http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Resonant-mirror-noise-tp7588458p7588478.html
might do it. The Exp PVC is not very sturdy so you will want thin metal
> *****
> 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: 608 316 4554
>
[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: 608 316 4554
>
[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: 608 316 4554
>
[hidden email]<mailto:
[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Wessendorf, Ph.D. office: (612) 626-0145
> Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience lab: (612) 624-2991
> University of Minnesota Preferred FAX: (612) 624-8118
> 6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE Dept Fax: (612) 626-5009
> Minneapolis, MN 55455 e-mail:
[hidden email]
>
>
>