1. Ultrasonic Mixer Lihong Xu Moshe Solomon Joanna Pirnot Katie Kaser TEAM 11 Sponsor: Fraunhofer Team Members:

2. Introduction zMission: Design a non-mechanical device to create a homogenous powder injection molding feedstock, by April 1999 zApproach: Use the engineering method, and identify wants and constraints, to select the best concept to complete our mission

3. Background and description of Problem zSponsor - Fraunhofer zHomogenous Powder Injection Molding (PIM) Feedstock zCurrently use Mechanical Mixers

4. Mechanical Mixer

5. Customers zFraunhofer zUltrasonic mixer companies & Consultants -Sonic Corporation -Misonix -Advanced Sonic Processing zIndustry

6. Top 10 Wants & their Metrics 1) Produce a Homogenous mixture x Torque/Pressure 2) Handle a variety of materials xViscosity of material that can be mixed 3) Temperature Control xMaintain temperature during mixing xBe able to adjust temperature

7. Top 10 Wants & their Metrics 4) Low Contamination Level x Percentage contaminants 5) Easy to clean xAbility to disassemble xAbility to clean by hand 6) Budget xCost

8. Top 10 Wants & their Metrics 7) Produce a measurable quantity x Output/hour 8) Repeatability xStandard deviation of results 9) Small in size xportability 10) Durable xYears of use

9. Initial System Benchmarking zMechanical Mixers: currently used to do the job zNonmechanical Mixers: 1) Static Mixer 2) Ultrasonic Mixers

10. Initial System Benchmarking: Ultrasonics zUltrasonic mixers: — Direct application ultrasonic energy — probe type — outside sound source —Sonolater: ultrasonic cavitation results from intense mixing

11. Probes Probe Converter

12. Competitors Misonix zHas a system that meets important wants & constraints zCan handle viscosity up to 1000 Pa*s, temperature up to 200 degrees

13. Competitors Sonic Corporation zHas system (sonolator) that can handle viscosities up to 1000 Pa*s zSome system components cannot handle temperatures up to 200 degrees zUses pump; abrasion may be a problem

14. Competitors Advanced Sonic Processing zHas mixer with temperature control up to 400 degrees C zCompares favorably to many metrics zNot used for viscosities up to 1000 Pa*s zEasy cleaning, good durability

15. Functional Benchmarking Three main areas: zFeeder mechanism zMixing action & sources of mixing power zExtrusion of product

16. Functional Benchmarking Most important area: Mixing process yBenchmarked Ultrasonic Cleaning processes yUltrasonic Generator xFrequency output affects mixing results yTransducers xPiezoelectric & Magnetostrictive

17. Top 10 Metrics & target values 1) Cost x Less than $50,000 2) Torque/Pressure to mix feedstock xConstant value (= homogeneous mixture) 3) Temperature Control xUp to 200 degrees C

18. Top 10 Metrics & their target values 4) Ability to clean without wasting material x Lose less than 5% of feedstock 5) Output/hour xGreater than 5 lbs/hour 6) Pressure

19. Top 10 Metrics & their target values 7) Viscosity of material x Up to 1000 Pa*s 8) Incorporation feedback system xYes 9) Dimensions xportability 10) Ability to modulate frequency xYes

20. Concept Generation zMechanical mixers zNon-mechanical, non-ultrasonic zUltrasonic-no sound source zUltrasonic-sound source yprobe type yexternal energy source type

21. Ultrasonic - external energy source zDual frequency application zContinuous process zAttach transducers to outside zHeat exchanger fluid in transducer enclosure

22. Ultrasonic - probe type zBatch process zInsert probe into feedstock to be mixed zTemperature control: heating plate zSingle frequency for mixing

23. Intense Mixing - generates cavitation zPump heated mixture into chamber zHigh shear stresses caused by obstacles in chamber zShear stresses create ultrasonic frequency in feedstock zCavitation and mixing results

24. Concepts & Metrics Dual Frequency & Continuous MIXER Ease of Disassembly Low Contamination Continuous Process Durable Small Size Low Noise

25. Concepts & Metrics More Affordable Higher Abrasion Louder Higher Contamination Batch Type Easier to Use Probe Type & Batch MIXER

26. Concepts & Metrics Hard to Clean High Abrasion Less Noise Low Contamination Continuous Easier to Use Implicit Ultrasound & Continuous MIXER

27. BUDGET Less than a mechanical mixer: $75,000 Ideal cost < $50,000

28. SCHEDULE

29. Planned work through next presentation zSee Mechanical Mixer & feedstock produced zTest probe-type mixer at Fraunhofer zTest Misonix closed-chamber mixer with company representative zDetermine & develop best concept