Ultrasonic propagation velocity in magnetic and magnetorheological fluids due to an external magnetic field.

Journal of physics. Condensed matter : an Institute of Physics journal · 2010 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 3313

Ultrasonic propagation velocity in hydrocarbon-based magnetic and magnetorheological fluids changed with application of an external magnetic field, consistent with formation of clustering structures. Measurements showed hysteresis and anisotropy in ultrasonic…

Study snapshot

PublicationJournal of physics. Condensed matter : an Institute of Physics journal · 2010

Study typeother

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Ultrasonic propagation velocity in a magnetic fluid (MF) and magnetorheological fluid (MRF) changes with the application of an external magnetic field. The formation of clustering structures inside the MF and MRF clearly has an influence on the ultrasonic propagation velocity. Therefore, we propose a qualitative analysis of these structures by measuring properties of ultrasonic propagation. Since MF and MRF are opaque, non-contact inspection using the ultrasonic technique can be very useful for analyzing the inner structures of MF and MRF. In this study, we measured ultrasonic propagation velocity in a hydrocarbon-based MF and MRF precisely. Based on these results, the clustering structures of these fluids are analyzed experimentally in terms of elapsed time dependence and the effect of external magnetic field strength. The results reveal hysteresis and anisotropy in the ultrasonic propagation velocity. We also discuss differences of ultrasonic propagation velocity between MF and MRF.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother

Effect directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Ultrasonic propagation velocity
Clustering structures (qualitative/experimental analysis)
Hysteresis in ultrasonic propagation velocity
Anisotropy in ultrasonic propagation velocity
Differences in ultrasonic propagation velocity between magnetic fluid (MF) and magnetorheological fluid (MRF)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "external magnetic field",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Ultrasonic propagation velocity",
    "Clustering structures (qualitative/experimental analysis)",
    "Hysteresis in ultrasonic propagation velocity",
    "Anisotropy in ultrasonic propagation velocity",
    "Differences in ultrasonic propagation velocity between magnetic fluid (MF) and magnetorheological fluid (MRF)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Ultrasonic propagation velocity in hydrocarbon-based magnetic and magnetorheological fluids changed with application of an external magnetic field, consistent with formation of clustering structures. Measurements showed hysteresis and anisotropy in ultrasonic propagation velocity, and differences between MF and MRF were discussed.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "ultrasonic propagation velocity",
    "magnetic fluid",
    "magnetorheological fluid",
    "external magnetic field",
    "clustering structures",
    "hysteresis",
    "anisotropy",
    "non-contact inspection"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/22/32/324102
PubMed: 21386478

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library