2
$\begingroup$

Both devices serve the same function, but a hydrophone must do it in a denser medium. What's the major difference in design? (besides being water-proof!)

I'm asking about the relevant physics driving design in this case. I think a physicist would be able to explain this so that a good mechanical engineer would be able to design microphones for use alternately in air, underwater, submerged in honey, or at 20,000 feet.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Not knowing anything about it, I'm talking off the cuff here, but I believe that forces will be higher for a given frequency and displacement amplitude (though that is a function of the sound being louder); perhaps that calls for more robust materials. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 22, 2014 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ Also, this runs dangerously close to the kinds of engineering questions that we discourage. It might help to explain the context of the question. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 22, 2014 at 18:50
  • $\begingroup$ It's ok to think like an engineer (sometimes) :) $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 22, 2014 at 19:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question is not if it is OK to think like an engineer (all the best people do), but if it is OK to post like an engineer on Physics SE. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 22, 2014 at 19:04

0

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.