Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Experimental demonstration of a space-time modulated airborne acoustic circulator

T0 review · 4 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 This paper demonstrates that mechanically rotating plates in the necks of three coupled Helmholtz resonators, driven by one motor and meshed gears, can make audible sound circulate nonreciprocally in air, with measured isolation up to 34…

desk verdict Solid mechanical-modulation acoustic circulator with real measured isolation; the fitted CMT/FEM agreement and the missing motor-noise baseline are the main caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16057 v1 pith:NSD2NBDK submitted 2024-11-25 physics.flu-dyn

Tinggui Chen , Matthieu Mallejac , Chuanxing Bi , Baizhan Xia , Romain Fleury This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords acousticcirculatornonreciprocalacousticsspatiotemporalmodulationHelmholtzresonatorstime-modulatedairbornesoundmechanical
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 reports an experimental airborne acoustic circulator: a three-port device that routes sound entering one port to a chosen output port and blocks the other, at audible frequencies around 1.8 kHz. The trick is to modulate the neck openings of three coupled Helmholtz resonators in a rotating pattern, using circular plates turned by one electric motor and meshed gears. This space-time modulation breaks time-reversal symmetry and effectively spins the resonator, so sound going from port 1 to port 3 is strongly favored over sound going from port 1 to port 2. The highest measured isolation is 34 dB, with reflection as low as -9 dB, insertion loss of 5 dB, and parasitic signals below -20 dB. The authors argue this is a practical, low-cost, magnetless route to nonreciprocal sound devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is a set of three coupled Helmholtz resonators, air cavities connected by neck channels, whose neck cross-section areas are modulated in time by rotating circular plates. The plates are linked to meshed gears driven by one motor, enforcing a rotating phase pattern with 2π/3 increments; this modulates the acoustic inductance of each neck at a frequency near 100 Hz, well below the roughly 1.8 kHz sound frequency. In the coupled-mode model, the modulation appears as time-varying inductors, producing a synthetic angular-momentum bias that splits the counter-rotating cavity modes and yields directional transmission. The same physics is captured in full-wave simulations by assigning a time-varying effective density to the air in the necks and keeping only the dominant Floquet harmonics.

What would settle it

Record the three microphone signals at each port while the motor runs but the loudspeaker is silent: if the apparent port-2 blocking or port-3 enhancement appears in the motor-noise spectra, the isolation numbers are contaminated; alternatively, strobe the three neck plates during operation and measure their phase differences, since a drift of more than a few degrees from the nominal 120 degrees would invalidate the coupled-mode fit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that strong, tunable nonreciprocal circulation of airborne sound can be produced by mechanically modulating the effective cross-section areas of the necks coupling three Helmholtz cavities, with a 120-degree phase progression enforced by meshed gears. The rotating modulation pattern imparts synthetic angular momentum to the resonator, lifting the degeneracy of its two azimuthal modes and breaking reciprocity. In the best-tuned configuration, the device transmits from port 1 to port 3 while nearly silencing port 2, reaching 34 dB isolation at resonance; a lower-loss variant trades isolation for reflection as low as -9 dB and insertion loss of 5 dB. The measured scattering parameters agree with coupled-mode theory and finite-element simulations once radiation and viscothermal decay rates are fitted.

Load-bearing premise

The entire interpretation rests on the rotating plates producing a clean sinusoidal modulation of each neck opening with an accurate one-third-cycle phase lag, without the motor or gears injecting acoustic or vibrational noise that could masquerade as nonreciprocal transmission.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An audible acoustic circulator can be built from a 3D-printed resonator, one DC motor, and gears, with no magnets and no active electronic control of the sound field.
  • Circulator performance is tunable in situ: raising the modulation frequency lowers reflection, and reducing the external coupling diameter raises the quality factor and boosts isolation from 17 dB to 34 dB.
  • Because the modulation acts on the neck inductance rather than cavity volume, the same rotating-plate principle should transfer to other geometries and impedance-matched designs without changing the total footprint.
  • The demonstrated parasitic-signal level below -20 dB suggests the device can be used as a linear isolator at the carrier frequency without strong frequency conversion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The single-port isolation metric, taken as the ratio of transmissions from port 1 to ports 3 and 2, exploits threefold symmetry; a full nine-parameter scattering measurement would confirm true circulator action and rule out motor-induced contamination.
  • If the rotating-plate phase lag is as accurate as claimed, the device could be scaled down to higher resonance frequencies or operated in water by adjusting plate shape and motor speed, since the mechanism relies on geometry rather than material properties.
  • The apparent asymmetry could be sharpened by measuring dynamic modulation depth directly, for example by stroboscopic imaging of the neck openings while the motor runs, to separate the intended sinusoid from harmonics and mechanical play.
  • A natural stress test is to run the motor without acoustic excitation and record the microphone spectra; the motor-only floor should lie well below the -20 dB parasitic level for the reported isolation to hold.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental implementation of a three-port airborne acoustic circulator working at audible frequencies. The device is built from three coupled Helmholtz resonators whose coupling necks are modulated in a rotating sequence by rotating plates driven by meshed gears and an electric motor. Scattering measurements with a single incident port show nonreciprocal transmission: for the optimized 'circulator 2', the isolation (defined as 20log|S31/S21|) reaches 34 dB, the minimum reflection is -5 dB, the insertion loss is 7 dB, and parasitic sidebands remain below -20 dB. A second version, 'circulator 1', achieves a lower reflection of -9 dB with 5 dB insertion loss. The experimental S-parameters are compared with coupled-mode theory (CMT) and finite-element simulations (FEM), with reported good agreement. The authors argue that the mechanically modulated neck inductance provides a simple, cost-effective, low-noise route to acoustic circulation.

Significance. If the results are robust, this is a significant experimental advance: it demonstrates a purely mechanical, magnetless, audible-frequency acoustic circulator in a compact system, with isolation values comparable to previous active or flow-based circulators. The nonreciprocal response is read directly from measured microphone signals, so the central experimental observation does not depend on the theoretical model. The CMT framework is a useful extension of prior work to inductance-modulated resonators, and the FEM approach with time-varying density provides a tractable numerical route. However, the strength of the paper's claims depends on experimental controls and uncertainty estimates that are currently missing; these are essential before the reported isolation and model agreement can be accepted as quantitative.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III and Appendix A3] The claimed 'excellent agreement' between theory, simulation, and experiment is weakened because the CMT decay rates (gamma_R and gamma_D) and the FEM geometry/loss adjustments are fitted to the same measured data that the models are then compared with. For example, in Appendix A3 the cavity diameter is changed from 40 mm to 39.4 mm and the internal channel diameter from 10 mm to 9.28 mm, and additional external-coupling losses are introduced, specifically to match the measured resonance frequency and transmission levels. The paper should state explicitly which parameters are free and which are fixed a priori, and provide at least one validation that is not used in the fitting (for example, predicting the modulation-frequency dependence or the response of circulator 2 from circulator 1's parameters) to establish predictive power.
  2. [Section III, Figs. 2 and 3] No error bars, confidence intervals, or repeatability data are provided for any of the measured scattering parameters. The headline result of 34 dB isolation corresponds to |S21| ≈ 0.02, which is a very small amplitude. Without repeated measurements or an uncertainty analysis, it is impossible to assess whether the reported isolation values are statistically meaningful or whether they could be affected by small asymmetries, microphone calibration, or environmental noise. At minimum, the authors should report the measurement uncertainty and the number of repeated trials.
  3. [Section IV and Appendix A5] The paper describes the system as 'low-noise' and states that parasitic signals are below -20 dB, but it never reports a measurement of the acoustic or vibrational background produced by the motor-gear-plate assembly with the loudspeaker off. Because the plates rotate inside the necks and the motor is mechanically coupled to the sample, gear meshing and plate rotation can radiate sound at frequencies near the carrier. The 34 dB isolation claim relies on a very small measured |S21|; if motor-induced pressure couples unequally into port 2, the isolation metric could be contaminated. A control measurement with the motor running and the loudspeaker silent, or with a dummy source, is essential to rule out this artifact.
  4. [Section II and Appendix A1] The interpretation of the experiment as a clean spatiotemporal modulation assumes that the rotating plates produce a sinusoidal variation of the neck effective area with a precisely maintained 120-degree phase lag between the three necks. The paper states that the meshed gears 'guarantee' this, but no measurement of the modulation waveform or phase error is reported. If the modulation contains strong harmonics or the phase lag drifts, the CMT/FEM comparison and the underlying physical picture would need to be revised. The authors should directly characterize the modulation, for example by measuring the sideband spectrum over a wider range or by using a position encoder, to confirm the assumed sinusoidal, equally phase-shifted modulation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III] The definition of isolation is given first as IS = 20 log |S31/S13| and then modified to IS = 20 log |S31/S21| 'due to the symmetry'. This is not the standard two-port isolation definition, and the symmetry argument is not spelled out. Please clarify why |S21| can replace |S13| in this three-port circulator, and define all metrics explicitly.
  2. [Appendix A] Several equations in Appendix A are poorly typeset and hard to read (for example, Eq. (A1) and the scattering-matrix expressions). The authors should ensure the final manuscript has clean, correctly formatted equations so that the CMT derivation can be followed.
  3. [Figure 2(c)] The label 'Refelction' in the right axis of Fig. 2(c) is a typo and should be 'Reflection'.
  4. [Section III and Fig. 2(b)] In Fig. 2(b), the text says 'numerical and measured scattering parameters... in dashed lines and symbols respectively', but the caption of Fig. 2(d) also uses dashed lines for FEM; please make the line styles consistent and unambiguous across the figure panels.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The measured 34 dB acoustic circulation is an independent experimental result, but the paper's theory/numerics 'predictions' are partly fitted to the same data, so the claimed agreement is partially circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III, paragraph discussing Fig. 2(d); Appendix A3; Eqs. (A2), (A10)-(A12)]
    "The decay rate is then fitted to match the experiments, where 𝛾𝑅 = 38.2𝜋𝑠−1 and 𝛾𝐷 = 20.8𝜋𝑠−1. We found an excellent agreement between CMT (solid lines), FEM (dashed lines) and experiment (symbols)."

    The scattering coefficients S11, S21, and S31 in Eq. (A12) depend on the mode amplitudes 𝛼±0 in Eqs. (A10)-(A11), which in turn depend on Ω± = 𝜔± + i𝛾𝑇 with 𝛾𝑇 = 𝛾𝑅 + 𝛾𝐷 (Eq. A2). The paper states that 𝛾𝑅 and 𝛾𝐷 are fitted to match the experiments, not derived from first principles. The FEM comparison is likewise recalibrated in Appendix A3: the cavity diameter is decreased from 40 mm to 39.4 mm, the internal channel diameter from 10 mm to 9.28 mm, and additional losses are added to reproduce the measured static and modulated resonance frequencies and transmission values. Therefore the claimed 'excellent agreement' between analytics, numerics, and experiment is partly enforced by construction and is not an independent prediction of the measured isolation curve.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section III, first paragraph under Results; modulation depth used in CMT/FEM models]
    "To determine the modulation depth experimentally, the resonance frequency of the resonator is measured for two different positions of the plates in the necks, parallel or normal to the cross-section, i.e., maximal and minimal effective area respectively, and compared with the mean frequency 𝑓𝑟. We found 𝐴𝑚 = Δ𝑓𝑟/𝑓𝑟 = 0.09"

    The modulation depth Am is a central input of the CMT and FEM models and drives the predicted scattering curves in Figs. 2(b)-(d). It is not obtained from an independent calculation but is measured on the same device from the resonance-frequency shift between two plate orientations. This is an honest calibration, but it means the subsequent 'prediction' with Am = 0.09 is fitted to the device rather than derived from first principles. This is a secondary fitted-input issue compared with the decay-rate fitting.

full rationale

The paper's experimental demonstration of nonreciprocal acoustic circulation is self-contained in its central claim: the isolation value of 34 dB and the transmission contrast between ports 2 and 3 are read directly from microphone measurements in the time-modulated setup, and no theory is needed to establish that those measured signals differ. That core observation is not circular. However, the paper repeatedly calls the theory and simulation 'predictions' and highlights 'excellent agreement' between CMT, FEM, and experiment, while the agreement is obtained with multiple fitted inputs. In particular, the CMT decay rates 𝛾𝑅 and 𝛾𝐷 are explicitly fitted to the experimental scattering data, the FEM geometry is adjusted (cavity diameter, neck diameter, added losses) to match the measured resonance frequencies and transmissions, and the modulation depth Am is measured from the device itself rather than predicted. The theoretical curves therefore are not independent predictions; they already encode the experiment's resonance positions, loss levels, and modulation strength. This is a genuine fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, but it does not undermine the experimental claim of nonreciprocal circulation, which stands on its own. The self-citation to Ref. [27] for the theory is normal and not load-bearing in a circular way, because the experimental result would still demonstrate circulation even if the cited theory were absent. Overall, the central result is independent and valuable, but the paper's framing of the theory-experiment agreement as prediction is partially circular, giving a score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental demonstration rests on a small number of fitted loss parameters and modeling choices; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • gamma_R (radiation decay rate) = 38.2π s^-1 for circulator 1; 22π s^-1 for circulator 2
    Fitted to match measured scattering; enters CMT formulas A10-A12.
  • gamma_D (dissipation decay rate) = 20.8π s^-1 for circulator 1; 22π s^-1 for circulator 2
    Fitted to match measured transmission and reflection in the CMT model.
  • FEM cavity diameter adjustment = 39.4 mm vs nominal 40 mm
    Adjusted in the numerical model to match the measured static resonance frequency (Appendix A3).
  • FEM internal channel diameter adjustment = 9.28 mm vs nominal 10 mm
    Adjusted in the numerical model to match the modulated resonance frequency and additional losses (Appendix A3).
  • additional external coupling loss in FEM = not quantified
    Added to match measured transmission amplitudes in the fitting procedure (Appendix A3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The three-port resonator has exact 120-degree rotational symmetry and ports 2 and 3 are anechoically terminated.
    Used to replace S13 with S21 in the isolation metric and to simplify the CMT equations; Section III and Appendix A1.
  • domain assumption Weak modulation: only the first-order Floquet harmonics n = -1, 0, 1 contribute.
    Assumed in the FEM solution (Appendix A2) and inherent in the CMT of Ref [27].
  • ad hoc to paper A time-varying density in the resonator is equivalent to the mechanically modulated neck inductance.
    Introduced in Appendix A2 to keep geometry fixed during FEM simulation; no independent validation of this equivalence is provided.
  • domain assumption The CMT equations of Ref [27] apply to inductance-modulated necks without modification beyond replacing volume modulation with inductance modulation.
    The paper states the main difference is that inductors vary in time instead of capacitors; the coupled-mode structure is inherited from prior work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental demonstration of a space-time modulated airborne acoustic circulator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NSD2NBDK

@misc{pith2026241116057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental demonstration of a space-time modulated airborne acoustic circulator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NSD2NBDK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16057}
}
read the original abstract

Achieving strongly nonreciprocal scattering in compact linear acoustic devices is a challenging task. One possible solution is the use of time-modulated resonators, however, their implementation in the realm of audible airborne acoustics is typically hindered by the difficulty to obtain large modulation depth and speeds while managing noise issues. Here, we propose a practical and cost-efficient route to realize simple modulated resonators and observe experimentally the strong nonreciprocal behavior of an acoustic circulator. We propose to modulate the neck cross-section areas of three coupled Helmholtz resonators using rotating circular plates actuated by an electrical motor, and control their phase difference via meshed gears, thereby implementing a modulation scheme with broken time-reversal symmetry that effectively imparts angular momentum to the system. We experimentally demonstrate tunable nonreciprocal behavior with a high nonreciprocal isolation of 34 dB and reflection as low as -9 dB, with insertion losses of 5 dB and parasitic signals below -20 dB. All the experimental results agree well with theoretical and numerical predictions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Malléjac and R

    M. Malléjac and R. Fleury, Scattering from Tim e-Modulated Transmission-Line Loads: Theory and Experiments in Acoustics, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 064012 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    CMT model and scattering parameters To analyse the response of the proposed experimental setup , we consider the equivalent lumped circuit model , represented in Fig. 4. The main difference between our lumped circuit model and that of Ref. [27], is that the modulation is performed on the necks’ cross-section areas rather than the cavities’ volume. As a re...

    work page

  3. [2]

    In addition, the proposed modulation strategy is a purely mechanical, magnetless, cost -effective, linear, low-noise system that is easily tunable and scalable

    Modulating the coupling between cavities instead of the cavities themselves opens new avenues for the practical implementation of circulators in acoustics. In addition, the proposed modulation strategy is a purely mechanical, magnetless, cost -effective, linear, low-noise system that is easily tunable and scalable. V. CONCLUSIONS To conclude, we have prop...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Finite-element simulations To perform a full-wave simulation of the proposed device, we first need to find a way to model the modulated effective cross -sectional area of the neck (modulated inductance by 𝛿𝐿/𝐿0 in the equivalent lumped model, 𝐿0 = 𝜌 ℎ𝑛 𝑆𝑛⁄ , where ℎ𝑛 is neck height and 𝑆𝑛 is neck cross -section area), following the procedure proposed in R...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Fitting procedure 13 We take circulator 1 as an example to give a comprehensive explanation on how the numerical model is fitted to the experimental results. On the one hand, in the time invariant configuration, the resonance frequency and transmission of the static circulator are 1806 Hz and 0.49 respectively according to the FEM simulation of the geomet...

    work page

  6. [5]

    In experiment, we only consider the three harmonics⁡ 𝑛 = {−1,0,1}⁡ that dominate the field in the frequency range of interest

    Scattering parameters characterization Since circulator can be regarded as the three -isolator combination, for simplicity, the scattering problem of the 3-port acoustic system can be considered as 2-port system one by one, and the corresponding 2-port scattering matrix is given by 22 BA SCD = (A17) where B and C are coefficients describing outgoing wave...

    work page

  7. [6]

    The thinnest wall is 5 mm thick to ensure good confinement of the acoustic waves

    Description of the experimental setup The coupled resonators were 3D printed using photosensitive resin (modulus 2.65 GPa, density 1130 kg/m3). The thinnest wall is 5 mm thick to ensure good confinement of the acoustic waves. Small holes (diameter 2.5 mm) were drilled in the sample to insert the rods (diameter 2 mm) connecting the plates to the gears . An...

    work page

  8. [7]

    J. W. S. Rayleigh, The Theory of Sound (Dover Publications, USA, 1945)

    work page 1945

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    P. M. Morse and K. U. Ingard, Theoretical Acoustics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968)

    1968

  2. [9]

    Fleury, D

    R. Fleury, D. S ounas, M. R. Haberman, and A. Alù, Nonreciprocal Acoustics, Acous. Today 11, 14 (2015)

    2015

  3. [10]

    Nassar, B

    H. Nassar, B. Yousefzadeh, R. Fleury, M. Ruzzene, A. Alù, C. Daraio, A. N. Norris, G. Huang, and M. R. Haberman, Nonreciprocity in acoustic and elastic materials, Nat. Rev. Mater. 5, 667 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Kittel, Interaction of spin waves and ultrasonic waves in ferromagnetic crystals, Phys

    C. Kittel, Interaction of spin waves and ultrasonic waves in ferromagnetic crystals, Phys. Rev. 110, 836 (1958)

    1958

  5. [12]

    Liang, X

    B. Liang, X. S. Guo, J. Tu, D. Zhang, and J. C. Cheng, An acoustic rectifier, Nat. Mater. 9, 989 (2010)

    2010

  6. [13]

    Liang, B

    B. Liang, B. Yuan, and J. C. Cheng, Acoustic diode: rectification of acoustic energy flux in one-dimensional systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 104301 (2009)

    2009

  7. [14]

    L. Shao, W. Mao, S. Maity, N. Sinclair, Y . Hu, L. Yang, and M. Lončar, Non - reciprocal transmission of microwave acoustic waves in nonlinear parity –time symmetric resonators, Nat. Electron. 3, 267 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    X. Guo, H. Lissek, and R. Fleury, Observation of non -reciprocal harmonic conversion in real sounds, Commun. Phys. 6, 93 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    Fleury, D

    R. Fleury, D. L. Sounas, C. F. Sieck, M. R. Haberman, and A. Alù, Sound Isolation and Giant Linear Nonreciprocity in a Compact Acoustic Circulator, Science 343, 516 (2014)

    2014

  10. [17]

    Y . Ding, Y . Peng, Y . Zhu, X. Fan, J. Yang, B. Liang, X. Zhu, X. Wan, and J. Cheng, Experimental Demonstration of Acoustic Chern Insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 014302 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Y . Zhu, L. Cao, A. Merkel, S.-W. Fan, B. Vincent, and B. Assouar, Janus acoustic metascreen with nonreciprocal and reconfigurable phase modulations, Nat. Commun. 12, 7089 (2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    A. B. Khanikaev, R. Fleury, S. H. Mousavi, and A. Alù, Topologically robust sound propagation in an angular -momentum-biased graphene -like resonato r lattice, Nat. Commun. 6, 8260 (2015)

    2015

  13. [20]

    Y . Shi, Z. Yu, and S. Fan, Limitations of nonlinear optical isolators due to dynamic reciprocity, Nat. Photonics 9, 388 (2015)

    2015

  14. [21]

    Pedergnana, A

    T. Pedergnana, A. Faure -Beaulieu, R. Fleury, and N. Noiray, Loss -compensated non-reciprocal scattering based on synchronization, Nat. Commun. 15, 7436 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    C. Shen, J. Li, Z. Jia, Y . Xie, and S. A. Cummer, Nonreciprocal acoustic transmission in cascaded resonators via spatiotemporal modulation, Phys. Rev. B 99, 134306 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    J. Li, C. Shen, X. Zhu, Y . Xie, and S. A. Cummer, Nonreciprocal sound propagation in space-time modulated media, Phys. Rev. B 99, 144311 (2019)

    2019

  17. [24]

    X. Zhu, J. Li, C. Shen, X. Peng, A. Song, L. Li, and S. A. Cummer, Non-reciprocal acoustic transmis sion via space -time modulated membranes, Appl . Phys. Lett. 116, 034101 (2020)

    2020

  18. [25]

    T. T. Koutserimpas, A. Alù, and R. Fleury, Parametric amplification and 16 bidirectional invisibility in PT -symmetric time -Floquet systems, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013839 (2018)

    2018

  19. [26]

    X. Wen, X. Zhu, A. Fan, W. Y . Tam, J. Zhu, H. W. Wu, F. Lemoult, M. Fink, and J. Li, Unidirectional amplification with acoustic non -Hermitian space−time varying metamaterial, Commun. Phys. 5, 18 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    J. Li, X. Zhu, C. Shen, X. Peng, and S. A. Cummer, Transfer matrix method for the analysis of space-time-modulated media and systems, Phys. Rev. B 100, 144311 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Fleury, A

    R. Fleury, A. B. Khanikaev, and A. Alù, Floquet topological insulators for sound, Nat. Commun. 7, 11744 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    T. T. Koutserimpas and R. Fleury, Zero refractive index in time -Floquet acoustic metamaterials, J. Appl. Phys. 123, 091709 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    C. Shen, X. Zhu, J. Li, and S. A. Cummer, Nonreciprocal acoustic transmission in space-time modulated coupled resonators, Physical Review B 100, 054302 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Z. Chen, Z. Li, J. Weng, B. Liang, Y . Lu, J. Cheng, and A. Alù, Sound non - reciprocity based on synthetic magnetism, Sci. Bull. 68, 2164 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Fleury, D

    R. Fleury, D. L. Sounas, and A. Alù, Subwavelength ultrasonic circulator based on spatiotemporal modulation, Phys. Rev. B 91, 174306 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Darabi, X

    A. Darabi, X. Ni, M. Leamy, and A. Alù, Reconfigurable Floquet elastodynamic topological insulator based on synthetic angular momentum bias, Sci. Adv. 6, eaba8656 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Malléjac and R

    M. Malléjac and R. Fleury, Experimental realization of an active time -modulated acoustic circulator, arXiv:2409.04251, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    H. A. Haus, Waves and Fields in Optoelectronics (Prentice Hall 1984)

    1984

Pith tools

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