How do ultrasonic sensors differentiate between transmitted and received signals? Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraHow to Wire Up Ultrasonic TransducerMeasuring direction of object (or angle of signal origin)A question about ultrasonic sensors in generalWhy Roomba has IR bumper sensor array?Medical Ultrasonography Phased Array BeamformingMaking an ultrasonic receiverMeasuring the angle to an object using IR sensors?Setting up a grid of IR sensorsHow to understand an ultrasonic sensor datasheet?How does an ultrasonic distance sensor work?

Coin Game with infinite paradox

Why doesn't the university give past final exams' answers?

Was there ever a LEGO store in Miami International Airport?

"Working on a knee"

Did war bonds have better investment alternatives during WWII?

Why did Israel vote against lifting the American embargo on Cuba?

What is the evidence that custom checks in Northern Ireland are going to result in violence?

Why isPrototypeOf() returns false?

What do you call an IPA symbol that lacks a name (e.g. ɲ)?

When does Bran Stark remember Jamie pushing him?

Arriving in Atlanta after US Preclearance in Dublin. Will I go through TSA security in Atlanta to transfer to a connecting flight?

Writing a T-SQL stored procedure to receive 4 numbers and insert them into a table

/bin/ls sorts differently than just ls

A journey... into the MIND

What is the ongoing value of the Kanban board to the developers as opposed to management

France's Public Holidays' Puzzle

What's called a person who works as someone who puts products on shelves in stores?

Is there a verb for listening stealthily?

My admission is revoked after accepting the admission offer

Is Bran literally the world's memory?

When speaking, how do you change your mind mid-sentence?

Does a Draconic Bloodline sorcerer's doubled proficiency bonus for Charisma checks against dragons apply to all dragon types or only the chosen one?

Where can I find how to tex symbols for different fonts?

All ASCII characters with a given bit count



How do ultrasonic sensors differentiate between transmitted and received signals?



Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraHow to Wire Up Ultrasonic TransducerMeasuring direction of object (or angle of signal origin)A question about ultrasonic sensors in generalWhy Roomba has IR bumper sensor array?Medical Ultrasonography Phased Array BeamformingMaking an ultrasonic receiverMeasuring the angle to an object using IR sensors?Setting up a grid of IR sensorsHow to understand an ultrasonic sensor datasheet?How does an ultrasonic distance sensor work?



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








5












$begingroup$


enter image description here



I understand how these ultrasonic sensors work on the basic level: They send out ultrasound, which is then reflected by an object and is then sensed by the receiver.



But the receiver and the transmitter are placed side by side. Won't the receiver immediately pick up the signal as it is sent? How does ignore the signal as it is sent, and record it only as it returns after being reflected by the target?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The receiver is 'blanked' until the transmitted pulse is finished typically so the receiver is basically out of circuit until that point. That is for a pulsed system; other techniques for very short range include modulating the signal.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Smith
    Mar 25 at 16:17







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The signal sent as pulses. These sensors are not good for ultra-short ranges, so the signals received "immediately" are filtered out.
    $endgroup$
    – Eugene Sh.
    Mar 25 at 16:17










  • $begingroup$
    @Peter Smith Interesting, what kind of modulation is used for short range?
    $endgroup$
    – S. Rotos
    Mar 25 at 16:30










  • $begingroup$
    The Polaroid onestep autofocus camera used 50KHz sin-bursts, if I recall rightly. Whereas human-body internal-sonograms use 2MHz-5MHz bursts.
    $endgroup$
    – analogsystemsrf
    Mar 25 at 16:51










  • $begingroup$
    @analogsystemsrf Really? They use acoustic sensors to measure distance? Well, this won't perform well through a window...
    $endgroup$
    – Eugene Sh.
    Mar 25 at 16:56


















5












$begingroup$


enter image description here



I understand how these ultrasonic sensors work on the basic level: They send out ultrasound, which is then reflected by an object and is then sensed by the receiver.



But the receiver and the transmitter are placed side by side. Won't the receiver immediately pick up the signal as it is sent? How does ignore the signal as it is sent, and record it only as it returns after being reflected by the target?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The receiver is 'blanked' until the transmitted pulse is finished typically so the receiver is basically out of circuit until that point. That is for a pulsed system; other techniques for very short range include modulating the signal.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Smith
    Mar 25 at 16:17







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The signal sent as pulses. These sensors are not good for ultra-short ranges, so the signals received "immediately" are filtered out.
    $endgroup$
    – Eugene Sh.
    Mar 25 at 16:17










  • $begingroup$
    @Peter Smith Interesting, what kind of modulation is used for short range?
    $endgroup$
    – S. Rotos
    Mar 25 at 16:30










  • $begingroup$
    The Polaroid onestep autofocus camera used 50KHz sin-bursts, if I recall rightly. Whereas human-body internal-sonograms use 2MHz-5MHz bursts.
    $endgroup$
    – analogsystemsrf
    Mar 25 at 16:51










  • $begingroup$
    @analogsystemsrf Really? They use acoustic sensors to measure distance? Well, this won't perform well through a window...
    $endgroup$
    – Eugene Sh.
    Mar 25 at 16:56














5












5








5





$begingroup$


enter image description here



I understand how these ultrasonic sensors work on the basic level: They send out ultrasound, which is then reflected by an object and is then sensed by the receiver.



But the receiver and the transmitter are placed side by side. Won't the receiver immediately pick up the signal as it is sent? How does ignore the signal as it is sent, and record it only as it returns after being reflected by the target?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




enter image description here



I understand how these ultrasonic sensors work on the basic level: They send out ultrasound, which is then reflected by an object and is then sensed by the receiver.



But the receiver and the transmitter are placed side by side. Won't the receiver immediately pick up the signal as it is sent? How does ignore the signal as it is sent, and record it only as it returns after being reflected by the target?







sensor ultrasound






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Mar 25 at 16:15









S. RotosS. Rotos

8952814




8952814







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The receiver is 'blanked' until the transmitted pulse is finished typically so the receiver is basically out of circuit until that point. That is for a pulsed system; other techniques for very short range include modulating the signal.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Smith
    Mar 25 at 16:17







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The signal sent as pulses. These sensors are not good for ultra-short ranges, so the signals received "immediately" are filtered out.
    $endgroup$
    – Eugene Sh.
    Mar 25 at 16:17










  • $begingroup$
    @Peter Smith Interesting, what kind of modulation is used for short range?
    $endgroup$
    – S. Rotos
    Mar 25 at 16:30










  • $begingroup$
    The Polaroid onestep autofocus camera used 50KHz sin-bursts, if I recall rightly. Whereas human-body internal-sonograms use 2MHz-5MHz bursts.
    $endgroup$
    – analogsystemsrf
    Mar 25 at 16:51










  • $begingroup$
    @analogsystemsrf Really? They use acoustic sensors to measure distance? Well, this won't perform well through a window...
    $endgroup$
    – Eugene Sh.
    Mar 25 at 16:56













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The receiver is 'blanked' until the transmitted pulse is finished typically so the receiver is basically out of circuit until that point. That is for a pulsed system; other techniques for very short range include modulating the signal.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Smith
    Mar 25 at 16:17







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The signal sent as pulses. These sensors are not good for ultra-short ranges, so the signals received "immediately" are filtered out.
    $endgroup$
    – Eugene Sh.
    Mar 25 at 16:17










  • $begingroup$
    @Peter Smith Interesting, what kind of modulation is used for short range?
    $endgroup$
    – S. Rotos
    Mar 25 at 16:30










  • $begingroup$
    The Polaroid onestep autofocus camera used 50KHz sin-bursts, if I recall rightly. Whereas human-body internal-sonograms use 2MHz-5MHz bursts.
    $endgroup$
    – analogsystemsrf
    Mar 25 at 16:51










  • $begingroup$
    @analogsystemsrf Really? They use acoustic sensors to measure distance? Well, this won't perform well through a window...
    $endgroup$
    – Eugene Sh.
    Mar 25 at 16:56








1




1




$begingroup$
The receiver is 'blanked' until the transmitted pulse is finished typically so the receiver is basically out of circuit until that point. That is for a pulsed system; other techniques for very short range include modulating the signal.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Mar 25 at 16:17





$begingroup$
The receiver is 'blanked' until the transmitted pulse is finished typically so the receiver is basically out of circuit until that point. That is for a pulsed system; other techniques for very short range include modulating the signal.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Mar 25 at 16:17





1




1




$begingroup$
The signal sent as pulses. These sensors are not good for ultra-short ranges, so the signals received "immediately" are filtered out.
$endgroup$
– Eugene Sh.
Mar 25 at 16:17




$begingroup$
The signal sent as pulses. These sensors are not good for ultra-short ranges, so the signals received "immediately" are filtered out.
$endgroup$
– Eugene Sh.
Mar 25 at 16:17












$begingroup$
@Peter Smith Interesting, what kind of modulation is used for short range?
$endgroup$
– S. Rotos
Mar 25 at 16:30




$begingroup$
@Peter Smith Interesting, what kind of modulation is used for short range?
$endgroup$
– S. Rotos
Mar 25 at 16:30












$begingroup$
The Polaroid onestep autofocus camera used 50KHz sin-bursts, if I recall rightly. Whereas human-body internal-sonograms use 2MHz-5MHz bursts.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
Mar 25 at 16:51




$begingroup$
The Polaroid onestep autofocus camera used 50KHz sin-bursts, if I recall rightly. Whereas human-body internal-sonograms use 2MHz-5MHz bursts.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
Mar 25 at 16:51












$begingroup$
@analogsystemsrf Really? They use acoustic sensors to measure distance? Well, this won't perform well through a window...
$endgroup$
– Eugene Sh.
Mar 25 at 16:56





$begingroup$
@analogsystemsrf Really? They use acoustic sensors to measure distance? Well, this won't perform well through a window...
$endgroup$
– Eugene Sh.
Mar 25 at 16:56











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$


But the receiver and the transmitter are placed side by side. Won't the receiver immediately pick up the signal as it is sent? How does ignore the signal as it is sent, and record it only as it returns after being reflected by the target?




In a pulsed system (the most common type), the receiver is blanked during the period of the transmit pulse so it does not respond during that time.



This is the same in pulsed Sonar and Radar and determines the minimum distance that can be resolved.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    5












    $begingroup$

    There are monostatic and bistatic ultrasonic transceivers.



    Monostatic



    Monostatic transceivers are single transceivers that do the transmitting and receiving. As long as the transmission stops before the reception starts, you can do measurements. The minimum distance that you can measure is limited in this configuration, but it's smaller and cheaper to implement. Speed of sound is roughly 343m/s. If we assume there is an object 1 meter in front of the sensor, it will take the signal 6 milliseconds to bounce back. That's the window that you're allowed to drive the transceiver and stop it from vibrating at that distance. At 0.1 meters we have 0.6 milliseconds etc. It becomes extremely hard and frankly impossible to drive a proper signal in that timeframe.



    If you want to get technical: while transmitting the membrane of the transceiver is being vibrated at a specific frequency. If you'd try to read(receive) anything while it's doing this, you're just going to get a oversaturated signal back. When you stop actively driving the transceiver it will stop ringing in a short time, at which point you can start listening to what it's receiving.



    Bistatic



    A bistatic transceiver(the one in your picture) uses a separate transmitter and receiver, which means it can receive while transmitting. The minimum distance isn't limited like the monostatic configuration. If you have the space you should go for this configuration. It's easier, better performing and also widely available. The parking sensors on cars use the monostatic configuration for example.



    Your question



    You're asking why the receiver isn't immediately picking up the signal from the transmitter. While it's true that cheap implementations basically shut the receiver off while transmitting, this is not required. And I'd argue that if you do that sort thing in your design, you should go for a monostatic configuration. Otherwise you're just wasting space and parts.



    The directivity of ultrasonic transceivers is fairly precise and won't affect a receiver that's next to it as long as you physically separate the vibrations from each other(A PCB won't effectively transfer kHz frequencies) and don't point it at each other. Most transmitters cap out at ~90 degrees field of view@40kHz(most common) which is enough to keep it from affecting the receiver.



    For example, this one has a FoV of 80 degrees with the following graph in the datasheet:



    enter image description here



    See how it tapers off at the extreme edges?






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Sorry, but a lot of your beliefs here are practically mistaken - crosstalk between transducers on a little PC board is a very real problem, remember the transmit pulse is many orders of magnitude stronger than the receive one. Also the kinds of power setups and circuitry in general used on the cheap ones provide another source of crosstalk. Further, the term "bistatic" does not really apply to situations where the transmitter and receiver are effectively co-located, but rather to those where there is substantial spacial separation.
      $endgroup$
      – Chris Stratton
      Mar 25 at 19:19











    • $begingroup$
      @ChrisStratton I did mention that the cheap boards tend to compensate for cross-talk by simply shutting off the receiver when transmitting. It's an implementation detail that isn't required if you have a proper setup that isolates the transceivers on a mechanical level. Furthermore, the distance between the transducers is relative to the actual distance you're measuring. A few cm is quite a lot when you're only measuring a few meters of distance at the power required to drive the transmitter.
      $endgroup$
      – Tryphon
      Mar 25 at 19:37






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Again, no. Actually look at one of these and you'll see that the distance between the transducers is negligible at the useful ranges. Actually try to build a variation which can operate without blanking for the duration of the transmission pulse and transmit transducer ringing and you'll realize that is a lot harder than you imagine as well.
      $endgroup$
      – Chris Stratton
      Mar 25 at 19:41












    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("schematics", function ()
    StackExchange.schematics.init();
    );
    , "cicuitlab");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "135"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f428988%2fhow-do-ultrasonic-sensors-differentiate-between-transmitted-and-received-signals%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    9












    $begingroup$


    But the receiver and the transmitter are placed side by side. Won't the receiver immediately pick up the signal as it is sent? How does ignore the signal as it is sent, and record it only as it returns after being reflected by the target?




    In a pulsed system (the most common type), the receiver is blanked during the period of the transmit pulse so it does not respond during that time.



    This is the same in pulsed Sonar and Radar and determines the minimum distance that can be resolved.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      9












      $begingroup$


      But the receiver and the transmitter are placed side by side. Won't the receiver immediately pick up the signal as it is sent? How does ignore the signal as it is sent, and record it only as it returns after being reflected by the target?




      In a pulsed system (the most common type), the receiver is blanked during the period of the transmit pulse so it does not respond during that time.



      This is the same in pulsed Sonar and Radar and determines the minimum distance that can be resolved.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        9












        9








        9





        $begingroup$


        But the receiver and the transmitter are placed side by side. Won't the receiver immediately pick up the signal as it is sent? How does ignore the signal as it is sent, and record it only as it returns after being reflected by the target?




        In a pulsed system (the most common type), the receiver is blanked during the period of the transmit pulse so it does not respond during that time.



        This is the same in pulsed Sonar and Radar and determines the minimum distance that can be resolved.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$




        But the receiver and the transmitter are placed side by side. Won't the receiver immediately pick up the signal as it is sent? How does ignore the signal as it is sent, and record it only as it returns after being reflected by the target?




        In a pulsed system (the most common type), the receiver is blanked during the period of the transmit pulse so it does not respond during that time.



        This is the same in pulsed Sonar and Radar and determines the minimum distance that can be resolved.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Mar 25 at 18:55









        Peter SmithPeter Smith

        15.4k11241




        15.4k11241























            5












            $begingroup$

            There are monostatic and bistatic ultrasonic transceivers.



            Monostatic



            Monostatic transceivers are single transceivers that do the transmitting and receiving. As long as the transmission stops before the reception starts, you can do measurements. The minimum distance that you can measure is limited in this configuration, but it's smaller and cheaper to implement. Speed of sound is roughly 343m/s. If we assume there is an object 1 meter in front of the sensor, it will take the signal 6 milliseconds to bounce back. That's the window that you're allowed to drive the transceiver and stop it from vibrating at that distance. At 0.1 meters we have 0.6 milliseconds etc. It becomes extremely hard and frankly impossible to drive a proper signal in that timeframe.



            If you want to get technical: while transmitting the membrane of the transceiver is being vibrated at a specific frequency. If you'd try to read(receive) anything while it's doing this, you're just going to get a oversaturated signal back. When you stop actively driving the transceiver it will stop ringing in a short time, at which point you can start listening to what it's receiving.



            Bistatic



            A bistatic transceiver(the one in your picture) uses a separate transmitter and receiver, which means it can receive while transmitting. The minimum distance isn't limited like the monostatic configuration. If you have the space you should go for this configuration. It's easier, better performing and also widely available. The parking sensors on cars use the monostatic configuration for example.



            Your question



            You're asking why the receiver isn't immediately picking up the signal from the transmitter. While it's true that cheap implementations basically shut the receiver off while transmitting, this is not required. And I'd argue that if you do that sort thing in your design, you should go for a monostatic configuration. Otherwise you're just wasting space and parts.



            The directivity of ultrasonic transceivers is fairly precise and won't affect a receiver that's next to it as long as you physically separate the vibrations from each other(A PCB won't effectively transfer kHz frequencies) and don't point it at each other. Most transmitters cap out at ~90 degrees field of view@40kHz(most common) which is enough to keep it from affecting the receiver.



            For example, this one has a FoV of 80 degrees with the following graph in the datasheet:



            enter image description here



            See how it tapers off at the extreme edges?






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$








            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Sorry, but a lot of your beliefs here are practically mistaken - crosstalk between transducers on a little PC board is a very real problem, remember the transmit pulse is many orders of magnitude stronger than the receive one. Also the kinds of power setups and circuitry in general used on the cheap ones provide another source of crosstalk. Further, the term "bistatic" does not really apply to situations where the transmitter and receiver are effectively co-located, but rather to those where there is substantial spacial separation.
              $endgroup$
              – Chris Stratton
              Mar 25 at 19:19











            • $begingroup$
              @ChrisStratton I did mention that the cheap boards tend to compensate for cross-talk by simply shutting off the receiver when transmitting. It's an implementation detail that isn't required if you have a proper setup that isolates the transceivers on a mechanical level. Furthermore, the distance between the transducers is relative to the actual distance you're measuring. A few cm is quite a lot when you're only measuring a few meters of distance at the power required to drive the transmitter.
              $endgroup$
              – Tryphon
              Mar 25 at 19:37






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Again, no. Actually look at one of these and you'll see that the distance between the transducers is negligible at the useful ranges. Actually try to build a variation which can operate without blanking for the duration of the transmission pulse and transmit transducer ringing and you'll realize that is a lot harder than you imagine as well.
              $endgroup$
              – Chris Stratton
              Mar 25 at 19:41
















            5












            $begingroup$

            There are monostatic and bistatic ultrasonic transceivers.



            Monostatic



            Monostatic transceivers are single transceivers that do the transmitting and receiving. As long as the transmission stops before the reception starts, you can do measurements. The minimum distance that you can measure is limited in this configuration, but it's smaller and cheaper to implement. Speed of sound is roughly 343m/s. If we assume there is an object 1 meter in front of the sensor, it will take the signal 6 milliseconds to bounce back. That's the window that you're allowed to drive the transceiver and stop it from vibrating at that distance. At 0.1 meters we have 0.6 milliseconds etc. It becomes extremely hard and frankly impossible to drive a proper signal in that timeframe.



            If you want to get technical: while transmitting the membrane of the transceiver is being vibrated at a specific frequency. If you'd try to read(receive) anything while it's doing this, you're just going to get a oversaturated signal back. When you stop actively driving the transceiver it will stop ringing in a short time, at which point you can start listening to what it's receiving.



            Bistatic



            A bistatic transceiver(the one in your picture) uses a separate transmitter and receiver, which means it can receive while transmitting. The minimum distance isn't limited like the monostatic configuration. If you have the space you should go for this configuration. It's easier, better performing and also widely available. The parking sensors on cars use the monostatic configuration for example.



            Your question



            You're asking why the receiver isn't immediately picking up the signal from the transmitter. While it's true that cheap implementations basically shut the receiver off while transmitting, this is not required. And I'd argue that if you do that sort thing in your design, you should go for a monostatic configuration. Otherwise you're just wasting space and parts.



            The directivity of ultrasonic transceivers is fairly precise and won't affect a receiver that's next to it as long as you physically separate the vibrations from each other(A PCB won't effectively transfer kHz frequencies) and don't point it at each other. Most transmitters cap out at ~90 degrees field of view@40kHz(most common) which is enough to keep it from affecting the receiver.



            For example, this one has a FoV of 80 degrees with the following graph in the datasheet:



            enter image description here



            See how it tapers off at the extreme edges?






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$








            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Sorry, but a lot of your beliefs here are practically mistaken - crosstalk between transducers on a little PC board is a very real problem, remember the transmit pulse is many orders of magnitude stronger than the receive one. Also the kinds of power setups and circuitry in general used on the cheap ones provide another source of crosstalk. Further, the term "bistatic" does not really apply to situations where the transmitter and receiver are effectively co-located, but rather to those where there is substantial spacial separation.
              $endgroup$
              – Chris Stratton
              Mar 25 at 19:19











            • $begingroup$
              @ChrisStratton I did mention that the cheap boards tend to compensate for cross-talk by simply shutting off the receiver when transmitting. It's an implementation detail that isn't required if you have a proper setup that isolates the transceivers on a mechanical level. Furthermore, the distance between the transducers is relative to the actual distance you're measuring. A few cm is quite a lot when you're only measuring a few meters of distance at the power required to drive the transmitter.
              $endgroup$
              – Tryphon
              Mar 25 at 19:37






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Again, no. Actually look at one of these and you'll see that the distance between the transducers is negligible at the useful ranges. Actually try to build a variation which can operate without blanking for the duration of the transmission pulse and transmit transducer ringing and you'll realize that is a lot harder than you imagine as well.
              $endgroup$
              – Chris Stratton
              Mar 25 at 19:41














            5












            5








            5





            $begingroup$

            There are monostatic and bistatic ultrasonic transceivers.



            Monostatic



            Monostatic transceivers are single transceivers that do the transmitting and receiving. As long as the transmission stops before the reception starts, you can do measurements. The minimum distance that you can measure is limited in this configuration, but it's smaller and cheaper to implement. Speed of sound is roughly 343m/s. If we assume there is an object 1 meter in front of the sensor, it will take the signal 6 milliseconds to bounce back. That's the window that you're allowed to drive the transceiver and stop it from vibrating at that distance. At 0.1 meters we have 0.6 milliseconds etc. It becomes extremely hard and frankly impossible to drive a proper signal in that timeframe.



            If you want to get technical: while transmitting the membrane of the transceiver is being vibrated at a specific frequency. If you'd try to read(receive) anything while it's doing this, you're just going to get a oversaturated signal back. When you stop actively driving the transceiver it will stop ringing in a short time, at which point you can start listening to what it's receiving.



            Bistatic



            A bistatic transceiver(the one in your picture) uses a separate transmitter and receiver, which means it can receive while transmitting. The minimum distance isn't limited like the monostatic configuration. If you have the space you should go for this configuration. It's easier, better performing and also widely available. The parking sensors on cars use the monostatic configuration for example.



            Your question



            You're asking why the receiver isn't immediately picking up the signal from the transmitter. While it's true that cheap implementations basically shut the receiver off while transmitting, this is not required. And I'd argue that if you do that sort thing in your design, you should go for a monostatic configuration. Otherwise you're just wasting space and parts.



            The directivity of ultrasonic transceivers is fairly precise and won't affect a receiver that's next to it as long as you physically separate the vibrations from each other(A PCB won't effectively transfer kHz frequencies) and don't point it at each other. Most transmitters cap out at ~90 degrees field of view@40kHz(most common) which is enough to keep it from affecting the receiver.



            For example, this one has a FoV of 80 degrees with the following graph in the datasheet:



            enter image description here



            See how it tapers off at the extreme edges?






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            There are monostatic and bistatic ultrasonic transceivers.



            Monostatic



            Monostatic transceivers are single transceivers that do the transmitting and receiving. As long as the transmission stops before the reception starts, you can do measurements. The minimum distance that you can measure is limited in this configuration, but it's smaller and cheaper to implement. Speed of sound is roughly 343m/s. If we assume there is an object 1 meter in front of the sensor, it will take the signal 6 milliseconds to bounce back. That's the window that you're allowed to drive the transceiver and stop it from vibrating at that distance. At 0.1 meters we have 0.6 milliseconds etc. It becomes extremely hard and frankly impossible to drive a proper signal in that timeframe.



            If you want to get technical: while transmitting the membrane of the transceiver is being vibrated at a specific frequency. If you'd try to read(receive) anything while it's doing this, you're just going to get a oversaturated signal back. When you stop actively driving the transceiver it will stop ringing in a short time, at which point you can start listening to what it's receiving.



            Bistatic



            A bistatic transceiver(the one in your picture) uses a separate transmitter and receiver, which means it can receive while transmitting. The minimum distance isn't limited like the monostatic configuration. If you have the space you should go for this configuration. It's easier, better performing and also widely available. The parking sensors on cars use the monostatic configuration for example.



            Your question



            You're asking why the receiver isn't immediately picking up the signal from the transmitter. While it's true that cheap implementations basically shut the receiver off while transmitting, this is not required. And I'd argue that if you do that sort thing in your design, you should go for a monostatic configuration. Otherwise you're just wasting space and parts.



            The directivity of ultrasonic transceivers is fairly precise and won't affect a receiver that's next to it as long as you physically separate the vibrations from each other(A PCB won't effectively transfer kHz frequencies) and don't point it at each other. Most transmitters cap out at ~90 degrees field of view@40kHz(most common) which is enough to keep it from affecting the receiver.



            For example, this one has a FoV of 80 degrees with the following graph in the datasheet:



            enter image description here



            See how it tapers off at the extreme edges?







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Mar 25 at 17:13









            TryphonTryphon

            695




            695







            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Sorry, but a lot of your beliefs here are practically mistaken - crosstalk between transducers on a little PC board is a very real problem, remember the transmit pulse is many orders of magnitude stronger than the receive one. Also the kinds of power setups and circuitry in general used on the cheap ones provide another source of crosstalk. Further, the term "bistatic" does not really apply to situations where the transmitter and receiver are effectively co-located, but rather to those where there is substantial spacial separation.
              $endgroup$
              – Chris Stratton
              Mar 25 at 19:19











            • $begingroup$
              @ChrisStratton I did mention that the cheap boards tend to compensate for cross-talk by simply shutting off the receiver when transmitting. It's an implementation detail that isn't required if you have a proper setup that isolates the transceivers on a mechanical level. Furthermore, the distance between the transducers is relative to the actual distance you're measuring. A few cm is quite a lot when you're only measuring a few meters of distance at the power required to drive the transmitter.
              $endgroup$
              – Tryphon
              Mar 25 at 19:37






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Again, no. Actually look at one of these and you'll see that the distance between the transducers is negligible at the useful ranges. Actually try to build a variation which can operate without blanking for the duration of the transmission pulse and transmit transducer ringing and you'll realize that is a lot harder than you imagine as well.
              $endgroup$
              – Chris Stratton
              Mar 25 at 19:41













            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Sorry, but a lot of your beliefs here are practically mistaken - crosstalk between transducers on a little PC board is a very real problem, remember the transmit pulse is many orders of magnitude stronger than the receive one. Also the kinds of power setups and circuitry in general used on the cheap ones provide another source of crosstalk. Further, the term "bistatic" does not really apply to situations where the transmitter and receiver are effectively co-located, but rather to those where there is substantial spacial separation.
              $endgroup$
              – Chris Stratton
              Mar 25 at 19:19











            • $begingroup$
              @ChrisStratton I did mention that the cheap boards tend to compensate for cross-talk by simply shutting off the receiver when transmitting. It's an implementation detail that isn't required if you have a proper setup that isolates the transceivers on a mechanical level. Furthermore, the distance between the transducers is relative to the actual distance you're measuring. A few cm is quite a lot when you're only measuring a few meters of distance at the power required to drive the transmitter.
              $endgroup$
              – Tryphon
              Mar 25 at 19:37






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Again, no. Actually look at one of these and you'll see that the distance between the transducers is negligible at the useful ranges. Actually try to build a variation which can operate without blanking for the duration of the transmission pulse and transmit transducer ringing and you'll realize that is a lot harder than you imagine as well.
              $endgroup$
              – Chris Stratton
              Mar 25 at 19:41








            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            Sorry, but a lot of your beliefs here are practically mistaken - crosstalk between transducers on a little PC board is a very real problem, remember the transmit pulse is many orders of magnitude stronger than the receive one. Also the kinds of power setups and circuitry in general used on the cheap ones provide another source of crosstalk. Further, the term "bistatic" does not really apply to situations where the transmitter and receiver are effectively co-located, but rather to those where there is substantial spacial separation.
            $endgroup$
            – Chris Stratton
            Mar 25 at 19:19





            $begingroup$
            Sorry, but a lot of your beliefs here are practically mistaken - crosstalk between transducers on a little PC board is a very real problem, remember the transmit pulse is many orders of magnitude stronger than the receive one. Also the kinds of power setups and circuitry in general used on the cheap ones provide another source of crosstalk. Further, the term "bistatic" does not really apply to situations where the transmitter and receiver are effectively co-located, but rather to those where there is substantial spacial separation.
            $endgroup$
            – Chris Stratton
            Mar 25 at 19:19













            $begingroup$
            @ChrisStratton I did mention that the cheap boards tend to compensate for cross-talk by simply shutting off the receiver when transmitting. It's an implementation detail that isn't required if you have a proper setup that isolates the transceivers on a mechanical level. Furthermore, the distance between the transducers is relative to the actual distance you're measuring. A few cm is quite a lot when you're only measuring a few meters of distance at the power required to drive the transmitter.
            $endgroup$
            – Tryphon
            Mar 25 at 19:37




            $begingroup$
            @ChrisStratton I did mention that the cheap boards tend to compensate for cross-talk by simply shutting off the receiver when transmitting. It's an implementation detail that isn't required if you have a proper setup that isolates the transceivers on a mechanical level. Furthermore, the distance between the transducers is relative to the actual distance you're measuring. A few cm is quite a lot when you're only measuring a few meters of distance at the power required to drive the transmitter.
            $endgroup$
            – Tryphon
            Mar 25 at 19:37




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Again, no. Actually look at one of these and you'll see that the distance between the transducers is negligible at the useful ranges. Actually try to build a variation which can operate without blanking for the duration of the transmission pulse and transmit transducer ringing and you'll realize that is a lot harder than you imagine as well.
            $endgroup$
            – Chris Stratton
            Mar 25 at 19:41





            $begingroup$
            Again, no. Actually look at one of these and you'll see that the distance between the transducers is negligible at the useful ranges. Actually try to build a variation which can operate without blanking for the duration of the transmission pulse and transmit transducer ringing and you'll realize that is a lot harder than you imagine as well.
            $endgroup$
            – Chris Stratton
            Mar 25 at 19:41


















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f428988%2fhow-do-ultrasonic-sensors-differentiate-between-transmitted-and-received-signals%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

            Bunad

            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum