Fig. 2: Simulation predictions of the acoustoelectric effect in weak electrolytes.
From: Remote focused encoding and decoding of electric fields through acoustoelectric heterodyning
a Line plot comparing the normalized amplitude of generated field \(|{\overrightarrow{E}}_{{\rm {ae}}}|\) along the black dashed lines in Fig. 1(b) and (e). b Acoustoelectric coupling factor cae vs. angle between the applied electric field and acoustic propagation direction. c Evolution of the generated electric field over time shown at the same point in space (focus) as time progresses over an acoustic wavelength. Shown are ΦAE maps in the radial plane \(\hat{x}\hat{y}\) at different phases of the ultrasound transducer period for a parallel and perpendicular electric field orientation; θ, instantaneous phase of the applied acoustic field. d Effect of the applied acoustic field frequency on the generated electric field. Electric and acoustic fields were applied as in Fig. 1a but at different acoustic frequencies. Representative \(|{\overrightarrow{E}}_{{\rm {AE}}}|\) maps in the radial plane \(\hat{x}\hat{y}\) with acoustic field at fA = 500 kHz and fA = 4 MHz, respectively. e, Normalized \(|{\overrightarrow{E}}_{{\rm {AE}}}|\) along the \(\hat{x}\) direction vs. applied acoustic frequency. f Full-width half maximum (FWHM) area of the generated field vs. applied acoustic frequency decreases as frequency increases. g Acoustoelectric coupling factor vs. applied acoustic frequency increases as frequency increases.
