Groups > sci.electronics.design > #460114

Re: Microphone risk factors

From	Terry Newton <nbill@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups	sci.electronics.design
Subject	Re: Microphone risk factors
Date	2017-05-13 19:26 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<of7mkm$14li$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<of4o66$dcl$1@dont-email.me> <mbhL8BP0acdfEJUhnospam@invalid.com> <of4t4l$7ce$1@dont-email.me> <of7f7b$p5o$1@gioia.aioe.org> <of7kne$tbc$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, 13 May 2017 11:57:17 -0700, Don Y wrote:

>>> For example, when tablets are manufactured (by compressing "powdered
>>> granulation"), a common problem is air becoming entrapped in the
>>> "powder" as it is compressed.  When the pressure is released, the
>>> compressed air causes the tablet to "explode" (the top pops off).

>> Separate the sensor and electronics. Sensor can be a robust piece of
>> metal foil etc.
> 
> In the above example, a microphone is impractical -- due to other
> constraints imposed by the application.  E.g., the tabletting area has
> to be "cleanable" to ensure product from "tabletted compound X" doesn't
> contaminate "tabletted compound Y" (you wouldn't want the BABY ASPIRIN
> that you make in the afternoon to have traces of the VIAGRA that you
> made in the morning!  :> )
.....
> You're surrounded by the noise of the mechanism (you're making 35-75
> tablets concurrently) and trying to hear a little "pop" that is muffled
> inside a steel box -- that is MOVING past your sensor.

Isn't this a visual inspection issue? using a mic to hear a pop
seems redundant when you can just look at it to see if it popped.
But a laser-based sound sensor (if that's what you want) will be
far more robust than anything with electronics where it needs
to be cleaned. Just hose it off, no electronics to get wet.

Thread

Microphone risk factors Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-10 21:27 -0700
  Re: Microphone risk factors Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 21:39 -0700
  Re: Microphone risk factors jrwalliker@gmail.com - 2017-05-11 07:01 -0700
    Re: Microphone risk factors Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-11 11:06 -0700
      Re: Microphone risk factors piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-12 09:02 +0100
      Re: Microphone risk factors "Michael Kellett" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2017-05-12 16:02 +0100
        Re: Microphone risk factors Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-12 09:37 -0700
          Re: Microphone risk factors "Michael Kellett" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2017-05-12 18:08 +0100
            Re: Microphone risk factors Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-12 11:02 -0700
              Re: Microphone risk factors Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 17:44 -0700
              Re: Microphone risk factors Terry Newton <nbill@bellsouth.net> - 2017-05-13 17:19 +0000
                Re: Microphone risk factors Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 11:57 -0700
                Re: Microphone risk factors Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-13 19:12 +0000
                Re: Microphone risk factors Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 08:40 +0000
                Re: Microphone risk factors Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 09:17 +0000
                Re: Microphone risk factors Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 10:49 +0000
                Re: Microphone risk factors Terry Newton <nbill@bellsouth.net> - 2017-05-13 19:26 +0000
                Re: Microphone risk factors (OT -- long) Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 13:37 -0700
            Re: Microphone risk factors "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-05-13 11:06 -0700
              Re: Microphone risk factors Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 12:11 -0700
              Re: Microphone risk factors krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 20:36 -0400

csiph-web