Resonant mirror noise

[Power, Rory]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Confocalists,

We’re trying to circumvent the annoyance of resonant mirrors screaming at 8 kHz. I was wondering whether anyone has a recommendation for constructing soundproof containment?

Generally were using inexpensive resonant mirrors from EOPC: http://www.eopc.com/sc30.html

Also, does anyone know whether the more costly resonant scanners used for confocal/multi-photon laser scanning microscopies are any better in this regard? Were not hugely concerned with other attributes (simply for light sheet microscopy stripe suppression) just the piercing noise.

Many thanks in advance!

Rory

…………………………………………………………

Dr. Rory Power
Morgridge Institute for Research
Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
Tel: [phone]
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>

[Michael Giacomelli]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Rory,

8 KHz unidirectional or bidirectional (so 4 KHz fundamental)?  The 8 KHz
scanners are usually not that bad even at maximum amplitude because the 8
kHz tone is a lot harder to hear and essentially all the harmonics are out
of audible range.

For 4 KHz at larger deflection angles you either need hearing protection or
to really isolate it from the room.  A metal box around the scanner and a
window on the input port so that air cannot pass in/out of the scanner
helps a lot. This is how most commerical systems work.

I don't think the model matters; the noise comes from pushing air, so for a
given mirror size and deflection angle the noise power is going to be
almost constant.

Mike

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Power, Rory <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Confocalists,
>
> We’re trying to circumvent the annoyance of resonant mirrors screaming at
> 8 kHz. I was wondering whether anyone has a recommendation for constructing
> soundproof containment?
>
> Generally were using inexpensive resonant mirrors from EOPC:
> http://www.eopc.com/sc30.html
>
> Also, does anyone know whether the more costly resonant scanners used for
> confocal/multi-photon laser scanning microscopies are any better in this
> regard? Were not hugely concerned with other attributes (simply for light
> sheet microscopy stripe suppression) just the piercing noise.
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Rory
>
> …………………………………………………………
>
> Dr. Rory Power
> Morgridge Institute for Research
> Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
> 330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
> Tel: [phone]
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
>

[Power, Rory]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your reply. I was rather referring to an 8 kHz fundamental oscillation. The noise is quite unpleasant - I’d hate to hear the 4 kHz if that’s worse as you say.

Isolation should be possible. Perhaps combined with some foam we’ll arrive at a workable system.

Yes, I assumed the same. Thanks again.

Regards

Rory

…………………………………………………………

Dr. Rory Power
HFSP Postdoctoral Fellow
Morgridge Institute for Research
Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
Tel: [phone]
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>




On Jul 25, 2018, at 21:18, Michael Giacomelli <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Rory,

8 KHz unidirectional or bidirectional (so 4 KHz fundamental)?  The 8 KHz
scanners are usually not that bad even at maximum amplitude because the 8
kHz tone is a lot harder to hear and essentially all the harmonics are out
of audible range.

For 4 KHz at larger deflection angles you either need hearing protection or
to really isolate it from the room.  A metal box around the scanner and a
window on the input port so that air cannot pass in/out of the scanner
helps a lot. This is how most commerical systems work.

I don't think the model matters; the noise comes from pushing air, so for a
given mirror size and deflection angle the noise power is going to be
almost constant.

Mike

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Power, Rory <[hidden email]> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Confocalists,

We’re trying to circumvent the annoyance of resonant mirrors screaming at
8 kHz. I was wondering whether anyone has a recommendation for constructing
soundproof containment?

Generally were using inexpensive resonant mirrors from EOPC:
http://www.eopc.com/sc30.html

Also, does anyone know whether the more costly resonant scanners used for
confocal/multi-photon laser scanning microscopies are any better in this
regard? Were not hugely concerned with other attributes (simply for light
sheet microscopy stripe suppression) just the piercing noise.

Many thanks in advance!

Rory

…………………………………………………………

Dr. Rory Power
Morgridge Institute for Research
Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
Tel: [phone]
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>

[Christian Feldhaus]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi,

for getting rid of some noise in our microscope room I played around
with Basotect foam (no commercial interest, other dedicated sound
dampening foam will probably do the same job). I found that 20mm
Basotect was quite efficient at 8 kHz, reducing the noise level from
11dBA down to 6dBA by just covering half of one of the room walls. For
lower frequencies you will need thicker foam.

Best,

Christian



On 26.07.2018 04:33, Power, Rory wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I was rather referring to an 8 kHz fundamental oscillation. The noise is quite unpleasant - I’d hate to hear the 4 kHz if that’s worse as you say.
>
> Isolation should be possible. Perhaps combined with some foam we’ll arrive at a workable system.
>
> Yes, I assumed the same. Thanks again.
>
> Regards
>
> Rory
>
> …………………………………………………………
>
> Dr. Rory Power
> HFSP Postdoctoral Fellow
> Morgridge Institute for Research
> Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
> 330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
> Tel: [phone]
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2018, at 21:18, Michael Giacomelli <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Rory,
>
> 8 KHz unidirectional or bidirectional (so 4 KHz fundamental)?  The 8 KHz
> scanners are usually not that bad even at maximum amplitude because the 8
> kHz tone is a lot harder to hear and essentially all the harmonics are out
> of audible range.
>
> For 4 KHz at larger deflection angles you either need hearing protection or
> to really isolate it from the room.  A metal box around the scanner and a
> window on the input port so that air cannot pass in/out of the scanner
> helps a lot. This is how most commerical systems work.
>
> I don't think the model matters; the noise comes from pushing air, so for a
> given mirror size and deflection angle the noise power is going to be
> almost constant.
>
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Power, Rory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Confocalists,
>
> We’re trying to circumvent the annoyance of resonant mirrors screaming at
> 8 kHz. I was wondering whether anyone has a recommendation for constructing
> soundproof containment?
>
> Generally were using inexpensive resonant mirrors from EOPC:
> http://www.eopc.com/sc30.html
>
> Also, does anyone know whether the more costly resonant scanners used for
> confocal/multi-photon laser scanning microscopies are any better in this
> regard? Were not hugely concerned with other attributes (simply for light
> sheet microscopy stripe suppression) just the piercing noise.
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Rory
>
> …………………………………………………………
>
> Dr. Rory Power
> Morgridge Institute for Research
> Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
> 330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
> Tel: [phone]
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Christian Feldhaus, PhD
Light Microscopy Facility
MPI for Developmental Biology

Max-Planck-Ring 5 (Spemannstrasse 35)
72076 Tübingen
Germany

deliveries to:
Max-Planck-Ring 1
72076 Tübingen

Tel.: ++49 7071 601443

[Mark Cannell-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Should be amenable to sound cancellation -small speaker and microphone near scanner with a negative feedback amplifier...

HTH

Mark B. Cannell. Ph.D. FRSNZ FISHR
Department of Physiology, Pharmacology & Neuroscience
School of Medical Sciences
University Walk
Bristol BS8 1TD
 
[hidden email]
 
 

On 26/07/18, 2:19 AM, "Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Power, Rory" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

    *****
    To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
    http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
    Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
    *****
   
    Hi Confocalists,
   
    We’re trying to circumvent the annoyance of resonant mirrors screaming at 8 kHz. I was wondering whether anyone has a recommendation for constructing soundproof containment?
   
    Generally were using inexpensive resonant mirrors from EOPC: http://www.eopc.com/sc30.html
   
    Also, does anyone know whether the more costly resonant scanners used for confocal/multi-photon laser scanning microscopies are any better in this regard? Were not hugely concerned with other attributes (simply for light sheet microscopy stripe suppression) just the piercing noise.
   
    Many thanks in advance!
   
    Rory
   
    …………………………………………………………
   
    Dr. Rory Power
    Morgridge Institute for Research
    Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
    330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
    Tel: [phone]
    [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
   
   
   
   
   

[David C]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Rory,

I use an 8 kHz scanner from Cambridge Technology and it is loud to the point that I have to wear earplugs in the lab if I'm around for long times. In a commercial confocal/2p intravital microscope, the noise is barely noticeable, which implies that a soundproof container is certainly possible. I don't have any experience with soundproofing, but I would imagine that the scanner could be placed in a completely sealed, custom-made, aluminum enclosure with entry and exit AR-coated windows.

best,
--
Ph.D. David Chen
Postdoc - Myers Lab
Max Planck Institute for Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics

[Eric Girard]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Rory,

Often scanners are enclosed in a vacuum to reduce noise, it may be more
complicated to implement than insulation but it would be the most compact
approach.

Best regards,

Eric Girard
Sales Engineering / Ingénierie Ventes

GiGa Concept Inc
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Cell: 514-826-1181
Tel: [phone]

[hidden email]
www.gigaconcept.com

Meet us at:
Photonics West 2018 Booth 4437
OPIE'18 Yokohama
CLEO 2018 San José


Le mer. 25 juill. 2018 21 h 03, Power, Rory <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Confocalists,
>
> We’re trying to circumvent the annoyance of resonant mirrors screaming at
> 8 kHz. I was wondering whether anyone has a recommendation for constructing
> soundproof containment?
>
> Generally were using inexpensive resonant mirrors from EOPC:
> http://www.eopc.com/sc30.html
>
> Also, does anyone know whether the more costly resonant scanners used for
> confocal/multi-photon laser scanning microscopies are any better in this
> regard? Were not hugely concerned with other attributes (simply for light
> sheet microscopy stripe suppression) just the piercing noise.
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Rory
>
> …………………………………………………………
>
> Dr. Rory Power
> Morgridge Institute for Research
> Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
> 330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
> Tel: [phone]
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
>

[Johannes Helm]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Good afternoon,

Rory: How large is the wavelength band of the laser beam you try to
sweep using the scanner?

If the wavelength band is not so large (not exceeding 50nm to 100nm),
you might get completely rid of the noise by replacing the scanner with
an acousto optic deflector, AOD. However, these AODs are chromatic,
scanning mirrors are not. So, if the band of wavelengths, which you use
during your experiments, is broad, the AOD would be a pretty poor idea,
I fear.

Best wishes,

Johannes


On 2018-07-26 03:03, Power, Rory wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Confocalists,
>
> We’re trying to circumvent the annoyance of resonant mirrors screaming
> at 8 kHz. I was wondering whether anyone has a recommendation for
> constructing soundproof containment?
>
> Generally were using inexpensive resonant mirrors from EOPC:
> http://www.eopc.com/sc30.html
>
> Also, does anyone know whether the more costly resonant scanners used
> for confocal/multi-photon laser scanning microscopies are any better
> in this regard? Were not hugely concerned with other attributes
> (simply for light sheet microscopy stripe suppression) just the
> piercing noise.
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Rory
>
> …………………………………………………………
>
> Dr. Rory Power
> Morgridge Institute for Research
> Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
> 330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
> Tel: [phone]
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>

--
P. Johannes Helm

Voice: ([phone] (office)
Fax: [phone] (office)

[Martin Wessendorf-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Dear all--

I'm going to guess that the obnoxiousness of the sound may be a
function, in part, of the age of the listener.
See: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00420-014-0951-8

--Along those lines, I once had a digital watch with an unusually 
high-pitched alarm that I (at age 60) could barely hear, but the sound
of which drove my sons (in their 20s) crazy.

Martin Wessendorf




On 7/25/2018 9:33 PM, Power, Rory wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images onhttp://www.imgur.com  and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I was rather referring to an 8 kHz fundamental oscillation. The noise is quite unpleasant - I’d hate to hear the 4 kHz if that’s worse as you say.
>
> Isolation should be possible. Perhaps combined with some foam we’ll arrive at a workable system.
>
> Yes, I assumed the same. Thanks again.
>
> Regards
>
> Rory
>
> …………………………………………………………
>
> Dr. Rory Power
> HFSP Postdoctoral Fellow
> Morgridge Institute for Research
> Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
> 330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
> Tel: [phone]
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2018, at 21:18, Michael Giacomelli <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images onhttp://www.imgur.com  and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Rory,
>
> 8 KHz unidirectional or bidirectional (so 4 KHz fundamental)?  The 8 KHz
> scanners are usually not that bad even at maximum amplitude because the 8
> kHz tone is a lot harder to hear and essentially all the harmonics are out
> of audible range.
>
> For 4 KHz at larger deflection angles you either need hearing protection or
> to really isolate it from the room.  A metal box around the scanner and a
> window on the input port so that air cannot pass in/out of the scanner
> helps a lot. This is how most commerical systems work.
>
> I don't think the model matters; the noise comes from pushing air, so for a
> given mirror size and deflection angle the noise power is going to be
> almost constant.
>
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Power, Rory<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images onhttp://www.imgur.com  and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Confocalists,
>
> We’re trying to circumvent the annoyance of resonant mirrors screaming at
> 8 kHz. I was wondering whether anyone has a recommendation for constructing
> soundproof containment?
>
> Generally were using inexpensive resonant mirrors from EOPC:
> http://www.eopc.com/sc30.html
>
> Also, does anyone know whether the more costly resonant scanners used for
> confocal/multi-photon laser scanning microscopies are any better in this
> regard? Were not hugely concerned with other attributes (simply for light
> sheet microscopy stripe suppression) just the piercing noise.
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Rory
>
> …………………………………………………………
>
> Dr. Rory Power
> Morgridge Institute for Research
> Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
> 330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
> Tel: [phone]
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Martin Wessendorf, Ph.D.                   office: [phone]
Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: [phone]
University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: [phone]
6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail:[hidden email]

[Zdenek Svindrych-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Rory,
have you considered a regular (non-resonant) galvo for the stripe removal?


It should still be fast enough to do more than several round-trips during a
10 ms exposure, so it should be quite effective in stripe removal even
without fancy synchronization between the galvo and the camera (depending on
the mirror size and the deflection angle you need in your setup...).

Best, zdenek

-- 


Zdenek Svindrych, Ph.D.
Research Associate - Imaging Specialist
Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology
Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth
email: [hidden email]

---------- Původní e-mail ----------
Od: Power, Rory <[hidden email]>
Komu: [hidden email]
Datum: 25. 7. 2018 21:21:57
Předmět: Resonant mirror noise
"*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Confocalists,

We’re trying to circumvent the annoyance of resonant mirrors screaming at 8
kHz. I was wondering whether anyone has a recommendation for constructing
soundproof containment?

Generally were using inexpensive resonant mirrors from EOPC: http://www.
eopc.com/sc30.html

Also, does anyone know whether the more costly resonant scanners used for
confocal/multi-photon laser scanning microscopies are any better in this
regard? Were not hugely concerned with other attributes (simply for light
sheet microscopy stripe suppression) just the piercing noise.

Many thanks in advance!

Rory

…………………………………………………………

Dr. Rory Power
Morgridge Institute for Research
Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
Tel: [phone]
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>




"

[Craig Brideau]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

To add to the chorus, basically the scanners need to be in a sealed
enclosure. It doesn't need to be in vacuum, (although that would really
help) but as long as it cannot transfer sound pressure easily via air it
will be considerably quieter. Note your scan lens becomes the window for
the enclosure; it has quite a bit of spaced glass so it will probably be a
good sound absorber. A little sound dampening foam may still be necessary
on the exterior, just make sure you can still safely dissipate any heat
from the scanners and don't smother the thing completely. I have an early
resonant confocal system that shrieks when in use, and a system which is
newer by a few years, and the newer one is much quieter. On observation,
the new system is simply boxed up better with thicker walls and no gaps
from the interior to the exterior.

Craig

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 8:53 AM Martin Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Dear all--
>
> I'm going to guess that the obnoxiousness of the sound may be a
> function, in part, of the age of the listener.
> See: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00420-014-0951-8
>
> --Along those lines, I once had a digital watch with an unusually
> high-pitched alarm that I (at age 60) could barely hear, but the sound
> of which drove my sons (in their 20s) crazy.
>
> Martin Wessendorf
>
>
>
>
> On 7/25/2018 9:33 PM, Power, Rory wrote:
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images onhttp://www.imgur.com  and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply. I was rather referring to an 8 kHz fundamental
> oscillation. The noise is quite unpleasant - I’d hate to hear the 4 kHz if
> that’s worse as you say.
> >
> > Isolation should be possible. Perhaps combined with some foam we’ll
> arrive at a workable system.
> >
> > Yes, I assumed the same. Thanks again.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rory
> >
> > …………………………………………………………
> >
> > Dr. Rory Power
> > HFSP Postdoctoral Fellow
> > Morgridge Institute for Research
> > Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
> > 330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
> > Tel: [phone]
> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jul 25, 2018, at 21:18, Michael Giacomelli <[hidden email]<mailto:
> [hidden email]>> wrote:
> >
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images onhttp://www.imgur.com  and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Hi Rory,
> >
> > 8 KHz unidirectional or bidirectional (so 4 KHz fundamental)?  The 8 KHz
> > scanners are usually not that bad even at maximum amplitude because the 8
> > kHz tone is a lot harder to hear and essentially all the harmonics are
> out
> > of audible range.
> >
> > For 4 KHz at larger deflection angles you either need hearing protection
> or
> > to really isolate it from the room.  A metal box around the scanner and a
> > window on the input port so that air cannot pass in/out of the scanner
> > helps a lot. This is how most commerical systems work.
> >
> > I don't think the model matters; the noise comes from pushing air, so
> for a
> > given mirror size and deflection angle the noise power is going to be
> > almost constant.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Power, Rory<[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images onhttp://www.imgur.com  and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Hi Confocalists,
> >
> > We’re trying to circumvent the annoyance of resonant mirrors screaming at
> > 8 kHz. I was wondering whether anyone has a recommendation for
> constructing
> > soundproof containment?
> >
> > Generally were using inexpensive resonant mirrors from EOPC:
> > http://www.eopc.com/sc30.html
> >
> > Also, does anyone know whether the more costly resonant scanners used for
> > confocal/multi-photon laser scanning microscopies are any better in this
> > regard? Were not hugely concerned with other attributes (simply for light
> > sheet microscopy stripe suppression) just the piercing noise.
> >
> > Many thanks in advance!
> >
> > Rory
> >
> > …………………………………………………………
> >
> > Dr. Rory Power
> > Morgridge Institute for Research
> > Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
> > 330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
> > Tel: [phone]
> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Martin Wessendorf, Ph.D.                   office: [phone]
> Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: [phone]
> University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: [phone]
> 6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: [phone]
> Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail:[hidden email]
>

[Power, Rory]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi all,

Thanks for the suggestion. We have also used galvos but in this case we are running the camera at significantly higher speed (ca. 400 fps, 2.5 ms exposure) and generally find that the galvos do not like to go above a few 100 Hz (depending on mirror size) for an appreciable scan range. More usually we are using resonant mirrors at ca. 1 kHz, which is sufficient for 100 fps.

Regards

Rory

…………………………………………………………

Dr. Rory Power
HFSP Postdoctoral Fellow
Morgridge Institute for Research
Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
Tel: [phone]
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>




On Jul 26, 2018, at 10:49, [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com<http://www.imgur.com/> and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Rory,
have you considered a regular (non-resonant) galvo for the stripe removal?


It should still be fast enough to do more than several round-trips during a
10 ms exposure, so it should be quite effective in stripe removal even
without fancy synchronization between the galvo and the camera (depending on
the mirror size and the deflection angle you need in your setup...).

Best, zdenek

--


Zdenek Svindrych, Ph.D.
Research Associate - Imaging Specialist
Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology
Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth
email: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>

---------- Původní e-mail ----------
Od: Power, Rory <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
Komu: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
Datum: 25. 7. 2018 21:21:57
Předmět: Resonant mirror noise
"*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Confocalists,

We’re trying to circumvent the annoyance of resonant mirrors screaming at 8
kHz. I was wondering whether anyone has a recommendation for constructing
soundproof containment?

Generally were using inexpensive resonant mirrors from EOPC: http://www.
eopc.com/sc30.html<http://eopc.com/sc30.html>

Also, does anyone know whether the more costly resonant scanners used for
confocal/multi-photon laser scanning microscopies are any better in this
regard? Were not hugely concerned with other attributes (simply for light
sheet microscopy stripe suppression) just the piercing noise.

Many thanks in advance!

Rory

…………………………………………………………

Dr. Rory Power
Morgridge Institute for Research
Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
Tel: [phone]
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>




"

[Power, Rory]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Thanks, yes this seems to be the general consensus. I believe we can build something sealed with the scan lens after the resonant mirror acting as a window.

Regards

Rory

…………………………………………………………

Dr. Rory Power
HFSP Postdoctoral Fellow
Morgridge Institute for Research
Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
Tel: [phone]
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>




On Jul 26, 2018, at 10:55, Craig Brideau <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

To add to the chorus, basically the scanners need to be in a sealed
enclosure. It doesn't need to be in vacuum, (although that would really
help) but as long as it cannot transfer sound pressure easily via air it
will be considerably quieter. Note your scan lens becomes the window for
the enclosure; it has quite a bit of spaced glass so it will probably be a
good sound absorber. A little sound dampening foam may still be necessary
on the exterior, just make sure you can still safely dissipate any heat
from the scanners and don't smother the thing completely. I have an early
resonant confocal system that shrieks when in use, and a system which is
newer by a few years, and the newer one is much quieter. On observation,
the new system is simply boxed up better with thicker walls and no gaps
from the interior to the exterior.

Craig

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 8:53 AM Martin Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Dear all--

I'm going to guess that the obnoxiousness of the sound may be a
function, in part, of the age of the listener.
See: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00420-014-0951-8

--Along those lines, I once had a digital watch with an unusually
high-pitched alarm that I (at age 60) could barely hear, but the sound
of which drove my sons (in their 20s) crazy.

Martin Wessendorf




On 7/25/2018 9:33 PM, Power, Rory wrote:
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images onhttp://www.imgur.com  and include the link in your
posting.
*****

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your reply. I was rather referring to an 8 kHz fundamental
oscillation. The noise is quite unpleasant - I’d hate to hear the 4 kHz if
that’s worse as you say.

Isolation should be possible. Perhaps combined with some foam we’ll
arrive at a workable system.

Yes, I assumed the same. Thanks again.

Regards

Rory

…………………………………………………………

Dr. Rory Power
HFSP Postdoctoral Fellow
Morgridge Institute for Research
Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
Tel: [phone]
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>




On Jul 25, 2018, at 21:18, Michael Giacomelli <[hidden email]<mailto:
[hidden email]>> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images onhttp://www.imgur.com  and include the link in your
posting.
*****

Hi Rory,

8 KHz unidirectional or bidirectional (so 4 KHz fundamental)?  The 8 KHz
scanners are usually not that bad even at maximum amplitude because the 8
kHz tone is a lot harder to hear and essentially all the harmonics are
out
of audible range.

For 4 KHz at larger deflection angles you either need hearing protection
or
to really isolate it from the room.  A metal box around the scanner and a
window on the input port so that air cannot pass in/out of the scanner
helps a lot. This is how most commerical systems work.

I don't think the model matters; the noise comes from pushing air, so
for a
given mirror size and deflection angle the noise power is going to be
almost constant.

Mike

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Power, Rory<[hidden email]>
wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images onhttp://www.imgur.com  and include the link in your
posting.
*****

Hi Confocalists,

We’re trying to circumvent the annoyance of resonant mirrors screaming at
8 kHz. I was wondering whether anyone has a recommendation for
constructing
soundproof containment?

Generally were using inexpensive resonant mirrors from EOPC:
http://www.eopc.com/sc30.html

Also, does anyone know whether the more costly resonant scanners used for
confocal/multi-photon laser scanning microscopies are any better in this
regard? Were not hugely concerned with other attributes (simply for light
sheet microscopy stripe suppression) just the piercing noise.

Many thanks in advance!

Rory

…………………………………………………………

Dr. Rory Power
Morgridge Institute for Research
Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
Tel: [phone]
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>







--
Martin Wessendorf, Ph.D.                   office: [phone]
Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: [phone]
University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: [phone]
6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail:[hidden email]

[Craig Brideau]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Expanded PVC panel over thin metal plate with a little spacer between them
might do it. The Exp PVC is not very sturdy so you will want thin metal
plate for structural support, but the foamed nature of the expanded plastic
makes it a decent sound absorber without being a linting/dust hazard like
acoustic foam.
Best of luck!
Craig


On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:56 AM Power, Rory <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Thanks, yes this seems to be the general consensus. I believe we can build
> something sealed with the scan lens after the resonant mirror acting as a
> window.
>
> Regards
>
> Rory
>
> …………………………………………………………
>
> Dr. Rory Power
> HFSP Postdoctoral Fellow
> Morgridge Institute for Research
> Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
> 330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
> Tel: [phone]
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2018, at 10:55, Craig Brideau <[hidden email]<mailto:
> [hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> To add to the chorus, basically the scanners need to be in a sealed
> enclosure. It doesn't need to be in vacuum, (although that would really
> help) but as long as it cannot transfer sound pressure easily via air it
> will be considerably quieter. Note your scan lens becomes the window for
> the enclosure; it has quite a bit of spaced glass so it will probably be a
> good sound absorber. A little sound dampening foam may still be necessary
> on the exterior, just make sure you can still safely dissipate any heat
> from the scanners and don't smother the thing completely. I have an early
> resonant confocal system that shrieks when in use, and a system which is
> newer by a few years, and the newer one is much quieter. On observation,
> the new system is simply boxed up better with thicker walls and no gaps
> from the interior to the exterior.
>
> Craig
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 8:53 AM Martin Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Dear all--
>
> I'm going to guess that the obnoxiousness of the sound may be a
> function, in part, of the age of the listener.
> See: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00420-014-0951-8
>
> --Along those lines, I once had a digital watch with an unusually
> high-pitched alarm that I (at age 60) could barely hear, but the sound
> of which drove my sons (in their 20s) crazy.
>
> Martin Wessendorf
>
>
>
>
> On 7/25/2018 9:33 PM, Power, Rory wrote:
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images onhttp://www.imgur.com  and include the link in your
> posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I was rather referring to an 8 kHz fundamental
> oscillation. The noise is quite unpleasant - I’d hate to hear the 4 kHz if
> that’s worse as you say.
>
> Isolation should be possible. Perhaps combined with some foam we’ll
> arrive at a workable system.
>
> Yes, I assumed the same. Thanks again.
>
> Regards
>
> Rory
>
> …………………………………………………………
>
> Dr. Rory Power
> HFSP Postdoctoral Fellow
> Morgridge Institute for Research
> Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
> 330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
> Tel: [phone]
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2018, at 21:18, Michael Giacomelli <[hidden email]<mailto:
> [hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images onhttp://www.imgur.com  and include the link in your
> posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Rory,
>
> 8 KHz unidirectional or bidirectional (so 4 KHz fundamental)?  The 8 KHz
> scanners are usually not that bad even at maximum amplitude because the 8
> kHz tone is a lot harder to hear and essentially all the harmonics are
> out
> of audible range.
>
> For 4 KHz at larger deflection angles you either need hearing protection
> or
> to really isolate it from the room.  A metal box around the scanner and a
> window on the input port so that air cannot pass in/out of the scanner
> helps a lot. This is how most commerical systems work.
>
> I don't think the model matters; the noise comes from pushing air, so
> for a
> given mirror size and deflection angle the noise power is going to be
> almost constant.
>
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Power, Rory<[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images onhttp://www.imgur.com  and include the link in your
> posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Confocalists,
>
> We’re trying to circumvent the annoyance of resonant mirrors screaming at
> 8 kHz. I was wondering whether anyone has a recommendation for
> constructing
> soundproof containment?
>
> Generally were using inexpensive resonant mirrors from EOPC:
> http://www.eopc.com/sc30.html
>
> Also, does anyone know whether the more costly resonant scanners used for
> confocal/multi-photon laser scanning microscopies are any better in this
> regard? Were not hugely concerned with other attributes (simply for light
> sheet microscopy stripe suppression) just the piercing noise.
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Rory
>
> …………………………………………………………
>
> Dr. Rory Power
> Morgridge Institute for Research
> Medical Engineering | Huisken Lab
> 330 N Orchard St, Madison, WI, 53715
> Tel: [phone]
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Wessendorf, Ph.D.                   office: [phone]
> Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: [phone]
> University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: [phone]
> 6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: [phone]
> Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail:[hidden email]
>
>
>