An objective comparison of commercially-available cavitation meters |
| |
Institution: | 1. Chemical Engineering Department, Biomass Processing Laboratory, Center of Biofuel and Biochemical Research (CBBR), Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Bandar Seri Iskandar, 32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia;2. Marine Department Malaysia Northern Region, 11700 Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia;3. Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Faculty of Information Technology and Bionics, Práter u. 50/a, 1083 Budapest, Hungary;4. Institute of Chemical Engineering and Technology, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan;5. Fundamental and Applied Sciences Department, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Bandar Seri Iskandar, 32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia;1. School of Civil Engineering and Surveying, Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, 4350 QLD, Australia;2. School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, 4350 QLD, Australia |
| |
Abstract: | With a number of cavitation meters on the market which claim to characterise fields in ultrasonic cleaning baths, this paper provides an objective comparison of a selection of these devices and establishes the extent to which their claims are met. The National Physical Laboratory’s multi-frequency ultrasonic reference vessel provided the stable 21.06 kHz field, above and below the inertial cavitation threshold, as a test bed for the sensor comparison. Measurements from these devices were evaluated in relation to the known acoustic pressure distribution in the cavitating vessel as a means of identifying the mode of operation of the sensors and to examine the particular indicator of cavitation activity which they deliver. Through the comparison with megahertz filtered acoustic signals generated by inertial cavitation, it was determined that the majority of the cavitation meters used in this study responded to acoustic pressure generated by the direct applied acoustic field and therefore tended to overestimate the occurrence of cavitation within the vessel, giving non-zero responses under conditions when there was known to be no inertial cavitation occurring with the reference vessel. This has implications for interpreting the data they provide in user applications. |
| |
Keywords: | Cavitation Ultrasound Sensors Cleaning Comparison Kilohertz |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|