Talk:Ultrasound

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Radiology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Radiology task force.
 
WikiProject Physics / Acoustics  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Acoustics Taskforce.
 

Comment 1[edit]

This articles needs one or more sources, added tag.--FloNight 23:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Why can't humans hear ultrasound?[edit]

Why can not human being hear sounds more than 20 kilohertz??

Because above 20,000 Hertz (vibrations per second) the waves are too small and fast for the inner ear to transmit the vibrations. 20,000 Hertz is the typical upper limit of hearing, there may be individuals who can detect some frequencies slightly above this range, but not much higher. DuBose 14:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
It should perhaps also be noted that this limit is lower for many persons - it decreases with age, and it is also decreased by repeated exposure to high-intensity sounds of lower frequencies (loud music being a common example). Osquar F 12:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WHATS THE STORY IN BALAMORY WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO KNOW? NO!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.224.222 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sonography[edit]

Does anyone know why medical sonography uses a typical frequency of 1 to 10 MHz. Why not higher? Are there any constraints on this?

-- I believe this is due to regulations on transmitted power - higher the frequency, the higher the energy in the transmission. To prevent localized heating, the transmitted energy (and thus the frequency) are limited. Also, the upper limit is more like 15MHz, IIRC, although that's flexible depending on the specific application.

-- In addition, attenuation of an ultrasound beam is proportional to its frequency, which means that a 10MHz medical imaging beam can only penetrate around 3cm at "safe" power levels. Only very superficial structures can be scanned in this way. Higher frequencies can be used in small children where the size and relative depths of structures of interest are smaller, and can also be used in adults in situations where a modified probe can be put inside the body. Examples of this are trans-esophageal echocardiography, transvaginal sonography and intravascular ultrasound imaging.


-- There are actually applications for ultrasound at higher frequency. A new field appeared about 10 years ago, which focuses on small animal imaging, in particular mouse and rat imaging. It is often referred to as ultrasound bio-microscopy (UBM). The frequency for UBM typically ranges from 20 MHz to 60 MHz, which translates to a resolution of 25 to 75 µm axially and about 50 to 150 µm laterally (depending on the geometry of the tranducer). Biology labs and pharmaceutical companies are the principal users of this technology, because it allows them to visualize the progression of model of diseases (for example cancer model) developed in small animals without having to sacrifice these animals at regular time interval (like it used to be done when histology only could provide information about diseased tissues). The efficiency of particular disease treatments can also benefit from this technology. Also, ultrasound scanners are also on the market for specific human applications. Intra vascular ultrasound is one of them (30-40 MHz, typically). Opthalmology is also an application for which high frequency ultrasound scanners are commercialized (20 MHz for imaging of the retina, 40-50 MHz for imaging of the cornea). Dermatology could also benefit from UBM technology.

The increase of the attenuation as a function of frequency is for sure an issue when dealing with high frequency ultrasound, especially because it limits the depth of penetration (UBM scanner can image at a maximum depth of around 10 to 20 mm, depending on the frequency used). However, another type of limitations has prevented for a long time higher frequency to be used for imaging. And it has to do with the capability (or motivation, the market was maybe not there yet) of manufacturers to develop transducers operating in the high frequency range. To date, commercially available UBM scanners are still using a single element transducer collecting data from one particular location, and mechanically scanned across the sample to produce images. This mechanical scan limits drastically the imaging frame rate (60 fps, typically). Furthermore, the use of single element transducers limit the number of focal zones to a single one. Whereas in the clinical frequency range, single element transducers have been replaced a long time ago by transducers array, which in combination with beamforming techniques, can generate multiple foci, can steer the beam, and can scan across the sample without being actually physically moved spatially, allowing for frame rate well above 100 frames per second. Some research labs around the world are however working on the development of transducers array for UBM, but it is a very challenging task, because structures in these arrays that are 100's microns in size, would have to be let say 10 times smaller for high frequency arrays.


You seem to be changing every use of "ultrasonography" with "sonography". I wish you'd discussed this on the relevant talk pages first. I think the correct term is "ultrasonography" if the test is called "an ultrasound". I've changed it back for now. Please provide some support for your changes. JFW | T@lk 14:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If you think the article medical ultrasonography should be called sonography instead, please do not create a duplicate page but suggest a move on the former page. JFW | T@lk 14:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DuBose"


I do disagree with the term ultrasonography and ultrasound in this context. There is a historical place for the term ultrasound; however, ultrasound is a term of physics meaning frequencies above human hearing; you obviously know this. Ultrasound is not unique to medical imaging. Many use “ultrasound” for medical and non-medical purposes. Physical Therapists use it for deep heat, Dental Hygienist use it to clean teeth, Iron Workers use it for non-destructive testing, and jewelers use it to clean rings and watches. Only sonographers use ultrasonic energy to create medical images. Sonography, sonographer, and sonographic were coined 30 years ago to specifically refer to this type of medical imaging. Ultrasonography is unnecessarily long, pretentious, and redundant because the “ultra” goes without saying. Sonography is simple, unique, and specific to the profession.

While ultrasound predates the term sonography and its derivatives, sonography is much more consistent with older medical nomenclature such as radiography. And while we use ultrasonic energy to create these images, to refer to the technique or image as an “ultrasound” is analogous to referring to a photograph as a “light”… photographs are reflected light.

Sonography, Sonographer, & Sonographic are well accepted and because they are unique to the profession are more specific to it. There are ample examples of the acceptance of these terms:

Definitions of sonography on the Web: • A imaging technique for visualizing the growth of ovarian follicles during infertility therapy. http://www.infertilitycentral.com/fertility/infertility-glossary,6.html • use of sound to form images eg ultrasound scanning http://www.nutrition-matters.co.uk/misc/glossary.htm • An imaging test which sends sound waves to and receives them back from an organ to create an image of that organ. http://www8.utsouthwestern.edu/utsw/cda/dept22047/files/144495.html • using the reflections of high-frequency sound waves to construct an image of a body organ (a sonogram); commonly used to observe fetal growth or study bodily organs wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn DuBose 22:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This discussion should be conducted on talk:medical ultrasonography and not here. JFW | T@lk 01:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

ultrasound communication for underwater[edit]

Does anyone know anything about the communication devices used by divers?--Gbleem 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


" to refer to the technique or image as an “ultrasound” is analogous to referring to a photograph as a “light”… photographs are reflected light."

Is this not what people do when they call a light-produced image a "photo"?

Ultrasound definition and Principles[edit]

Principles[edit]

The principles of ultrasound are the same irrespective of the application. Several contributors have defined ultrasound in terms of its use in medicine, with little more than a cursory nod toward it's use in industry. Although in modern times the use of ultrasound is much more widespread in medicine and thus more familiar to the public at large, it is in a comparitively narrow field and uses a small range of frequencies, in the MHz range, which are suited to human tissue and bone. In industrial nondestructive testing (NDT) the uses are far more varied and the range of frequencies varies from 100's of Khz up to many Ghz. Such applications include, crack detection and sizing, bond testing, material evaluation and ultrasonic microscopy. Hardware ranges from single probe in pulse-echo mode - ie sending and receiving its own pulse, thru inspection systems used in the oil and gas industry containing many probes up to multi-element arrays capable of producing a real-time image of the object under test (herein lies the parallel with medical imaging). Lionel Dunlop (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

Quite correctly, ultrasound is defined as "above the frequency at which the average human can hear", i.e. approximately 16khz but then the rather bold statement is made that because Bats and certain other animals' threshold is higher, "they can hear Ultrasound". This is very misleading. Admittedly, certain species of bat can hear up to 160 khz but this is a minute proportion of the full spectrum of Ultrasound, which as I have already said is well into the Ghz range. Lionel Dunlop (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ghz range is not, and can not be used in industrial applications; inspections of metals. The grain structure of the material becomes obvious far below the Ghz range. The sound beam would not have the penetrating power to accurately allow for cogent interpretation. 5 Mhz is capable of sizing a defect to 0.5 mm. Even 10 Mhz is seldom used. A N Other

It is important to distinguish between industrial application of Ultrasond and the full spectrum to which the term Ultrasound can be applied. You cannot claim that "5MHz can size a defect to 0.5mm", without specifying the material, the grain size and the technique being used. Lionel Dunlop (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ultrasound is indeed used up to the range of GHz in Acoustic microscopes. It is used well into the 20 and 30 MHz range for example in bond testing between Aluminium substrates. Lionel Dunlop (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


May I suggest some slight changes to the ultrasound page to encompass the various interpretations of the word "ultrasound". I think the opening section is looking good - it states the technical definition of the word, and briefly covers the various applications. But then the rest of the article assumes ultrasound == sonography, which is at odds with the opening. Here's my suggestion:

The opening remains in close to its current form, with technical definition and common applications/interpretations.

The next section is "From sound to image (sonography)" which includes dangers, producing, receiving, displaying, all covered in a scientific manner. Then a link is provided to the "medical ultrasonography" page for more practice perspective info.

Then a section is added "From sound to graph (ultrasound testing)" which covers the NDT/NDE applications of ultrasound, in a scientific manner. I'm happy to provide a first draft for this section.

Perhaps the baby in womb picture could be moved to "medical ultrasonography" and a frequency spectrum graph inserted instead?

LightYear 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

ESWL is not Ultrasound[edit]

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is not an ultrasound application. Seejyb 23:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional images?[edit]

Currently, all of the images are of fetuses. These are definitely valuable pictures for this article, as that's a common and well-known use of ultrasounds. I think it would also be beneficial, however, to have an image or two of other medical ultrasounds to further illustrate (no pun intended) that they have other medical uses as well. I don't have any, unfortunately, but it would be a nice addition if someone does. Maybe the CDC website or another US Government health-related department would? Just throwing that out there, as images by the US Government don't have the same copyright issues. --Icarus (Hi!) 18:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Since this article is about ultrasound, the frequency range, and its various applications, I've relegated one of the medical images to the medical section, and added a rough diagram of the ultrasound spectrum. LightYear 01:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We must not forget about our four legged friends. Ultrasound is growing rapidly in the field among veterinarians and animal breeders alike. Cost reductions due to R&D, and affordable units introduced from China have pushed the cost down drastically on diagnostic ultrasound units, so that the introduction of this tool into communities other than hospital and physician offices has increased very rapidly. Please see the several diagnostic images used for but not limited to equine, swine, cattle, cats and dogs at http://www.ameritechmedical.com/vet_ultrasounds.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmeritechMed (talkcontribs) 15:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-linear propagation[edit]

I really like this paragraph, but it just doesn't fit in this article at the moment. LightYear 01:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

==Nonlinear Effects of Propagating Acoustic Wave== When an acoustic wave propagates through a material, it acts as a force that creates localized pressure. When a material is under pressure (as compared to some lower equilibrium pressure), the speed of sound increases because the molecules transmitting the energy are closer together. As a result, the wave travels faster during the high pressure phase than for the lower pressure section of oscillation. Consider a sinusoidal wave with a high peak. As a result of this nonlinear effect, the peaks of the wave travel faster than the dips (near zero). When the peaks travel faster, the shape of the wave changes, as the higher amplitude sections shift farther forward than the lower pressure part of the wave and the signal approaches more of a square wave than a sinusoidal one. Fourier analysis will show that this single-frequency wave will be changed into one that has much more than a single impulse in the frequency domain! This implies a non-linear system, as a linear one cannot output frequencies that were not a part of the input signal.

It is relevant to how ultrasound operates. I have restored it, until someone finds somewhere else to put it. Anthony Appleyard 06:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I really like it too, but I agree that it should go somewhere else. Right now I'm thinking of moving it to the "wave" article, although that's not exactly right either. Ideally there should be an article on non-linear wave propigation for this information, but it would need more mathematical models and some sources.Dudecon 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
okay, I looked around and this kind of non-linear behaviour only occurs in pressure waves. This is primarily an acoustic effect, so it should go in an acoustic related article. I've created a stub for Nonlinear Acoustics and coppy-pasted the paragraph there as a seed. I don't know much about the topic personally, so I tagged it for attention by an expert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dudecon (talkcontribs) 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

"younger humans": the mosquito ring tone.[edit]

Children can hear it, just as most adults can and the NYT is full of baloney on this point. I'm 40 with a long history of listening to music much louder than I should and I can hear it clearly from a considerable distance, as can my 38 yr old wife, and co-workers ranging in age from 42 to 60. This is just silliness. Additionally, the statement begins, "Some have said that children can hear some high-pitched sounds that older adults cannot hear..." The sole reference does back up the point that there is a bogus ring tone that was alledgedly created (or at least used) because adults supposedly can't hear it, however untrue that reality may be, but there is no reference to back up the assertion that children (as a rule) can hear sounds that adults cannot (as a rule) hear. Darentig 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the info on a mobile phone ring tone is trivial at best and nonsense at worst. I propose cleaning this section up by removing the mention of the ring tone, and explicitly stating that the upper limit of hearing is different for different folks, and that in general, this upper limit comes down as age increase. We are all happy to agree on this as fact, are we? LightYear 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It is definitely true that many adults over the age of around 40 begin to lose some of the very-highest-frequency hearing, and that this loss progresses into old age; I've added a reference about this to the article. The enormous variation in this phenomenon across the population means that, although the ringtone's creation has some basis in fact, it's essentially pointless because a significant proportion of adults will easily hear it. I do not think that the ringtone paragraph should be removed - it helps make the topic interesting to the casual reader. --mcld 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds (haha) good. Thanks for the edit. I'm happy with that section now. LightYear 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a bit more complex than it sounds. A 17kHz tone from a mobile phone speaker (apparently what this is) will have complex directional characteristics and will be very rapidly attenuated by any clothing, and even attenuated a couple of dB in air across a room. The number of adults that can hear 17kHz at the level produced by a mobile phone must be very few, but the number of mobile phones that produce intermodulation distortion components below 17kHz when playing this ringtone is probably quite high. We would need to measure the output from an actual phone to know the spectrum of what it is producing - it wouldn't be surprising if there was a lot of signal below 17kHz that almost any adult could hear, but how much would depend on the individual phone and where you measured it relative to the phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.215.69 (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

for what it's worth, I can offer ancedotal evidence that most adults -- even without benifit of listening to rock and roll -- can not hear high pitched sounds. This is based on my direct experience with old televisions. They emit a very high pitched whine, not sure of the frequency... but as a kid I used to point this sound out to many different adults and they were totally unable to hear it and concluded that the sound did not exist, e.g. I was nuts or a liar... Many years later I finally found a written account that confirmed the existance of the sound and claimed that it originated in the flyback transformer. However it is not true that all adults lose this ability because I never stopped being able to hear it, although recently as an older adult (55+) my hearing is definitely not as good as it was and I'm not sure I could still hear it today, but those tvs are long gone so no easy way to test that. As another example, I studied electronics in high school and our teacher was demonstrating oscilators, he hooked one up to a speaker and kept increasing the frequency, while asking people to hold up their hands if they could hear it. About half the class dropped their hands pretty early on while the rest of the class continued to be able to hear the higher frequencies, from a class of about 25 people, there were about 3 students who could hear the highest frequencies, I was one of them. The students who dropped their hands early were asked about their music preferences and all of them liked to listen to loud rock-n-roll. So yes, listening to loud music does measurably reduce your ability to hear high frequencies. I also agree that cell phones are unlikely to produce a clean high frequency sound with their limited speaker system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.96.202 (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Link clean-up[edit]

None of the external links satisfied Wikipedia:External links, so I deleted them all. Details are given below. We need to find links of the "further reading" type, that provide more (and relevant) detail than is included here.

  • A special issue of Progress in Biophysics & Molecular Biology that focuses on ultrasound and infrasound — requires purchase
  • American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (Professional Association) — move to Medical ultrasonography
  • Ultrasound Safety Issues — move to Medical ultrasonography
  • Radiology Web Site Directory — nothing to do with ultrasound
  • Ultrasound Job Outlooks — nothing to do with the topic
  • Radiology Resources for Students and Professionals — nothing to do with ultrasound
  • Ultrasound Can Affect Fetal Brain Development — move to Medical ultrasonography
  • 3D Ultrasound Info - Includes sample images and studies — commercial site
  • Yahoo email groups:- — discussion forums usually not recommended

DavidMack 23:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The Internation Ultrasound Forum [www.ultrasoundforum.com], nonprofit dicussion board.

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy does not involve ultrasound jmak 08:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Emphasis on medical ultrasound risks rather that diagnostic use?[edit]

Does it seem odd to anyone else that there is more content regarding the risk and dangers of ultrasound for medical purposes than there are in the dedicated 'Medical ultrasonography' page? I thought that for the page on general 'Ultrasound', there should be more about the various uses of ultrasound in diagnostic medicine rather than several paragraphs on the risks of it. Saket (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps all the content on risks and dangers which is now on both pages should be collected at Medical ultrasonography#Risks and side-effects. If that is done, then on this Ultrasound page there could be just one sentence saying that the risks and dangers are discussed further in the Medical ultrasonography article with an appropriate link. Dirac66 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No Ultrasonic Welding?[edit]

This article seems to be missing content on ultrasonic welding --Ozhiker (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ultrasonic effects during pregnancy[edit]

This info from User:Hellandback and available for wikification. LightYear (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Elegant studies conducted in monkeys by an eminent brain scientist at Yale (Dr. Pasko Rakic) have shown that ultrasound exams result in an alteration of the normal, detailed organization of the cerebral cortex that specifically applies for neurons that are migrating into the cortex at the time of the exposure. In other words, across roughly the 2nd trimester of pregnancy when cortical layers are being formed, you can actually determine the time of administration of the ultrasound exam post hoc, by looking at the location of abnormally oriented neurons in the layers of the cerebral cortex.

Seven or eight years ago, Sandy Blakeslee, a science reporter for the New York Times (and a long-time friend), sent me the reference to a study from a Mayo research team in Phoenix in which scientists had measured the levels of audible sound stimulation that bombards the fetus during an ultrasound exam. It turns out that in one part of an ultrasound examination the very high (”ultra”) frequency sound is “modulated” at low frequencies to generate the sharpest images. That modulation creates an audible sound that is very intense (greater than 100 decibels). It is not surprising that the third-trimester fetus — whose hearing is intact across this period — writhes in the womb when the beam moves onto the head! For the ultrasound machines investigated by the Mayo scientists, the highest sound energies transmitted to the fetus were centered in the range of frequencies that are most crucial for resolving the sounds of aural speech. You might note that any untoward consequence of an audible sound-induced exam would be limited to the third trimester, because the baby has no effective hearing until roughly the beginning of the 7th month of gestation.

Rodent control[edit]

Our article states:

Ultrasound generator/speaker systems are sold with claims that they frighten away rodents and insects, but there is no scientific evidence that the devices work.[35] [36] [37]

I was previously of this opinion myself, but when I went to check reference 35 ( http://books.google.com/?id=vYGZs2A7S_IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mouse+ultrasonic+repellent#v=onepage&q=ultrasonic&f=false ) I was surprised to discover that there is in fact strong evidence that they work. The cite actually seems to have the exact opposite sense to the claim in the article.

The cite, from Vertebrate pest control and management materials: 6th volume; Volume 1055 of ASTM special technical publication. discusses the difficulty of assessing such devices fairly, rather than their efficacy. However in passing it present the results of some experiments (e.g. the graph on page 11, Fig. 1) which pretty clearly shows a high degree of efficacy (about 80% reduction in rodent activity) at very high statistical significance.

Specifically, there are 9 control days and 9 treatment days on this graph. The very first treatment day showed much less rodent activity than most control days, but marginally higher rodent activity than the very lowest scoring control day. This lowest scoring control day, 7/30, is clearly anomalous; you can easily see that it is 3 to 4 s.d. below the rest of the control days.

Other than that, every single treatment day showed less rodent activity than the very lowest control day, and every single control day showed more rodent activity than the very highest treatment day. If we be permitted to put aside the first treatment day (or equivalently, the anomalous control day) as a special case, then the robust non-parametric significance level of this result is 7 x 10-6. Even if we do not disregard the first treatment day, the result still has a significance of about 72 x 10-6. I emphasise that this is a non-parametric result; looking at the size of the differences, which mostly are very large, it is clear that the if we turned the histogram bars back into numbers and did a parametric test the significance would be even more extreme. However that is unnecessary because even the non-parametric result is immensely strong.

Thus this result -- which comes from an experiment being put forward as an example of a good way to design these experiments -- is highly statistically significant. And one counter-example suffices to disprove a universal claim like ... there is no scientific evidence that the devices work.

I also checked the other references. I was unable to read reference 35. Reference 36, "NAS; National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Plant and Animal Pests. Subcommittee on Vertebrate pests, Robert A. McCabe, National Academy of Sciences (U.S.) (1970). Vertebrate pests: problems and control; Volume 5 of Principles of plant and animal pest control, National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Plant and Animal Pests; Issue 1697 of Publication (National Research Council (U.S.))). National Academies. p. 92", http://books.google.com/books?id=uDorAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA92&dq=mouse+ultrasonic+repellent&hl=en#v=onepage&q=ultrasonic&f=false also does not support the claim! What it actually says about ultrasonics is:

Ultrasonic (high frequency) sound repellents do not obviate the necessity for ratproofing.

The very next line notes that chemical repellents are also not completely effective. In other words, this resource is not claiming, as we do, that there is no scientific evidence that ultrasonic repellents work at all; rather, it is saying that they do work but (in the 1970s at least) are not 100% effective!!

I will leave this comment here for a few days for anyone else to comment, then I will completely change the offending line to say that they are proven to work, but are not completely effective. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Terminology in the first illustration[edit]

The illustration of ultrasonic and infrasonic ranges uses the word "acoustic" for the bit between them. My understanding of the word was identical to the first sentence of the entry for "Acoustics" ie. "Acoustics is the interdisciplinary science that deals with the study of all mechanical waves in gases, liquids, and solids including vibration, sound, ultrasound and infrasound."

True, "Audible sound" doesn't have as nice a ring (heh) to it, but isn't "acoustic" wrong in this context?

InelegantSolution (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah fair point. I was just thinking of the dictionary definition when I created it. Might be nicer to just use "Audible" but of course, then you have controversy about "audible to who/what?". Never going to get a completely unambiguous term. Can we get some more opinions about what sounds right to different folk? LightYear (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Ultrasonics duplicates the contents of this article and any unique material from it ought to be merged. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Merge any unique material and make Ultrasonics redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LightYear (talkcontribs) 05:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Support. As the Ultrasound (disambiguation) page says, "Ultrasonic is an adjective referring to ultrasound." Also, for some reason Ultrasonic redirects to Ultrasound (disambiguation). A part of the confusion seems to come from confusion with http://www.ultrasonics.org/, which is the website of the Ultrasonic Industry Association. Regardless, merge. SchreiberBike (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Started merging, but stuffing in a large block of text reveals that there are other blocks that repeat other articles. Like many topics, this is a subject for a book-length treatment and this article should be an overview. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The merger has a long history of deleting large quantities of content that he believes does not belong in his encyclopedia (WP:OWNERSHIP). He also has a long history of allowing only minimal time for any proper discussion so that not too many editors have much opportuniuty to object. A merge proposal should stand for several weeks to allow proper concensus to occur. 86.166.70.84 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support merge, deleting sections and paragraphs that are best addressed elsewhere. For instance, arguments about the safety of medical ultrasound should be covered in medical articles, not an article about physics and applications which is what this is. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Only one !vote per person; dynamic IP addresses do not get multiple votes. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Oppose merge for at least the next two weeks. This allows a (minimum) proper time for any interested parties to comment. Not every editor spends all their free time they are not working and sleeping editing Wikipedia like Wtshymanski seems to (500 edits in under a week, Sheesh! Most people don't seem to manage that in 6 months). Some of us have a life. 86.150.66.174 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Why two weeks? Why not 15 days? or 11 days? Or 5 years? Someone who's not yet been born might have an opinion, too. C'mon, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Most people don't edit encyclopedias at all.People who don't look at articles don't care what happens to them. It only takes a week for a deletion, why would a much less significant change to the encyclopedia need excessive time for debate? Nearly all editing decisions on the Wikipedia are *individual* decisions, with no bureaucracy involved at all. And if you leave out vandalism reverts, my actual contributions are not extraordinary - in fact, rather humble compared to real Wikipedia enthusiasts. A curious argument to make, anyway. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This point has been answered to the point of exhaustion in numerous other places. I suggest that if you really cannot comprehend plain English then maybe you should seek the help of a responsible adult to point out to you why your continued tendatious editing is not appreciated. 86.150.66.174 (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Sept 19 through Oct 4 is two weeks, and less if you only count article space not talk page nifnawing. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
And if you add the two weeks refered to above to the two weeks already expended, what do you get? (Take your time). You get the month that has been mentioed so frequently elsewhere as a minimum reasonable time to allow for opinions other than your own to be expressed. 86.150.66.174 (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. There appears to be 100% consensus for the merge, once you discount the opinion of the IP editor who freely admits that his only reason for opposing is because it is Wtshymanski who made the merge proposal and he doesn't like Wtshymanski. I am often first in line to criticize Wtshymanski when he does something wrong, but he did nothing wrong here. This is a rather uncontroversial WP:SNOWBALL merge proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Expansion[edit]

Instead of an exhaustive catalog of applications, I'd like to see more of the fundamental physics described. How is ultrasound made and detected? What physical properties does it have taht make it useful? What are the limitations of ultrasonic techniques? When was ultrasound discovered? When was ultrasound applied to industrial problems? And so on. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Painful Perception[edit]

I have found high-pitched sounds and low ultrasound painful for my entire life, and I know that while my symptoms are worse than usual, some degree of sensitivity is not unusual. For me, it is a major disability. As is, the article said nothing bout pain, except indirectly, in referring to something that was supposed to "deter loitering," presumably by inflicting pain. I have tracked down one reference for high-pitched sound, so far, and hope to follow up with other references to ultrasound, but need to take a break and get back to this later today or tomorrow. PLEASE do not delete this again in the meantime. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this has been put under protection, I'm going to have to list references here:
  • Acton, W.I., and Carson, M.B., "Auditory and Subjective Effects of Airborne Noise from Industrial Ultrasonic Sources" in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine, v. 24.
"Two small laboratory-type washers were also in use operating at a frequency of i6 kc/s, with an ultrasonic harmonic at 32 kc/s. Although no actual complaints were volunteered by the women operators of these washers, the authors experienced a piercing, almost painful whistle, and the general subjective effects, although not persistent, were rather more unpleasant than those experienced in the vicinity of the drills and larger washers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.211.53 (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Bistrup, Marie Louise, 2001, Health Effects of Noise on Children and Perception of the Risk of Noise.
p. 26: "Ultrasound disturbs some people, but research is scarce." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.211.53 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Leighton, Timothy G. 2006, "What is Ultrasound?".
pp. 69-70: "Whilst it is of course difficult to verify the output of such devices, or even to assess the operating frequency, the intention of using high outputs to generate discomfort is clear. Indeed, the fact that the sensitivity of the ear to high frequencies is personal, and often age-related, is now being exploited to target specific demographic groups, for example by using high frequencies below 20 kHz to prevent teenagers loitering around shops: "Police have given their backing to a gadget that sends out an ultra high-pitched noise that can be heard only by those under 20 and is so distressing it forces them to clutch their ears in discomfort" (Alleyne, 2006)." 173.66.211.53 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Human Hearing Range[edit]

In some cases, people may hear sounds well above 20 kHz. Howard, Carl Q., Hansen, Colin H., and Zander, Anthony C., 2004, in "A Review of Current Ultrasound Exposure Limits" cite Schust, M., 1996 "Biological Effects of Airborne Ultrasound"/"Biologische wirkung von luftgeleitetem ultraschall” as saying that "The human ear may perceive auditory sensations up to at least 40kHz." 173.66.211.53 (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

"to distribute the cellulose fibres more uniform in the" = "uniformly" or "homogenise" Sorry but not allowed to edit page despite being logged in? Please delete once correctedBrobof (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Your account must be confirmed/autoconfirmed to edit semi protected pages, see WP:AUTOC. — Reatlas (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)