeb203224 (2020)

    2020

  5. [8]

    J. R. Barber and W. E. Conner, Tiger moth responses to a simulated bat attack: Timing and duty cycle, J. Exp. Biol. 209, 2637 (2006)

    2006

  6. [9]

    Nadrowski, T

    B. Nadrowski, T. Effertz, P. R. Senthilan, and M. C. G¨ opfert, Antennal hearing in insects - New findings, new questions, Hear. Res. 273, 7 (2011)

    2011

  7. [10]

    J. F. C. Windmill and J. C. Jackson, Mechanical Spe- cializations of Insect Ears, in Insect Hearing , edited by G. S. Pollack, A. C. Mason, A. N. Popper, and R. R. Fay (Springer International Publishing, 2016) pp. 125–157

    2016

  8. [11]

    Warren and M

    B. Warren and M. Nowotny, Bridging the Gap Between Mammal and Insect Ears – A Comparative and Evolu- tionary View of Sound-Reception, Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 1 (2021)

    2021

  9. [12]

    K. S. Boo and A. G. Richards, Fine structure of the scolo- pidia in the johnston’s organ of male Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae), Int. J. of Insect Morphol. Embryol. 4, 549 (1975)

    1975

  10. [13]

    Belton, The structure and probable function of the internal cuticular parts of Johnston’s organ in mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti), Can

    P. Belton, The structure and probable function of the internal cuticular parts of Johnston’s organ in mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti), Can. J. Zool. 67, 2625 (1989)

    1989

  11. [14]

    D. N. Lapshin and D. D. Vorontsov, Frequency organiza- tion of the Johnston’s organ in male mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae), J. Exp.l Biol. 220, 3927 (2017)

    2017

  12. [15]

    D. N. Lapshin and D. D. Vorontsov, Directional and fre- quency characteristics of auditory neurons in Culex male mosquitoes, J. Exp. Biol. 222, 1 (2019)

    2019

  13. [16]

    M. C. G¨ opfert and D. Robert, Nanometre-range acoustic sensitivity in male and female mosquitoes, Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 267, 453 (2000)

    2000

  14. [17]

    M. C. G¨ opfert and D. Robert, Active Processes in Insect Hearing, in Active Processes and Otoacoustic Emissions in Hearing , Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, edited by G. A. Manley, R. R. Fay, and A. N. Popper (Springer, New York, NY, 2008) pp. 191–209

    2008

  15. [18]

    M. C. G¨ opfert and R. M. Hennig, Hearing in Insects, Annu. Rev. Entomol. 61, 257 (2016)

    2016

  16. [19]

    J.-H. Seo, T. L. Hedrick, and R. Mittal, Mechanism and scaling of wing tone generation in mosquitoes, Bioinspir. Biomim. 15, 016008 (2019)

    2019

  17. [20]

    Feug` ere, G

    L. Feug` ere, G. Gibson, N. C. Manoukis, and O. Roux, Mosquito sound communication: Are male swarms loud enough to attract females?, J. R. Soc. Interface 18, 20210121 (2021)

    2021

  18. [21]

    Sueur, E

    J. Sueur, E. J. Tuck, and D. Robert, Sound radiation around a flying fly, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 530 (2005)

    2005

  19. [22]

    Gabor, Acoustical Quanta and the Theory of Hearing, Nature 159, 591 (1947)

    D. Gabor, Acoustical Quanta and the Theory of Hearing, Nature 159, 591 (1947)

    1947

  20. [23]

    Cohen, Time-Frequency Analysis (Prentice-Hall PTR, 1995)

    L. Cohen, Time-Frequency Analysis (Prentice-Hall PTR, 1995)

    1995

  21. [24]

    J. N. Oppenheim and M. O. Magnasco, Human time- frequency acuity beats the fourier uncertainty principle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.044301 (2013), 1208.4611

    2013 arXiv

  22. [25]

    B. J. Arthur, K. S. Emr, R. A. Wyttenbach, and R. R. Hoy, Mosquito ( Aedes aegypti ) flight tones: Frequency, harmonicity, spherical spreading, and phase relation- ships, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135, 933 (2014)

    2014

  23. [26]

    Menda, E

    G. Menda, E. I. Nitzany, P. S. Shamble, A. Wells, L. C. Harrington, R. N. Miles, and R. R. Hoy, The Long and Short of Hearing in the Mosquito Aedes aegypti, Curr. Biol. 29, 709 (2019)

    2019

  24. [28]

    Chapter 1: Fastest Flyer| The University of Florida Book of Insect Records| Department of Entomology & Nema- tology| UF/IFAS

  25. [29]

    Y. Choe, M. O. Magnasco, and A. J. Hudspeth, A model for amplification of hair-bundle motion by cyclical bind- ing of Ca2+ to mechanoelectrical-transduction channels, PNAS 95, 15321 (1998)

    1998

  26. [30]

    V. M. Egu´ ıluz, M. Ospeck, Y. Choe, A. J. Hudspeth, and M. O. Magnasco, Essential Nonlinearities in Hearing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5232 (2000)

    2000

  27. [31]

    Wishart and D

    G. Wishart and D. F. Riordan, Flight Responses to Vari- ous Sounds by Adult Males of aedes aegypti (l.) (diptera : Culicidae), Can. Entomol. 91, 181 (1959)

    1959

  28. [33]

    P. M. V. Sim˜ oes, R. A. Ingham, G. Gibson, and I. J. Rus- sell, A role for acoustic distortion in novel rapid frequency modulation behaviour in free-flying male mosquitoes, J. Exp. Biol. 219, 2039 (2016)

    2016

  29. [35]

    Aldersley and L

    A. Aldersley and L. J. Cator, Female resistance and harmonic convergence influence male mating success in Aedes aegypti, Sci. Rep. 9, 2145 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Howe, Acoustics and Aerodynamic Sound (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    M. Howe, Acoustics and Aerodynamic Sound (Cambridge University Press, 2014). End Matter Appendix A: Velocity field of an acoustic dipole –To de- termine the acoustic field produced by a monopole at the origin, we must solve the wave equation, 1 c2 ∂2Φ ∂2t −∇ 2Φ =−q(t)δ(⃗x), (9...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.