05.07.08
Acoustic Reflection Testing
I’ve been working on decomposing the different parts of the signal received, trying to figure out what each bit is and how to get rid of it.
The main conclusions of which are that bottom->surface reflections are the most predominant in the signal.
The attached two graphs of experiments where I was comparing the signals in a bucket to the signals in the tank, and in the tank at different heights.
The first test shows that side reflections constitute a fair amount of the signal but after the primary reflections have passed the main residing component is the reflections from the surface. (Although they can still be seen in the signal - just). The bottom->surface reflections have slightly different path lengths due to the odd shape of the bottom of the bucket and that the hydrophone protrudes by a few cm’s. These two paths constructively and destructively interfere to produce the remaining oscillatory signal.
The second experiment was to make sure that the remaining signal was produced by surface reflections and not by some resonance in the hydrophone itself. It can be seen that the cycles following the initial spike occur at a different time depending on the depth. The deeper the water, the longer it takes the reflection to return back to the hydrophone. This can be roughly seen but is shrouded by the different path lengths of the other reflections (because the drop wasnt directly over the hydrophone).
This seems to indicate that if we were to dampen the bottom->surface reflections using a lining then a lot of this type of “noise” could be removed.
I also noted that the oil used for this experiment was left in the tank a few days. It looked like the cooking oil had started to coagulate, and did not behave as intended. (the semi-solid pieces were not recombining quick enough to “heal” the patch where the drop had just landed.)
This also helps to answer another question: How thick does it need to be?
Well this roughly depends on how quick/much it is raining. If there is a thin film (about 2mm) then when a drop hits the surface it forces the oil away from the impact site. If another drop was to hit the same place then there would be no oil to stop the bubble noise. If the film is 2cm deep then the drop doesn’t have enough energy to break through the oil into the water, so if another drop did land in its place, there would still be enough oil left to inhibit bubble noise. So the only worse case scenario is when one drop hits and another drop at practically the same time hits exactly the same place in the same orientation. If this happened then a collision between the new drop and the old drop could occur and probably create some strange results.
Having a thicker film also helps to stop the oil coagulating. So basically, the thicker the better. BUT we have to make sure that we dont make it too big because reflections will occur on the boundary of the water and the oil and the speed of sound will be different, affecting the TDOA’s.
