Comment on Adaptive tuning of an electrodynamically driven

thermoacoustic cooler [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111(3),

12511258 (2002)] (L)
Robert W. M. Smitha)
Penn State University Applied Research Laboratory, State College, Pennsylvania 16804-0030
Received 19 August 2003; revised 15 December 2003; accepted 16 December 2003
Corrections for equations contained in a recent paper Li et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1113, 1251
1258 2002 are provided and unclear items are discussed. Comments are provided on some of the
observations and conclusions of this paper. 2004 Acoustical Society of America.
DOI: 10.1121/1.1647511
PACS numbers: 43.35.Ud, 43.58.Wc, 43.38.Dv RR Pages: 973975

In a recent paper, Li et al. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1113,
12511258 2002 developed a model for electro-acoustic
conversion efficiency for an electrically driven thermoacous-
tic refrigerator. In the model they employed a transfer func-
tion formulation, shown in their Fig. 5. From this formula-
tion, the authors obtain several relations, primarily aimed at
obtaining the electro-acoustic conversion efficiency.
First, some corrections are appropriate. In the paper,
Eqs. 8 and 10 are missing a factor of K in the numerator.
Equation 9 is missing a factor of K(Bl) in the numerator.
In the development of subsequent equations, interpretation of
the paper becomes more difficult because of what appear to
be two definitions of the variable U c (s). U c (s) is first de-
fined in the text, and explicitly in Fig. 5 to be ...the voltage
on the output side of the amplifier... Later, in the text im-
mediately leading Eq. 11, which is the first mathematical
expression containing U c (s), the authors appear to establish
a second definition, such that this quantity represents coil
voltage.
Assuming the first definition of U c (s), Eq. 11 in the Li
paper is observed to be in error, since this equation must
simply reduce to the factor K for the case when one chooses
H(s)0. For this case the correct form of the equation is
given by

U c s K LCs 2 RCs1 1G m s AG PV s Bl 2 G m s Cs
. 1
U s LCs 2 RCs1 1G m s AG PV s Bl BlKH s G m s Cs

Assuming the second possible definition of U c (s), and here this second definition shall be renamed as U coil(s), then Eq. 11
in the Li paper is also in error. This is most readily observed again in the limiting case where H(s) is zero. For such a case,
the equivalent electrical impedance of the postamplifier system is

Z eq
1
G e s
Bl 2
G m s
1G m s AG PV s
. 2

Then, the ratio of the postamplifier voltage to the coil voltage can be equivalently expressed as the ratio of the impedance with
and without the series capacitance. Since U c (s)KU(s), when H(s)0 this results in a form closest to Eq. 11 in the Li
paper in

U coil s
U c s
H(s)0

U coil s

Cs LsR 1G m s AG PV s Bl 2 G m s
KU s LCs 2 RCs1 1G m s AG PV s Bl 2 G m s Cs
. 3

One may see in Eq. 11 of the Li paper that K appears only
in products of H(s). Using only the transfer function formu-
lation presented in the Li paper, it is does not appear straight-
forward to formulate a full corrected version of Eq. 11 for
a
Electronic mail: rws100@psu.edu
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115 (3), March 2004 0001-4966/2004/115(3)/973/3/$20.00
this second possible definition.
The equations referenced are combined to produce their
result for efficiency shown in Eq. 13, which may be recog-
nized to be in error since the second term in the denominator
is dimensionally incompatible. If we define here a new quan-
tity, Upa,I , to be the phase angle between the postampli-
fier voltage and the current, a correct replacement for the Eq.
13 by Li et al. is given here in Eq. 4, after some further
discussion.
2004 Acoustical Society of America 973

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 142.150.190.39 On: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 06:39:34
 With UcI defined as the phase between coil voltage and
current, as described in the Li paper, Eq. 13 in the Li paper
can be corrected with the addition of a factor of G m (s) in the
second term of the denominator if the series capacitor is
omitted, since this case collapses to our Eq. 4. With this
correction it is believed that this equation also produces the
correct solution when a capacitor is present, because one
does not expect a series electrical nondissipative element to
have any effect on the efficiency, and one expects the impact
on efficiency of H(s) to be tantamount to varying the input
voltage on an assumed linear system.
About their result in Eq. 13, the authors of the paper
observe that ...the capacitance C does not appear in Eq.
A G PV s
s .
1AG PV s G m s LsR1/Cs 1AG PV s G m s
In this case, while L and C appear explicitly in the equation,
they also appear implicitly in cos(Upa,I), as is true for L in
cos(UcI) in the Li paper, in such a manner as to cancel any
impact on efficiency. An alternate form for the efficiency
shows this more explicitly. Again, using the block variables
from the Li paper, and defining for convenience the quantity
which appears in a block in Fig. 5b
G m s
G B s , 5
1AG PV s G m s
the efficiency is
Re AG PV s
s , 6
1 1 1
Re Re
G B s Bl 2 G B s 2 G E s
where G E represents the blocked electrical admittance of the
transducer and a series capacitor, as defined in their paper.
Since only the real part of (1/G E (s)) enters this equation, the
series electrical impedance associated with the coil induc-
tance and the capacitor are explicitly seen to have no impact
on the efficiency.
In Fig. 6 of the Li paper, the authors compare predicted
and measured efficiency using their model. Assuming the
authors have correctly calculated the efficiency, the result
shows a notable difference between the frequency approxi-
mately 1.3 Hz or 1%) and predicted magnitudes 16%
relative error for the location and magnitude of the effi-
ciency, although the two curves are not identified in the plot.
It is also not clear how G PV was obtained for the model, to
compare the model and the measurement. The differences
apparent in Fig. 6 might be attributed to nonlinearity or fre-
quency dependence in the motor parameters, but the authors
make no comment on the origin of the discrepancy.
This same model is also exercised to predict the opti-
mum efficiency for an electrodynamic source that drives a
thermoacoustic resonator having a resonance frequency that
is roughly twice the expected in vacuo mechanical resonance
974 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 115, No. 3, March 2004
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 142.150.190.39 On: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 06:39:34
13. This shows that the addition of a capacitor in series
with the coil does not affect the efficiency. This observation
is in concert with established theory.1,2 However, the empha-
sis on the capacitance, and lack of mention of the role of the
machine inductance, could be misleading, since it too has no
impact on the efficiency. In fact, it is not necessary, as ap-
pears to have been the goal in formulating the equations, to
try isolate the capacitance C. Using U c (s) and the other
variables as defined in the paper, and Upa,I , which as a
reminder is the phase between the postamplifier voltage
U c (s) and the current, the following equation for efficiency
results:
Bl 2 G m s 2 cos PV
4
Bl 2 G m s cos Upa,I
frequency of the source. Their model predicts a maximum
electro-acoustic conversion efficiency of 27.4%. Theory pre-
dicts that 70 percent is possible, based on the source param-
eters given in their Table I, for a properly coupled source.
They state that a mere 0.8-Hz change in frequency from
the optimum efficiency point to the acoustic resonance re-
sults in a factor-of-4 reduction in efficiency, to 7.4%.
The conclusion that the authors reach, based in part on
their model predictions, is that ...the acoustic resonance fre-
quency does not match the frequency for optimal effi-
ciency... This is undoubtedly true. In practical systems,
however, the magnitude of the impact is substantially smaller
than this model might suggest and is often negligible. Our
experience3 indicates that for practical systems i.e., systems
with optimum achievable efficiencies very near the theoreti-
cally achievable electro-acoustic conversion efficiency, based
on the driver parameters, that the indirect efficiency con-
trol employed by Hofler4 and others5,6 can work very well
i.e., tracking and operation at the acoustic resonance and
can produce efficiencies often reaching within measurement
error a fraction of a percent of the predicted optimum
achievable efficiency. In general, this optimum will occur at
some frequency slightly different than the acoustic resonance
for the case when the source mechanical and acoustic reso-
nance frequencies are close but not exactly the same. Given
the relative simplicity of tracking the acoustic resonance, and
the fact that the penalty is negligible for not directly detect-
ing the maximum efficiency, tracking the acoustic resonance
is an effective and practical engineering strategy.
In observing that the acoustic resonance does not corre-
spond to the optimum efficiency, and the substantial degra-
dation in efficiency for their modeled system corresponding
to operating at acoustic resonance, Li et al. cite Hunt2 in
support to say While it is customary to assume that the
maximum in efficiency always occurs at resonance, a closer
examination of Eqs. (4.19) and (4.20) reveals that a still
higher efficiency can be obtained for some other value of
frequency or reactance than the one for which p0X M
Robert W. M. Smith: Letters to the Editor
 XL . In fact, Hunt points out that this higher efficiency is
only available for transducers that have complex as opposed
to purely real transduction coefficients. An imaginary com-
ponent in the transduction coefficient does not appear to be
modeled by Li et al., per the parameters in their Table I, or
elsewhere in the paper. Our measurements of transducers of
similar design from the same supplier exhibit a negligible
complex component in the transduction coefficient.7 For
transducers with real transduction coefficients, any nonzero
combined acousto-mechanical reactance experienced by the
source reduces the efficiency from what theoretically could
have been achieved.
ACKNOWLEGMENTS
I would like to thank Steven Garrett for guidance and
Thomas Gabrielson for helpful discussions and corrections. I
would also like to thank the Penn State University Applied
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 115, No. 3, March 2004
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 142.150.190.39 On: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 06:39:34
Research Laboratory, the Office of Naval Research, and Ben
and Jerrys Homemade for their continued support of ther-
moacoustic research.
1
R. S. Wakeland, Use of electrodynamic drivers in thermoacoustic refrig-
erators, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1072, 827 832 2000.
2
F. V. Hunt, Electroacoustics: The Analysis of Transduction, and its His-
torical Background Acoustical Society of America, 1984.
3
T. L. Shearer, Thermoacoustic refrigeration using a linear actuator with-
out pressure and displacement transducers, Masters thesis, Penn State
Dept. of Electrical Engineering May 2002.
4
T. J. Hofler, Accurate acoustic power measurements with a high-intensity
driver, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 832, 777786 1988.
5
S. L Garrett, J. A. Adeff, and T. J. Hofler, Thermoacoustic refrigerator for
space applications, J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 74, 595599 1993.
6
R. B. Byrnes, Electronics for autonomous measurement and control of a
thermoacoustic refrigerator in a space environment, DTIC Report No.
AD B141 388 1989.
7
R. W. Smith, High efficiency two kilowatt acoustic source for a thermoa-
coustic refrigerator, Masters thesis, Penn State Dept. of Engineering
Science and Mechanics Dec. 2000.
Robert W. M. Smith: Letters to the Editor 975