9 ms·

* Several IC makers are selling integrated devices (TI, Analog, Maxim), for example at TI: LM96530 (Beamformer), LM96511 (VGA/LNA) and LM96570 (TR Switch). Thos

* Several IC makers are selling integrated devices (TI, Analog, Maxim), for example at TI: LM96530 (Beamformer), LM96511 (VGA/LNA) and LM96570 (TR Switch). Those are eight channels ICs, they cost $200 together. There are ICs for 16 or even 64 channels. * Another claim is the need for a huge number of piezos, this probably a view from a remote past: With adequate coding and enough channels to enable beamforming, there is no meaning in having this extravagant number (200) of transducers IMO.

guitarbill 10y ago
e.g. the LM96530 is lifebuy, so it's basically discontinued. LM96511 & LM96570: not recommended for new design. In other words, those ICs are basically obsolete.
- JPLeRouzic 10y ago
  Thanks for pointing out right to the important thing: Those ICs are not new, they are on the market since some years.
  - temac 10y ago
    And have probably been used in some cheap systems?
    - guitarbill 10y ago
      I don't know if the $200 quoted by the OP for all ICs is bulk pricing when they were new or $200 now when they are limited and special parts. But it's moot anyway, I doubt the ICs are the major price point.
LiesNStartupPR 10y ago
The basics of imaging require a certain number of elements. The acoustic window must be a certain size for the application, the elements must be smaller than a wavelength to avoid grating lobes (0.5 wavelength for perfect phased arrays in that regard). Divide one into the other, and you get a number of elements that's usually between 100 and 200. On what basis do you make your statement that this is too many elements? IMO implies opinion, do you have any facts or physics to back up your statement? Laws of physics do not change with time.
- JPLeRouzic 10y ago
  >> do you have any facts or physics to back up your statement? I do not think that beamforming needs more than a few emitting sources neither a Nobel prize. Check no further than your Wi-Fi router's antennas. The technology you are describing is entirely different and older, as in your description there is no beamforming. In the technology you describe, there is a requirement for two emitters/receivers to be separated by less than a wavelength, however this strong requirement does not exist for beamforming. What makes beamforming useful is modulating and coding the beam. Another thing important is the SNR, as it is the addition of the waves that creates "beams". When I checked Google patents I found beamforming patents in ultrasound imaging since 1986, and super-resolution (pionnered in astronomy and microscopy) in ultrasound imaging since 2005 (US 20050160817).

guitarbill 10y ago

e.g. the LM96530 is lifebuy, so it's basically discontinued. LM96511 & LM96570: not recommended for new design. In other words, those ICs are basically obsolete.

JPLeRouzic 10y ago
Thanks for pointing out right to the important thing: Those ICs are not new, they are on the market since some years.
- temac 10y ago
  And have probably been used in some cheap systems?
  - guitarbill 10y ago
    I don't know if the $200 quoted by the OP for all ICs is bulk pricing when they were new or $200 now when they are limited and special parts. But it's moot anyway, I doubt the ICs are the major price point.

LiesNStartupPR 10y ago

The basics of imaging require a certain number of elements. The acoustic window must be a certain size for the application, the elements must be smaller than a wavelength to avoid grating lobes (0.5 wavelength for perfect phased arrays in that regard). Divide one into the other, and you get a number of elements that's usually between 100 and 200. On what basis do you make your statement that this is too many elements? IMO implies opinion, do you have any facts or physics to back up your statement? Laws of physics do not change with time.

JPLeRouzic 10y ago
>> do you have any facts or physics to back up your statement? I do not think that beamforming needs more than a few emitting sources neither a Nobel prize. Check no further than your Wi-Fi router's antennas. The technology you are describing is entirely different and older, as in your description there is no beamforming. In the technology you describe, there is a requirement for two emitters/receivers to be separated by less than a wavelength, however this strong requirement does not exist for beamforming. What makes beamforming useful is modulating and coding the beam. Another thing important is the SNR, as it is the addition of the waves that creates "beams". When I checked Google patents I found beamforming patents in ultrasound imaging since 1986, and super-resolution (pionnered in astronomy and microscopy) in ultrasound imaging since 2005 (US 20050160817).