Talk:Acoustic metamaterial

Recently added sections
I moved these sections to the bottom of the article so that they can be worked on there and the first part of the article can be read while these are being worked on. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

History
Is this an advertisement?

"In December 2005, phononic crystals were proposed by a Physics World online article (Physicworld.com). Physics World is a membership magazine of the science society, Institute of Physics."

Perhaps the reference should state the "popularization" of phononic crystals. They were known long before 2005, especially in the one-dimensional case. Consider the surface acoustic wave reflector grating, a distributed Bragg reflector which is a special case of the 1-D phononic crystal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwestafer (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I will change that first sentence - it does come across as advertisement-like. Popularization, is a good way to put it.


 * Regarding phononic crystals, I think you are confusing these with photonic crystals. You refer to the "Distributed Bragg reflector" and this article refers to a photonic, not phononic stopband. I agree 100% that photonic (not phononic) crystals go back way before 2005.


 * I haven't done deep research on photonic crystals, yet, but the modern photonic crystal seems to go back to at least 1987 with Eli Yablonovitch (May 1987) "Inhibited Spontaneous Emission in Solid-State Physics and Electronics", and Sajeev John (June 1987)  "Strong localization of photons in certain disordered dielectric superlattices". I see these two names crop up regarding photonic crystals.


 * And after pointing out that phononic crystals go back further, I have to agree with this anyway. In 2000 a study was done with "sonic crystals". It is in this article. So, why does this "popularized" article in Physics world seem to say that phononic crystals are a new in 2005? What about the successful demonstration of sonic crystals in the year 2000? I will have to explore this matter further, with further research. The Physics world article in a sense mentions the prediction of acoustic band gap material way back in 1992. It appears that two different groups solved this mathematically ( and maybe simulations), with solid-fluid structures, as well as solid-solid and fluid-fluid structures. The year 2000 demonstration is a solid-fluid combination, and was actually accomplished - high-density spheres placed within a low-density host. Anyway, for now I will remove the first one or two sentences for the sake of accuracy. Thanks for pointing this out. Whatever you intended, you may be correct that phononic crystals showed up before 2005. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Phononic crystals are/are not metamaterials?
The first comment on Talk:Metamaterial included the question:
 * "Question for optics people out there - do photonic crystals (photonic band-gap structures) count as metamaterials? They seem to satisfy the definition written in metamaterial, but I might be missing some subtle distinction. --Christopher Thomas 04:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

And received the answer:
 * No, one basic properties of metamaterials is that they are homogeneous on a wavelength scale. The interaction of the material with light must come from sub-wavelength scaled features. Photonic crystals, on the other hand, are structure with features of about one wavelength long; diffraction around these features is the main effect here. The definition of metamaterials in the article should maybe be modified to reflect this.

I would like to ask the same question about phononic crystals, because the article doesn't consider this question and I haven't been able to answer it from other internet sources. If the size of the features relative to the wavelength is a crucial part of the definition of a metamaterial, surely it should be in the article? Thanks. DorrieC (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Acoustic metamaterials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090720003945/http://people.ee.duke.edu:80/~drsmith/about_metamaterials.html to http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/about_metamaterials.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110122064849/http://defense-update.com:80/wp/20110119_stealth_submarine.html to http://defense-update.com/wp/20110119_stealth_submarine.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090827150301/http://mechse.illinois.edu:80/content/news/spotlight.php?id=177 to http://mechse.illinois.edu/content/news/spotlight.php?id=177
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110217091323/http://mechse.illinois.edu:80/content/news/spotlight.php?id=177 to http://mechse.illinois.edu/content/news/spotlight.php?id=177
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100623184308/http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu/publications/pdfs/37.%20Nick%20Nature%20Materials.pdf to http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu/publications/pdfs/37.%20Nick%20Nature%20Materials.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110707024317/http://www.physics.fudan.edu.cn/tps/people/jzi/research/contents/materials/Physics%20Worl%20DEC05%20thomas%20sonic%20crystals.pdf to http://www.physics.fudan.edu.cn/tps/people/jzi/research/contents/materials/Physics%20Worl%20DEC05%20thomas%20sonic%20crystals.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Super Resolution?
In the "Analogues" section: "Flat slab focusing, which can result in super resolution, is similar to electromagnetic metamaterials." The article doesn't explain how super resolution is relevant to acoustic metamaterials and the linked article in Wikipedia does not hint for any non-optical applications for the terms. Maybe a sentence or two of explanation is in order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barruktp (talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyediting issues and changes
User Laura sf was right, this article needed more copyediting before removing the tag. I've done more work on it but didn't want to remove the tag again without trying to get some feedback. I've (boldly) removed quite a bit of content which I thought was redundant or not relevant. I rewrote some sections for clarity, removed repeated wikilinks, and deleted a few references that were excessive. I have some background in acoustics but not in metamaterials, so I didn't touch some sentences that seemed badly written but which I didn't fully understand. This article would benefit from further work to make it more understandable, specially from a subject expert. I will wait to see if there are any objections before removing the copyediting tag again. --Alan Islas (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Since there were no objections and further copyediting improvements have been done since, I've removed the tag, leaving only the "too technical" tag which I believe still applies. --Alan Islas (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)