Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Reduced-weight near-cloaks for underwater invisibility

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining impedance-mismatched and near-cloak strategies reduces a pentamode cloak's mass to 75% while keeping underwater scattering below the bare target.

desk verdict Useful scattering analysis of reduced-weight near-cloaks, but the buoyancy axis in Fig. 9 is miscalculated; the central trade-off chart is not reliable as published. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07593 v1 pith:GOBQVWTS submitted 2025-06-09 physics.app-ph

Davide Enrico Quadrelli , Sebastiano Cominelli , Gabriele Cazzulani , Francesco Braghin This is my paper
classification physics.app-ph
keywords acousticcloakingtransformationacousticspentamodecloaknear-cloakimpedancemismatchunderwaterbuoyancytotalscatteringcrosssectiongraded
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

Perfect acoustic cloaks are too heavy to float: a pentamode cloak's weight exactly cancels the Archimedes' thrust it displaces, and a perfect cloak can even demand infinite mass. The paper claims that this trade-off can be relaxed by combining two existing weight-saving strategies—the eikonal cloak, which rescales density and stiffness by a common factor $\alpha<1$, and the near-cloak, which makes the target look like a smaller equivalent obstacle. In two dimensions, taking $\alpha=0.8$ and an equivalent radius $\tilde{R}_{\mathrm{eq}}=0.25$ cuts the cloak mass to 75% of a full-weight perfect cloak while the frequency-averaged total scattering cross section stays below that of the bare rigid target. The paper also shows that a radially graded impedance profile improves high-frequency performance for the same average mass. If these claims hold, buoyant underwater cloaks become an engineering target rather than a mathematical impossibility.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 'bubble of water in water' representation: the cloaked target is modelled as a homogeneous virtual bubble with density and bulk modulus scaled by $\alpha$, so the scattering problem reduces to matching cylindrical-wave expansions at the bubble boundary through the coefficient system (10). The rigid-walled bubble's eigenfrequencies, defined by $J'_n(\tilde{\kappa}_{nm}R_o)=0$, produce valleys in the TSCS where the impedance-mismatch scattering interferes destructively with the radiated resonance field, slowing the performance loss as $\alpha$ decreases. For the reduced-weight near-cloak, the annular region between $\tilde{R}_{\mathrm{eq}}$ and $R_o$ with a rigid inner boundary is solved by the three-coefficient system (17), and the mass relation $m_{\mathrm{FW}}=\pi(R_o^2-R_{\mathrm{eq}}^2)$, $m_{\mathrm{RW}}=\alpha\pi R_o^2$ ties the two strategies together. The graded mismatch (19) is the third ingredient: it varies impedance along the radius without introducing dispersion, shrinking the impedance jump at the outer water interface.

What would settle it

Build a two-dimensional pentamode reduced-weight near-cloak with $\alpha=0.8$ and $\tilde{R}_{\mathrm{eq}}=0.25$, measure its frequency-averaged total scattering cross section over $\kappa R_o\in[0,2\pi]$ in a water tank, and compare it with the same measurement for the bare rigid cylinder $\tilde{R}_i=0.6$; the central claim fails if the cloaked average is not below the bare target.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that perfect acoustic invisibility and buoyancy are not strictly incompatible if one accepts a near-cloak rather than a perfect cloak. Rescaling the pentamode cloak's density and bulk modulus by a common factor $\alpha<1$ makes the cloak an equivalent bubble with impedance contrast $\alpha$, while the near-cloak map leaves a finite equivalent radius $\tilde{R}_{\mathrm{eq}}$ instead of collapsing the target to a point. For the combined device the 2D cloak mass is $\alpha(1-\tilde{R}_{\mathrm{eq}}^2)$ times the full-weight perfect cloak mass, and the paper reports that $\alpha=0.8$, $\tilde{R}_{\mathrm{eq}}=0.25$ gives 75% mass with a frequency-averaged TSCS below the uncloaked rigid target at $\tilde{R}_i=0.6$. It further claims that replacing the constant mismatch by the graded profile $\alpha(R)=a_0(a_1+\ln(R/R_{\mathrm{eq}}))^{-2}$ reduces interface reflections and improves performance for $\kappa R_o>2$ at the same average mass.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the buoyancy comparison in Eq. (4) and Fig. 9 treats the cloaked object as weightless, so the 'available thrust' ignores the target's own weight; once a real payload weight is subtracted from both sides, the reported design regions and isolines shift and the buoyancy benefit shrinks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $\alpha=0.8$ and $\tilde{R}_{\mathrm{eq}}=0.25$, a two-dimensional pentamode cloak weighs 75% of a full-weight perfect cloak and still scatters less than the bare rigid target ($\tilde{R}_i=0.6$) on average.
  • Varying the radial impedance profile with (19) keeps the same average mass but reduces high-frequency scattering for $\kappa R_o>2$, where constant mismatch performs worst.
  • The two knobs $\alpha$ and $\tilde{R}_{\mathrm{eq}}$ give a design map (Fig. 9) in which a designer can choose a point below the $T_{\mathrm{av}}/T_{\mathrm{uncloaked}}=1$ isoline, gaining buoyancy without sacrificing cloaking.
  • Because the rigid-walled bubble eigenfrequencies create TSCS valleys, the weight penalty of small $\alpha$ is frequency selective, so performance can be tuned by placing the operating band in a valley.
  • The same Bessel-matching formulation carries over to three dimensions with spherical Bessel functions, so the combined strategy applies to spherical underwater targets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: for a payload with weight $W$, Eq. (4) should read $(\rho_0 g V_{\mathrm{eq}}-W)/(\rho_0 g V_i-W)$, which shifts the design regions in Fig. 9 and can turn nominally buoyant cloaks into sinkers.
  • Extension: the dispersion-free graded profile is derived for a circular pentamode cloak; extending it to elliptical or inertial cloaks would require re-deriving the impedance function, though the average-mass constraint (20) carries over unchanged.
  • Extension: operating deliberately near rigid-walled bubble eigenfrequencies could exploit the TSCS valleys to compensate mismatch reflections, at the cost of bandwidth and sensitivity to fabrication error.
  • Extension: the paper fixes the outer radius $R_o$ when comparing masses; a designer who also shrinks $R_o$ changes the optimal $\alpha$ and $\tilde{R}_{\mathrm{eq}}$ pair, so the constant-$R_o$ table may not give the global buoyancy optimum.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. This manuscript addresses the weight/buoyancy problem of underwater acoustic cloaks by combining two known strategies: impedance-mismatched (eikonal) cloaks, characterized by a constant factor α, and near-cloaks, characterized by an equivalent radius R_eq. The authors set up Mie-series solutions for a constant-mismatch bubble in water (Eq. (10)) and for a reduced-weight near-cloak around a rigid obstacle (Eq. (17)), then compare performance through the total scattering cross section (TSCS). The central quantitative result is that with α=0.8 and R_eq=0.25 the cloak mass is 75% of a full-weight perfect cloak (Eq. (18)) while the frequency-averaged TSCS remains below that of the uncloaked target. A graded impedance profile (Eq. (19)) is proposed to reduce high-frequency reflections for the same average mass, and Fig. 9 is presented as a design map trading TSCS against available thrust.

Significance. The analytic Mie-series framework is a useful contribution if the buoyancy metric is corrected. The scattering systems (10) and (17) are standard and internally consistent, and the resonance interpretation in Figs. 3–6 is physically plausible. The simple mass-scaling formula (18) for the combined reduced-weight near-cloak is a clear and useful result. However, the paper's central claim of a buoyancy/scattering trade-off is currently compromised by the error in the Fig. 9 buoyancy definition, and the graded-profile uniqueness claim in §IV.A is imported without derivation. With the corrections described below, the paper would be a solid applied-physics contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 9 caption / §III.B] The definition of T_av in the Fig. 9 caption is internally inconsistent. The expression T_av = ρ0 g α π(R_o^2 − R_eq^2) is the weight of the cloak, not the available thrust. For a weightless target, the available thrust is total buoyancy minus cloak weight: T_av = ρ0 g πR_o^2 − α ρ0 g π(R_o^2 − R_eq^2) = ρ0 g[(1−α)R_o^2 + α R_eq^2]. The uncloaked denominator should be T_uncloaked = ρ0 g πR_i^2, without the factor α. For the flagship case R_o=1, R_i=0.6, R_eq=0.25, α=0.8, the corrected ratio is approximately 0.69, not (1−R_eq^2)/R_i^2 ≈ 2.60 as the caption implies. Consequently, the red isoline T_av/T_uncloaked=1 does not represent 'lift unchanged', and the green/red design regions in Fig. 9 are not physically correct. The mass fraction (18) and the TSCS curves are unaffected, but the buoyancy trade-off claim in the paper is not supported by Fig. 9 as published.
  2. [§II, Eq. (4)] Eq. (4) and the surrounding buoyancy discussion assume a weightless cloaked target, but this assumption is not stated. For a real payload of weight W, the available-thrust ratio becomes (ρ0 g V_eq − W)/(ρ0 g V_i − W), not (R_eq/R_i)^m, which shifts the design regions and the 'lift unchanged' condition. The authors should state this idealization explicitly and, ideally, quantify the sensitivity to W.
  3. [§IV.A, Eq. (19)] The claim that Eq. (19) is 'the only function' that changes the impedance of an axisymmetric lens without introducing dispersion is taken from Ref. [19], an arXiv preprint, and no derivation or independent verification is provided in the manuscript. Since the high-frequency improvement shown for the dashed lines in Fig. 8 and the conclusions in §IV depend on this profile, the derivation should be included in an appendix or the claim should be clearly marked as resting on an unreviewed preprint.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II.A, Eq. (6)] The notation 'c=c0 Z=αZ0' is dimensionally inconsistent as written; it should read 'c=c_0, Z=αZ_0'.
  2. [§III.A] The sentence 'Using the reduced-weight strategy instead, the mass of the cloak is m_RW=απR_o^2' is easy to misread as the mass of a combined near-and-reduced cloak; the intended comparison is between a full-weight near-cloak and a reduced-weight perfect cloak. Please clarify the wording.
  3. [Fig. 9] The caption says the horizontal axes indicate α and R_eq, but the plot appears three-dimensional; please specify which axis corresponds to α, which to R_eq, and which to ⟨TSCS⟩.
  4. [Eq. (17)] In the first row of the matrix, the entry '0' should be aligned with the B_n column; the current typesetting of the matrix is hard to parse.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Core constant-mismatch and near-cloak analysis is self-contained forward modeling; circularity risk is confined to Sec. IV, where the graded-mismatch profile is imported as a self-cited uniqueness claim from co-author Cominelli's unverified preprint [19]. Fig. 9's buoyancy axis is internally inconsistent, but that is a correctness issue, not circularity.

  1. uniqueness imported from authors [Section IV.A, Eq. (19) and the paragraph following Eq. (20)]
    "According to Cominelli [19], the only function that changes the impedance of an axially symmetric lens without introducing dispersion is α(R) = a0(a1 + N(R))^{-2} ... In the eikonal limit, only the impedance jump at ∂Ξ+ affects the performance [19] and, since for a given mass reduction such a jump is smaller than that obtained with a constant mismatch, the cloak has a higher performance."

    The graded-mismatch design's sole input — the functional form (19) and the claim that it is the only dispersion-free impedance profile — is a uniqueness theorem imported from [19], an arXiv preprint by co-author S. Cominelli that is neither peer-reviewed, machine-checked, nor re-derived anywhere in this manuscript. The predicted high-frequency advantage (κRo>2) is likewise justified by citation to [19]'s eikonal-limit statement ('only the impedance jump at ∂Ξ+ affects the performance [19]') rather than by an independent derivation here. Under the review rules, a self-citation is not independent evidence unless it is machine-checked or externally reproduced; here no such support is supplied, so the choice of profile is forced by a self-citation chain. The constant-mismatch core (Secs.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Sections II–III solve a standard Mie-type scattering boundary-value problem (systems (10) and (17)) with α and R_eq as prescribed design inputs; no parameter is fitted to a target output, and the predicted 75% mass fraction (18) and the TSCS comparisons are benchmarked against an external reference (rigid-cylinder TSCS and literature values R_eq≈0.25 from [21,22]). None of the constant-mismatch or near-cloak claims reduce to their inputs by construction, so this part earns a low circularity score. The one load-bearing external input is Eq. (19) in Sec. IV: the graded impedance profile is justified solely by a uniqueness claim from [19] (an arXiv preprint by co-author Cominelli, not peer-reviewed and not reproduced here), and the high-frequency improvement is attributed to [19]'s eikonal-limit statement rather than re-derived. That is a uniqueness theorem imported from the authors themselves and is not independent evidence, making the graded-mismatch performance claim partially circular; this raises the score to 4 but does not infect the main reduced-weight near-cloak claim, which stands on independent forward computation. Flagged as non-circular but material: Fig. 9's caption defines T_av = ρ0 g α π(Ro^2 − Req^2), which equals the cloak's own weight rather than the available thrust, and scales T_uncloaked by the same factor α, so the red isoline T_av/T_uncloaked = 1 does not represent unchanged lift as stated; this is an internal-consistency/correctness flaw in the buoyancy trade-off claim, not a self-referential derivation, and would go under correctness risk rather than the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scattering analysis rests on standard transformation-acoustics and Mie-series machinery, plus a rigid-target boundary condition. The main external dependencies are the pentamode cloak model (Norris) and the non-dispersive graded impedance profile (Cominelli, self-cited, unpublished). The design has no invented physical entities. Free parameters are design choices (α, R~eq, R~i, μ) and the frequency band used for the averaged TSCS metric.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (impedance mismatch scale) = 0.8 (main design), 0.01-0.8 studied
    Chosen by hand to reduce cloak mass; the central 75% mass result depends on α=0.8.
  • R~eq (equivalent radius ratio for near-cloak) = 0.25 (main design), 0.447-0.99 in Table I
    Chosen from literature [21,22]; the TSCS and thrust trade-off depend on it.
  • R~i (target radius ratio) = 0.6
    Reference uncloaked target radius chosen close to literature; determines whether TSCS reduction is meaningful.
  • mu-bar (inner/outer impedance ratio for graded profile) = 0.5 (example)
    Chosen as example for graded mismatch; sets a0 and a1 via Eq. (20).
  • frequency averaging band for TSCS = kappa Ro in [0, 2pi]
    The average TSCS metric and the design regions in Fig. 9 depend on this chosen interval.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Coordinate transformations map the acoustic wave equation to material properties ρ=J ρ0 F^{-1}F^{-T}, K=K0 J.
    Invoked in Eq. (3); foundation of transformation acoustics from [3].
  • domain assumption A pentamode cloak with scalar density ρ=ρ0 J^{-1} and singular elasticity C=K0 J^{-1} V⊗V realizes the same acoustic illusion with finite mass.
    Used to limit analysis to pure PM cloaks; from [5].
  • domain assumption Scaling the density and bulk modulus of the virtual space by a common factor α leaves the sound speed and ray trajectories unchanged, so only impedance mismatch matters.
    Motivates the reduced-weight perfect cloak in Section II; valid in the eikonal limit.
  • ad hoc to paper The only impedance profile that introduces no dispersion in an axisymmetric lens is α(R)=a0 (a1 + ln(R/Req))^{-2}, with n=1.
    Imported from self-cited unpublished preprint [19]; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The inner obstacle is rigid: ∂P/∂n=0 on ∂Γ (Neumann boundary condition).
    Used in Eq. (15) to model the cloaked target as a rigid cylinder.
  • standard math Pressure fields can be expanded in cylindrical Bessel/Hankel series and mode orthogonality applies.
    Standard separation of variables for 2D Helmholtz problems, used in Eqs. (8)-(10) and (16)-(17).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reduced-weight near-cloaks for underwater invisibility." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GOBQVWTS

@misc{pith2026250607593,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reduced-weight near-cloaks for underwater invisibility},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GOBQVWTS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07593}
}
read the original abstract

Limiting the total weight of an acoustic cloak is of fundamental importance in underwater applications, where buoyancy of the cloaked object is desirable. Unfortunately, it is well known that traditional cloaking strategies imply either a mass tending to infinity or a total weight equal to the Archimedes' force, thus making a perfect cloak that preserves the buoyancy of the target impossible. In this paper, we discuss strategies to reduce the weight of the cloak seeking a good compromise between weight reduction and acoustic performance. In particular, we compare and combine two existing strategies: the so-called eikonal cloak, where an impedance mismatched cloak is adopted, and the near-cloak, where a non-singular transformation makes the target equivalent to a smaller obstacle. We show that properly combining these strategies allows to reduce the mass of the cloak while maintaining a scattering reduction in line with the existing literature. We also investigate radially varying mismatch as a way to further improve the balance between scattering reduction and buoyancy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07593 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The available thrust [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic illustration of the different cloaking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Normalized TSCS for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Eigenfrequencies and normal modes for a rigid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Incident, scattered and total fields calculated for the first three resonances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (a) Superposition between the effect of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: TSCS compared between the constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Performance of a reduced-weight near-cloak: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: impedance profile that prevents dispersion in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Non-dispersive graded impedance acoustic lenses

    S. Cominelli, Non-dispersive graded impedance acoustic lenses, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00821 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Chen and C

    H. Chen and C. T. Chan, Acoustic cloaking and transfor- mation acoustics, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 43, 113001 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [2]

    Ward and J

    A. Ward and J. B. Pendry, Refraction and geometry in maxwell’s equations, Journal of modern optics43, 773 (1996)

    work page 1996

  4. [3]

    S. A. Cummer and D. Schurig, One path to acoustic cloaking, New Journal of Physics9, 45 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [4]

    A. N. Norris, Acoustic cloaking theory, Proceedings of the Royal Society A464, 2411 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [5]

    A. N. Norris, Acoustic metafluids, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125, 839 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [6]

    J. B. Pendry, D. Schurig, and D. R. Smith, Controlling electromagnetic fields, Science312, 1780 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [7]

    Leonhardt, Optical conformal mapping, Science312, 1777 (2006)

    U. Leonhardt, Optical conformal mapping, Science312, 1777 (2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 24 references
  1. [8]

    Torrent and J

    D. Torrent and J. S´ anchez-Dehesa, Acoustic cloaking in two dimensions: a feasible approach, New J. Phys.10, 063015 (2008)

    2008

  2. [9]

    Sanchez-Dehesa, V

    J. Sanchez-Dehesa, V. M. Garc ´ ıa-Chocano, A. Climente, F. Cervera, V. Gomez-Lozano, L. Sanchis, R. LLopis- Pontiveros, and M.-P. Juan, Experimental demonstration of a three-dimensional acoustic cloak based on a cance- lation effect, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of A...

    2013

  3. [10]

    T. S. Becker, D.-J. Van Manen, T. Haag, C. B¨ arlocher, X. Li, N. B¨ orsing, A. Curtis, M. Serra-Garcia, and J. O. Robertsson, Broadband acoustic invisibility and illusions, Science advances7, 9627 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    W. W. Ahmed, M. Farhat, X. Zhang, and Y. Wu, De- terministic and probabilistic deep learning models for in- verse design of broadband acoustic cloak, Physical Re- view Research3, 013142 (2021)

    2021

  5. [12]

    Cominelli, D

    S. Cominelli, D. E. Quadrelli, C. Sinigaglia, and F. Braghin, Design of arbitrarily shaped acoustic cloaks through partial differential equation-constrained opti- mization satisfying sonic-metamaterial design require- ments, Proceedings of the Royal Society A478, 20210750 (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    B.-I. Popa, L. Zigoneanu, and S. A. Cummer, Exper- imental acoustic ground cloak in air, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 253901 (2011)

    2011

  7. [14]

    Zigoneanu, B.-I

    L. Zigoneanu, B.-I. Popa, and S. A. Cummer, Three- dimensional broadband omnidirectional acoustic ground cloak, Nature materials13, 352 (2014). 9

    2014

  8. [15]

    Y. Bi, H. Jia, Z. Sun, Y. Yang, H. Zhao, and J. Yang, Experimental demonstration of three-dimensional broad- band underwater acoustic carpet cloak, Applied Physics Letters112, 223502 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    D. E. Quadrelli, G. Cazzulani, S. La Riviera, and F. Braghin, Acoustic scattering reduction of elliptical tar- gets via pentamode near-cloaking based on transforma- tion acoustics in elliptic coordinates, Journal of Sound and Vibration512, 116396 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Urzhumov, F

    Y. Urzhumov, F. Ghezzo, J. Hunt, and D. R. Smith, Acoustic cloaking transformations from attainable mate- rial properties, New J. Phys.12, 073014 (2010)

    2010

  11. [18]

    Gao and L

    P. Gao and L. Wu, Non-singular acoustic cloak derived by the ray tracing method with rotationally symmet- ric transformations, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences472, 20150348 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Dupont, S

    G. Dupont, S. Guenneau, O. Kimmoun, B. Molin, and S. Enoch, Cloaking a vertical cylinder via homogenization in the mild-slope equation, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 796, R1 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Y. Chen, M. Zheng, X. Liu, Y. Bi, Z. Sun, P. Xiang, J. Yang, and G. Hu, Broadband solid cloak for underwa- ter acoustics, Physical Review B95, 180104 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    D. E. Quadrelli, M. A. Casieri, G. Cazzulani, S. La Riv- iera, and F. Braghin, Experimental validation of a broad- band pentamode elliptical-shaped cloak for underwater acoustics, Extreme Mechanics Letters , 101526 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    J. H. Ginsberg,Acoustics: A Textbook for Engineers and Physicists, Vol. 2 (Springer, 2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Ammari, B

    H. Ammari, B. Fitzpatrick, D. Gontier, H. Lee, and H. Zhang, Minnaert resonances for acoustic waves in bub- bly media, inAnnales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C, Analyse non lin´ eaire, Vol. 35 (Elsevier, 2018) pp. 1975– 1998

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.