Thanks, that's a good one, I hadn't thought of that yet. I don't think that this is the cause here though, because both solutions are in the frequency/Fourier/Laplace domain, and moreover, the transmission results do not show this difference.
Sita Drost First, let me reassure you that such discrepancies are not uncommon in scientific research, and they often lead to valuable insights.
Now, let's break it down in simple terms:
Direct Solution (Your Approach):You're using the piezoelectric equations directly, solving for the transducer's response. Your results for transmitted force (F0) seem fine, but when you calculate received voltage (V = I * ZE), you notice it's twice as high as your collaborator's.
Mason's Model (Your Collaborator's Approach):Your collaborator uses Mason's equivalent electrical circuit. They calculate transmitted force and then use the reciprocity theorem to determine received voltage.
Here's where the difference might be coming from:
It's possible that your direct solution is accounting for certain terms twice, leading to the factor of 2 difference. Double-check your equations and ensure that you're not inadvertently duplicating any terms during the calculation.
Additionally, Mason's model might have assumptions or simplifications that differ from your direct approach. These differences can affect the final results.
Collaborate closely with your experienced colleague and carefully compare the two methods step by step. Discuss the assumptions, boundary conditions, and any simplifications made in both approaches. This collaborative effort can help pinpoint the source of the discrepancy.
Remember, in scientific research, discrepancies often lead to new discoveries and a deeper understanding of the problem. Keep your discussions respectful and open, as this collaborative approach will likely lead to a solution.
Qamar Ul Islam thanks for contributing. Unfortunately, I already did all that before posting here. Mason's equivalent circuit is, well... equivalent to the direct approach (I checked its derivation), so yes, a mistake in my equations might be the source of this discrepancy, but our careful step-by-step comparisons haven't revealed that yet.
Sita Drost , I appreciate your thorough approach. In science, the journey towards understanding is often as valuable as the destination. Since both methods theoretically align, and your detailed comparison hasn't resolved the discrepancy, consider these additional aspects:
Material Properties Variation: In piezoelectric systems, material properties can significantly impact results. Small variations in material constants used in the equations might lead to large differences in outcomes.
Measurement and Instrumentation Errors: Review the calibration and precision of instruments used in measuring force and voltage. Even subtle errors can skew results.
Environmental Factors: Temperature, humidity, or external vibrations might affect your experiments. Ensure environmental conditions are consistent and controlled.
Frequency Dependence: Piezoelectric response can be frequency-dependent. Check if both approaches account for this in the same manner.
Numerical Approximations: If you're using computational methods, differences in numerical approximations or algorithms could be a factor.
Human Factor: Revisit each step with a fresh perspective or involve a third party for an unbiased review. Sometimes, a new set of eyes can catch overlooked details.
Remember, resolving such complex discrepancies is a testament to the rigor and diligence required in scientific inquiry. Your persistence and collaboration are key in unraveling these mysteries. Keep questioning, exploring, and sharing – that's the essence of our scientific journey.