Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Alternative sum rules and waterbed effects of Lorentz resonator system for sound absorption and transmission in a unidimensional waveguide

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For passive Lorentz-resonator absorbers in a one-dimensional waveguide, average absorption in any band times its relative bandwidth is capped by the thickness-to-wavelength ratio and the maximum damping, producing a waterbed trade-off.

desk verdict The bound is probably right, but the proof as written applies the Herglotz identity in the wrong half-plane; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19634 v1 pith:5SN2NN2F submitted 2024-11-29 physics.class-ph physics.app-ph

Di Mo , Yumin Zhang , Tianquan Tang , Xiaochao Ji , Xiang Liu Keming Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.class-phphysics.app-ph
keywords sumrulesHerglotzfunctionmethodsoundabsorptiontransmissionlosswaterbedeffectLorentzresonatorsone-dimensionalwaveguidedeep-subwavelengthabsorber
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 seeks a fundamental limit on how much sound a thin, passive, linear device can absorb or block in a one-dimensional waveguide. It derives new sum rules—integral identities with no logarithms and, in one version, no frequency weighting—by applying the Herglotz-function method to the reflection coefficient. The central result is a waterbed bound: the average absorption coefficient in any band, multiplied by the band's relative width, cannot exceed a constant set by the thickness-to-wavelength ratio and the maximum damping of the resonators. This turns the familiar intuition that broadband and deep-subwavelength are in conflict into a quantitative design formula, and it gives a matching lower bound for average transmission loss.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Herglotz function $H_1(\omega)=i(1-R(\omega))$, defined for the passive reflection coefficient $R$; a Herglotz function maps the complex upper half-plane to itself, and for real-valued time-domain responses it satisfies the symmetry $H(\omega)=-H^*(-\omega)$. Its imaginary part is connected to absorption through $\alpha(\omega)=\frac{2\theta(\omega)}{1+\theta(\omega)}\operatorname{Re}(1-R(\omega))$, where the prefactor is interpreted as the fraction of supplied acoustic intensity dissipated in the absorber. The Herglotz integral representation, taken at $q=0$ and $q=1$, converts integrals of $\operatorname{Im}H_1$ into differences of static and dynamic asymptotic coefficients; for the Lorentz impedance model these coefficients are set by the effective static stiffness $K_e(0)$ and effective dynamic mass $M_e(\infty)$. Those two numbers, plus the range of the damping $\theta$, are what turn analyticity into the thickness, bandwidth, and absorption bounds. Because $1-R$ has no poles in the upper half-plane, no Blaschke products or ancillary functions are needed, so the sum rules are stated as equalities before the damping bounds are applied.

What would settle it

Take a passive impedance $Z(\omega)=iM\omega + D + K/(i\omega) - i\cot kL$ with positive parameters, compute the absorption spectrum $\alpha(\omega)$ numerically, and scan all finite frequency intervals; if any interval satisfies the paper's definitions but has $\bar{\alpha}_\lambda\bar{\omega} > \frac{\theta_{\max}}{1+\theta_{\max}}4\pi^2 L_\lambda$, the central bound is false. In the lab, the same check can be made by measuring $\alpha(\lambda)$ for a 5-cm resonator stack in an impedance tube and integrating over a broad band to compare with Eq. (14c).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the absorption and transmission spectra of any passive, linear, time-invariant one-dimensional waveguide system built from Lorentz resonators obey exact integral identities in which the absorption coefficient itself, not its logarithm, is integrated. For absorption, the identities are $\int_0^\infty \frac{1+\theta(\omega)}{2\theta(\omega)}\alpha(\omega)\,d\omega = \frac{\pi}{M_e(\infty)}$ and $\int_0^\infty \frac{1+\theta(\lambda)}{2\theta(\lambda)}\alpha(\lambda)\,d\lambda = \frac{2\pi^2 c_0}{K_e(0)}$, where $M_e(\infty)$ is the effective dynamic mass and $K_e(0)=c_0/L_e$ the effective static stiffness. Bounding the damping factor by its minimum and maximum turns these into inequalities, and the finite-band version is the waterbed bound $\bar{\alpha}_\lambda\,\bar{\omega}\le \frac{\theta_{\max}}{1+\theta_{\max}}\,4\pi^2 L_\lambda$, with $\bar{\omega}$ the relative bandwidth, $L_\lambda=L_e/\lambda_c$ the thickness-to-wavelength ratio, and $\theta_{\max}$ the largest damping. The paper argues this makes explicit the compromise among absorption efficiency, bandwidth, and thickness for deep-subwavelength broadband absorbers, and it derives the analogous lower bounds for transmission loss.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that every passive Lorentz-resonator absorber studied has a reflection coefficient for which the constructed complex function is of the special type whose imaginary-part integrals are fixed by the stated low- and high-frequency limits; if a legitimate passive absorber falls outside that class, the waterbed bound is not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a fixed device thickness and target band, Eq. (14c) gives a quick upper bound on the average absorption coefficient, and the bound is tighter than the earlier logarithmic bound in the deep-subwavelength regime when the maximum damping is known.
  • The waterbed effect becomes quantitative: improving absorption in one wavelength interval forces lower average absorption elsewhere, and widening the target bandwidth lowers the maximum achievable average absorption.
  • Parallel arrays of resonators obey the same bound no matter how many resonators are added, so the numerical cases show that the product of absorption and bandwidth stays under a fixed rectangular constraint.
  • Cascading impermeable resonator layers raises the effective static stiffness and therefore lowers the absorption upper bound, so adding layers is not an efficient route to broadband absorption unless the added layers have zero stiffness.
  • For transmission, the same Herglotz function yields a lower bound on average transmission loss, and passive shunt circuits cannot change the static stiffness or dynamic mass of a loudspeaker but can raise the minimum damping and thereby raise that lower bound.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct engineering reading the paper leaves implicit is that Eq. (13a) can be used as a mass-budget criterion: once a target band and average absorption are fixed, the required ceiling on effective dynamic mass is fixed, independent of how the resonators are arranged.
  • Because the derivation only assumes linear, time-invariant passivity, time-varying or nonlinear designs sit outside the bound's jurisdiction; the paper's discussion of temporal switching suggests a concrete test of whether acoustic analogues of switched electromagnetic systems also beat Eq. (14c).
  • The bounds depend on the Lorentz model only through the two asymptotic coefficients, so the same sum-rule framework should apply to any subwavelength resonator whose impedance has well-defined static and dynamic limits; checking a membrane absorber against Eq. (14c) would separate the universal constraint from model details.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives "alternative" sum rules for the sound absorption and transmission coefficients of passive Lorentz-resonator loads in a one-dimensional waveguide. The method constructs the function H1=i(1−R), applies the Herglotz integral identity of Section 2.2, and extracts the low- and high-frequency asymptotic coefficients in terms of an effective static stiffness K_e(0) and an effective dynamic mass M_e(∞). This yields integral identities and inequalities without logarithmic factors, including the band-average bound Eq. (14c) and a waterbed-effect interpretation. The claims are illustrated with parallel and cascaded resonator arrays, a stretched membrane, and a passive shunted loudspeaker.

Significance. If the derivation were correct, the paper would make a useful contribution: the sum rules are more directly energy-interpretable than the logarithmic rules of Meng et al. and Yang et al., and the finite-band bounds with explicit dependence on the maximum damping θ_max and the thickness-to-wavelength ratio L_λ give a compact design constraint. The numerical case studies and the comparison with existing bounds in Fig. 4 help to calibrate the novelty. The paper also explicitly acknowledges prior work and discusses the resulting design trade-offs. However, the central mathematical step is not rigorous as written, and the stated asymptotic coefficients have sign and factor problems, so the main claims are not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (8)–(10)] The derivation of the sum rules rests on the assertion that H1(ω)=i(1−R(ω)) is a Herglotz function in the upper half-plane with the asymptotic expansions of Eq. (10). This is neither proved nor consistent with the impedance convention used in the paper. For Z≈−iK_e/ω at low frequency, the reflection coefficient defined by Eq. (4), R=(Z−1)/(Z+1), gives 1−R≈2iω/K_e and hence H1≈−2ω/K_e, the opposite sign of Eq. (10a); at high frequency, Z≈iM_eω gives H1≈+2/(M_eω), the opposite sign of Eq. (10b). Moreover, evaluating Z at ω=iy for y>0 yields Z≈−M_e y−K_e/y−coth(yL/c0), so Z+1 is negative for large y and Im H1 is negative in the upper half-plane, contradicting the claimed Herglotz property. The paper never states the Fourier/time convention or the half-plane in which passivity is assumed, so the application of Eq. (1) to H1 is unsubstantiated. Because Eqs. (12)–(14), including the central bound Eq. (14c), inherit the coefficients from Eq. (10), this is a load-bearing gap in the proof.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (11a), (12b), (14b)–(14c)] The definition of the effective static stiffness is internally inconsistent. Eq. (11a) states a1=2/K_e(0)=L_e/c0, which implies K_e(0)=2c0/L_e, while the text immediately below states K_e(0)=c0/L_e. These differ by a factor of two. This ambiguity affects the numerical constants in Eqs. (12b), (13b), and (14b)–(14c), including the 4π² coefficient in the central result Eq. (14c). The authors must fix this inconsistency and re-derive the constants before the bounds can be used for quantitative predictions.
  3. [Sec. 4.2(a), Eqs. (30)–(32)] The asymptotic expansions for the stretched membrane are stated without derivation, and the formulas are not dimensionally consistent with the normalized impedance convention used elsewhere in the paper. Eq. (31a) contains a symbol `L_M` that does not appear in Eq. (30), and the stated result K_e(0)=8T/(ρ0 c0^2) has the dimension of length, whereas K_e(0) as used in Eq. (27) must have dimension 1/time under the normalized impedance model. Similarly, the derivation of M_e(∞) in Eq. (32b) jumps directly from Bessel-function asymptotics to the final result without showing the cancellations. These expansions need to be re-derived and dimensionally checked before the membrane example can support the claimed sum rules.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 4] The cross-reference "inequality (11b)" should be Eq. (14b), and Fig. 4 refers to Eq. (11c), which does not exist; the intended reference is likely Eq. (14c).
  2. [Eqs. (13b), (14a)–(14b), (27b)] The symbol `𝜃𝑚𝑎` appears where `𝜃max` is intended; please introduce a consistent notation such as θ_max throughout.
  3. [Eq. (14c)] The relative bandwidth is defined as ω̅=(ω1−ω2)/√(ω2ω1); for ω2>ω1 this is negative, so the numerator should presumably be ω2−ω1 to make ω̅ positive.
  4. [Sec. 5.1] The repeated paragraph about porous materials and MPP absorbers (appearing twice in almost identical form) should be reduced to a single statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the alternative sum rules follow from the external Herglotz identity and explicit Lorentz-impedance asymptotics; the bounds are not fitted inputs, and the cited prior work is not self-citational load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense: Eq. (1) is the Herglotz/Stieltjes integral identity taken from Bernland, Luger, and Gustafsson [19], an external mathematical result, and the paper constructs H1(omega)=i(1-R(omega)) from the reflection coefficient. The asymptotic coefficients in Eqs. (10)-(11) are obtained directly from the Lorentz resonator impedance model Z = M i omega + D + K/(i omega) - i cot(kL), with K_e(0) and M_e(infinity) defined by low- and high-frequency limits of that model. No absorption or transmission data are fitted, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The finite-band bounds, Eqs. (14a)-(14c), are obtained by mean-value and damping-range inequalities applied to the derived integral identities, not by assuming the target inequality. The paper explicitly compares its Eq. (14c) with Meng et al. and Yang et al. and notes the deep-subwavelength Taylor equivalence, so there is no disguised renaming of a known result. The self-citations that appear (refs. 28, 31, 42-44) concern shunt-loudspeaker and time-varying-system illustrations and do not carry the derivation of the sum rules. The main correctness risk is the asserted analyticity/passivity half-plane for H1 and the sign of Eq. (10b), which the skeptic identifies, but that is a mathematical rigor issue and not a circular reduction of the target result to its own inputs. Therefore the paper earns a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the bounds are expressed in terms of effective mass and stiffness derived from the impedance model. The main unproved inputs are the Herglotz property of H1 and the asymptotic expansions, which are asserted rather than demonstrated, and these determine the constants in the sum rules.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math The Herglotz integral identity (Eq. 1) from Bernland et al. [19] relates weighted integrals of Im H to asymptotic coefficients for Herglotz functions in the Stolz domain.
    The entire derivation rests on this identity, cited from [19], which is a theorem for Herglotz functions. The paper uses it with q=0 and q=1 to obtain Eqs. (3a)-(3b).
  • domain assumption The acoustic systems are passive, linear, causal, and time-invariant, and their reflection coefficient R is a Schur function in the upper half omega-plane, so that H1 = i(1-R) is a Herglotz function with no poles in the upper half plane.
    Passivity is defined by reference to [1,19], but the paper does not prove the analyticity domain or the Schur property for the specific impedance models. The sign of the low-frequency expansion depends on this convention, so this assumption is load-bearing.
  • ad hoc to paper The impedance of each resonator is Z = M i omega + D + K/(i omega) - i cot(kL), and the effective static stiffness K_e(0) and dynamic mass M_e(infinity) are extracted from the low/high frequency limits, with the specific asymptotic expansions of Eq. (10).
    The paper states these expansions without derivation. For the membrane case (Section 4.2), the resulting formulas appear dimensionally inconsistent, so the expansions are load-bearing but unproved.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Alternative sum rules and waterbed effects of Lorentz resonator system for sound absorption and transmission in a unidimensional waveguide." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SN2NN2F

@misc{pith2026241119634,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Alternative sum rules and waterbed effects of Lorentz resonator system for sound absorption and transmission in a unidimensional waveguide},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SN2NN2F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19634}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate fundamental constraints on passive linear time-invariant acoustic systems through the developing alternative linear sum rules for sound absorption and transmission. Our approach, based on the Herglotz function method, yields integral identities without non-linear logarithmic terms or frequency weightings, providing clearer physical insights into system performance limits. The study focuses on unidimensional waveguides with Lorentz resonators, encompassing various practical acoustic structures. The developed sum rules are found to be particularly effective in predicting constraints on the average sound absorption coefficient for broadband absorbers operating in deep-subwavelength structures. Based on these rules, we demonstrate the waterbed effect in such systems, highlighting the inherent compromises between absorption efficiency, bandwidth, and device thickness. Through case studies of resonator arrays and membranes, we illustrate the practical implications of these new sum rules for designing optimal sound absorbers and isolators. The work concludes with a discussion on the challenges and future prospects in passive noise control, suggesting potential pathways to surpass current performance boundaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19634 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 1D model for sound absorption and transmission problems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A sum rule often takes the form of ∫ ω−n ln 𝑇(𝜔) 𝑑𝜔 ∞ 0 = 𝐶, where 𝐶 is a constant

    Introduction Sum rules impose fundamental constrains for casual, passive, and linear time -invariant acoustics systems [1,2]. A sum rule often takes the form of ∫ ω−n ln 𝑇(𝜔) 𝑑𝜔 ∞ 0 = 𝐶, where 𝐶 is a constant. To The best of the authors’ knowledge, t he sum rule can be traced back to Bode ’s sensitivity integral [3,4] in control theory , which is ∫ ln|𝑆(𝜔...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Problems and methods 2.1 Sound absorption and transmission problems In this work, we examine sound absorption and transmission issues in a one -dimensional (1D) waveguide, as depicted in Fig. 1. The structures under study consist of Lorentz resonators. The surface of the structure is indicated by the solid line in the 1D wav eguide shown in Fig. 1. The re...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The challenge lies in constructing proper Herglotz functions; while the solution may seem straightforward once found, the search itself often appears daunting

    Linear sum rules for sound absorption 3.1 Derivation of sum rules In this section, we develop alternative sum rules using the Herglotz function method, specifically focusing on the integral of 𝛼(𝜔) without using logarithmic operators or frequency weighting functions. The challenge lies in constructing proper Herglotz functions; while the solution may seem...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Y. Ding, H. Peng, J. Ma, S. Hara, J. Chen, Bode Integral: A Unifier of Control -Relevant Integral Relations, IFAC -PapersOnLine 55 (2022) 97 –102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.330

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.330 2022

  5. [5]

    (c1-c3) 𝜃𝑚𝑎 → ∞ and 𝐿𝜆 = 1 4 , 1 10 , 1

    work page

  6. [6]

    waterbed effect

    All figure panels share the same legends while dash curves represent the current sum rule, and solid curves are for Meng et. al [1] and Yang et. at [2]. Fig. 4 shows that, for a compact sound absorber, Eq. (1 4c) generally provides a compacter bound for the average sound absorption coefficient if the maximum damping of the absorber is well estimated, as i...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Fano, Theoretical limitations on the broadband matching of arbitrary impedances, J Franklin Inst 249 (1950) 57–83

    R.M. Fano, Theoretical limitations on the broadband matching of arbitrary impedances, J Franklin Inst 249 (1950) 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-0032(50)90006-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-0032(50)90006-8 1950

  8. [8]

    broadband noise con trol by deep -subwavelength structures

    Discussions and conclusions 5.1 Challenges for passive noise control Since the sum rules for passive noise control were established [1,2,14,17,18,23], the design of passive noise control structures and composites appears to have reached a limit due to the fundamental constraints imposed by these rules. When evaluating the logarithm reflection sensitivity ...

    work page

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Meng, V. Romero -García, G. Gabard, J. -P. Groby, C. Bricault, S. Goudé, P. Sheng, Fundamental constraints on broadband passive acoustic treatments in unidimensional scattering problems, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 478...

    2022

  2. [10]

    M. Yang, S. Chen, C. Fu, P. Sheng, Optimal sound-absorbing structures, Mater Horiz 4 (2017) 673–680. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7MH00129K

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Hendrik Wade Bode, Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design, Technical Composition Cooperation, Boston, 1945

    1945

  4. [12]

    Srivastava, Causality and passivity: From electromagnetism and network theory to metamaterials, Mechanics of Materials 154 (2021) 103710

    A. Srivastava, Causality and passivity: From electromagnetism and network theory to metamaterials, Mechanics of Materials 154 (2021) 103710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2020.103710

    2021

  5. [13]

    Emami-Naeini, D

    A. Emami-Naeini, D. de Roover, Bode’s Sensitivity Integral Constraints: The Waterbed Effect Revisited, (2019). http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.11302

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Stein, Respect the unstable, IEEE Control Syst 23 (2003) 12 –25

    B.G. Stein, Respect the unstable, IEEE Control Syst 23 (2003) 12 –25. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcs.2003.1213600

    2003

  7. [15]

    Smith, Dispersion Theory, Sum Rules, and Their Application to the Analysis of Optical Data, in: Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids, Elsevier, 1997: pp

    D.Y. Smith, Dispersion Theory, Sum Rules, and Their Application to the Analysis of Optical Data, in: Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids, Elsevier, 1997: pp. 35 –68. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012544415-6.50006-6

    1997 doi

  8. [16]

    Gustafsson, C

    M. Gustafsson, C. Sohl, G. Kristensson, Illustrations of New Physical Bounds on Linearly Polarized Antennas, IEEE Trans Antennas Propag 57 (2009) 1319 –1327. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAP.2009.2016683

    2009

  9. [17]

    Gustafsson, C

    M. Gustafsson, C. Sohl, G. Kristensson, Physical limitations on antennas of arbitrary shape, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 463 (2007) 2589–2607. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2007.1893

    2007

  10. [18]

    C. Sohl, M. Gustafsson, G. Kristensson, Physical limitations on broadband scattering by heterogeneous obstacles, J Phys A Math Theor 40 (2007) 11165 –11182. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/40/36/015

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    Rozanov, Ultimate thickness to bandwidth ratio of radar absorbers, IEEE Trans Antennas Propag 48 (2000) 1230–1234

    K.N. Rozanov, Ultimate thickness to bandwidth ratio of radar absorbers, IEEE Trans Antennas Propag 48 (2000) 1230–1234. https://doi.org/10.1109/8.884491

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

    (b1-b3) 𝜃𝑚𝑎 = 4 and 𝐿𝜆 = 1 4 , 1 10 , 1

  13. [21]

    Acher, J.M.L

    O. Acher, J.M.L. Bernard, P. Maréchal, A. Bardaine, F. Levassort, Fundamental constraints on the performance of broadband ultrasonic matching structures and absorbers, J Acoust Soc Am 125 (2009) 1995–2005. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3081529

    2009 doi

  14. [22]

    Norris, Integral identities for reflection, transmission, and scattering coefficients, J Acoust Soc Am 144 (2018) 2109–2115

    A.N. Norris, Integral identities for reflection, transmission, and scattering coefficients, J Acoust Soc Am 144 (2018) 2109–2115. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5058681

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Y. Meng, T. Humbert, V. Romero -García, J. -P. Groby, G. Gabard, Fundamental Limitations of Passive Acoustic Liners With Grazing Flow, in: 30th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (2024), American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, 2024. https://doi.or...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Cohen, R.J

    T.D. Cohen, R.J. Furnstahl, D.K. Griegel, X. Jin, QCD sum rules and applications to nuclear physics, Prog Part Nucl Phys 35 (1995) 221 –298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6410(95)00043-I

    1995 doi

  17. [25]

    Bravo, C

    T. Bravo, C. Maury, Causally -guided acoustic optimization of rigidly -backed micro- perforated partitions: Case studies and experiments, J Sound Vib 523 (2022) 116735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2021.116735

    2022

  18. [26]

    Bravo, C

    T. Bravo, C. Maury, Causally -guided acoustic optimization of single -layer rigidly - backed micro -perforated partitions: Theory, J Sound Vib 520 (2022) 116634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2021.116634

    2022

  19. [27]

    Bernland, A

    A. Bernland, A. Luger, M. Gustafsson, Sum rules and constraints on passive systems, J Phys A Math Theor 44 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/14/145205

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    Cassier, G.W

    M. Cassier, G.W. Milton, Bounds on Herglotz functions and fundamental limits of broadband passive quasistatic cloaking, J Math Phys 58 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4989990

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    Gustafsson, I

    M. Gustafsson, I. Vakili, S.E. Bayer Keskin, D. Sjoberg, C. Larsson, Optical Theorem and Forward Scattering Sum Rule for Periodic Structures, IEEE Trans Antennas Propag 60 (2012) 3818–3826. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAP.2012.2201113

    2012

  22. [30]

    Vakili, M

    I. Vakili, M. Gustafsson, D. Sjoberg, R. Seviour, M. Nilsson, S. Nordebo, Sum Rules for Parallel-Plate Waveguides: Experimental Results and Theory, IEEE Trans Microw Theory Tech 62 (2014) 2574–2582. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMTT.2014.2354592

    2014

  23. [31]

    Zhang, C

    Y. Zhang, C. Jiang, T. Tang, K. Wu, C. Wang, X. Han, L. Huang, X. Zhang, Mutual coupling of resonators: The effect of excessive acoustic resistance and its reduction by a local acoustic resistance, J Sound Vib (2024) 118713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2024.118713

    2024

  24. [32]

    C. Wang, L. Huang, On the acoustic properties of parallel arrangement of multiple micro-perforated panel absorbers with different cavity depths, J Acoust Soc Am 130 (2011) 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3596459

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    Jiménez, V

    N. Jiménez, V. Romero -García, V. Pagneux, J. Groby, Rainbow -trapping absorbers: Broadband, perfect and asymmetric sound absorption by subwavelength panels for transmission problems, Sci Rep 7 (2017) 13595. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017- 13706-4

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Ingard, Transmission of Sound through a Stretched Membrane, J Acoust Soc Am 26 (1954) 99–101

    U. Ingard, Transmission of Sound through a Stretched Membrane, J Acoust Soc Am 26 (1954) 99–101. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907298

    1954 doi

  27. [35]

    Zhang, L

    Y. Zhang, L. Huang, Realization of Resonance of a Diaphragm at Any Desired Frequency, Journal of Mechanics 34 (2018) 29 –34. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmech.2015.105

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    ), which is 𝐽𝑛(𝑘𝑎)~√ 2 𝜋 cos ( − 𝑛𝜋 2 − 𝜋 4), and finally find 𝑀𝑒(∞) = lim 𝜔→̂ ∞ 1 𝑖𝜔 [−𝑖𝑘𝐿𝑀 𝐽0(𝑘𝑀 ) 𝐽2(𝑘𝑀 )] = 𝜎 𝜌0𝑐0 (32𝑏) Eq. (32a) means that at extremely low frequencies, the membrane is moved like a piston and its effective stiffness is determined by the tension force an...

  29. [37]

    Zhang, K

    Y. Zhang, K. Wu, X. Zhang, X. Liu, L. Huang, A programmable resonator based on a shunt-electro-mechanical diaphragm, Int J Mech Sci 229 (2022) 107532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.107532

    2022

  30. [38]

    Chang, B

    D. Chang, B. Liu, X. Li, An electromechanical low frequency panel sound absorber., J Acoust Soc Am 128 (2010) 639–45. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3459838

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    F. Fahy, P. Gardonio, Sound and Structural Vibration Radiation , Transmission and Response, Second edition, Academic Press, Oxford, 2007

    2007

  32. [40]

    X. Li, B. Liu, D. Chang, An acoustic impedance structure consisting of perforated panel resonator and porous material for low -to-mid frequency sound absorption, Applied Acoustics 180 (2021) 108069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108069

    2021

  33. [41]

    Allard, N

    J.F. Allard, N. Atalla, Propagation of Sound in Porous Media, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470747339

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    Shankar, P.S

    H. Shankar, P.S. Pagel, D.S. Warner, Potential Adverse Ultrasound -related Biological Effects, Anesthesiology 115 (2011) 1109 –1124. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e31822fd1f1

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    Bucciarelli, G.P

    F. Bucciarelli, G.P. Malfense Fierro, M. Meo, A multilayer microperforated panel prototype for broadband sound absorption at low frequencies, Applied Acoustics 146 (2019) 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.11.014

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    Williams, Fourier Acoustics: Sound Radiation and Near field Acoustical Holography, 1st ed., Academic Press, San Diego, 1999

    E.G. Williams, Fourier Acoustics: Sound Radiation and Near field Acoustical Holography, 1st ed., Academic Press, San Diego, 1999

    1999

  37. [45]

    Lissek, R

    H. Lissek, R. Boulandet, R. Fleury, Electroacoustic absorbers: Bridging the gap between shunt loudspeakers and active sound absorption, J Acoust Soc Am 129 (2011) 2968 –

    2011

  38. [47]

    Zhang, C

    Y. Zhang, C. Wang, L. Huang, Tuning of the acoustic impedance of a shunted electro- mechanical diaphragm for a broadband sound absorber, Mech Syst Signal Process 126 (2019) 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.02.049

    2019 doi

  39. [48]

    Hayran, F

    Z. Hayran, F. Monticone, Using Time -Varying Systems to Challenge Fundamental Limitations in Electromagnetics: Overview and summary of applications, IEEE Antennas Propag Mag 65 (2023) 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAP.2023.3236275

    2023

  40. [49]

    Shlivinski, Y

    A. Shlivinski, Y. Hadad, Beyond the Bode-Fano Bound: Wideband Impedance Matching for Short Pulses Using Temporal Switching of Transmission-Line Parameters, Phys Rev Lett 121 (2018) 204301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.204301

    2018 doi

  41. [50]

    Firestein, A

    C. Firestein, A. Shlivinski, Y. Hadad, Absorption and Scattering by a Temporally Switched Lossy Layer: Going beyond the Rozanov Bound, Phys Rev Appl 17 (2022) 014017. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.17.014017

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    Zhang, K

    Y. Zhang, K. Wu, C. Wang, L. Huang, Towards altering sound frequency at will by a linear meta-layer with time-varying and quantized properties, Commun Phys 4 (2021)

    2021

  43. [53]

    Zhang, C

    Y. Zhang, C. Wang, L. Huang, A tunable electromagnetic acoustic switch, Appl Phys Lett 116 (2020) 183502. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0008532

    2020 doi

  44. [54]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. -J. Chan, L. Huang, Thin broadband noise absorption through acoustic reactance control by electro -mechanical coupling without sensor, J Acoust Soc Am 135 (2014) 2738–2745. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4871189

    2014 doi

  45. [220]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-021-00721-1

    doi

  46. [2978]

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3569707

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.