Talk:Ultrasonic atomization

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Hello,

3D Lab sp. z o.o. was the first company to file an application with the Polish Patent Office for patent protection for a device called the ultrasonic atomiser, and subsequently commercialised the atomiser (application number P.425803 - Ultrasonic atomiser, application date: 2018-06-03, publication date 2019-12-16, BUP number 26/2019). This can be easily checked in the Polish Patent Office web search engine at:

https://ewyszukiwarka.pue.uprp.gov.pl/search/pwp-details/P.425803

Regarding to the Diamond Grant agreement, it should be emphasized that the original scope of this agreement included 3D printing in so-called metallic glasses (which is not connected with ultrasonic atomisation at all). The research scope of the Diamond Grant agreement was extended by Annex No. 1 of 16 July 2020 and to research task No. 3 originally defined as 'Fabrication of massive amorphous samples. Determination of the effect of laser and heat treatment parameters on morphologies and crystalline phase content” was added “and the fabrication of powders with altered chemical composition by ultrasound”. Therefore, until 16 July 2020 the research scope of the Diamond Grant agreement did not include the issue of ultrasonic atomisation. Michaltoczko (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I’m raising an editorial dispute about the modern “ultrasonic atomization of metals” history in this article. Substantial content about 3D Lab / ATO has been removed in bulk, leaving the modern narrative largely focused on AMAZEMET, despite the existence of independent secondary sources describing commercial deployment of ATO equipment and patent bibliographic records showing earlier filing chronology. Which results in content that may give undue weight to one organization, per WP:UNDUE.

I’m not asking to include promotional language, performance claims, “only on the market”, or product-catalog style details. I’m requesting that the article keeps a neutral, minimal, properly sourced mention of ATO/3D Lab as part of modern metal implementations, alongside AMAZEMET, so the coverage is balanced and not misleading by omission.

Independent coverage for Formnext 2017: 3D Printing Industry (2017) reports that 3D Lab was to premiere/present the ATO One metal powder atomization device at Formnext 2017.

Patent bibliographic chronology: the Google Patents record for EP3638442A1 / WO2019092641A1 shows a priority date 2017-11-09 for a device for ultrasonic atomization of metals (bibliographic record).

Example of independent coverage of commercial deployment: a 2019 industry report notes that the REMET metal AM lab was equipped with 3D Lab’s ATO Lab metal powder atomizer.

These examples are provided only to illustrate sourcing and chronology, not to advocate for inclusion of any specific company’s promotional material.

AMAZEMET is documented as a Warsaw University of Technology spin-off established in 2019 (institutional source).

I’d appreciate input on policy-compliant wording and scope (NPOV/UNDUE/RS) for a short “modern metal implementations” paragraph that mentions both parties, without promotional detail. Michaltoczko (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

In December 2025, content describing parts of the modern development of ultrasonic metal atomization was removed without prior talk page discussion.

There are concerns that the current version may no longer reflect the documented chronology of contemporary implementations, as independently sourced milestones (such as early public presentations, patent priority dates, and documented commercial deployments) are no longer mentioned.

The question is whether the article should include a short, neutral, reliably sourced paragraph summarizing modern implementations of ultrasonic metal atomization in a way that reflects documented development chronology and avoids undue weight.

Should such sourced modern-development context be included?

Input from uninvolved editors would be appreciated. Michaltoczko (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

(from SodiumBot) @Michaltoczko there doesn't seem to have been any discussion from anyone else before this RFC - it might be worth pinging the involved editors and asking them to reply there first before running an RFC? Rexo (talk | contributions) 13:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There was prior discussion beginning in July 2025 regarding representation of modern ultrasonic metal atomization developments.While much of the exchange happened through edit summaries and later through a DRN filing, the underlying disagreement has persisted for months without resolution on the Talk page itself.

The RFC was opened to move the discussion into a structured venue after:

- repeated content removals

- a formal dispute resolution noticeboard listing

- lack of substantive engagement on Talk despite ongoing disagreement reflected in edit history

That said, I agree it would be helpful to gather direct input here.

Ping: @Alicja Głaszczka @祝茗 @Walkerwalks @LooksGreatInATurtleNeck @Rofraja @Folkezoft @Regulov @GhostInTheMachine @Kovcszaln6

Input from previously involved editors would be appreciated on whether a brief, policy-compliant mention of ATO / 3D Lab alongside AMAZEMET would better reflect the modern development landscape in a neutral way. Michaltoczko (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Dear Michaltoczko,

Thank you for your comment and for your continued work on improving the article. I agree that the topic should be presented in a neutral and balanced way, without giving undue weight to any single organization and without promotional or product-catalogue language. At the same time, I would like to point out that the previous versions of the article raised several verifiability and source-use concerns, which should be addressed before restoring or reintroducing the removed material.

In the December revision, I added material intended to strengthen the technical and historical continuity of the article. In particular, the article was expanded to describe later developments by Lierke concerning high-temperature atomization, melt delivery, protection of the ultrasonic system from the hot zone and thermal management of the resonator. I also added a short discussion of the early-2000s work of Caccioppoli et al., including induction melting under inert atmosphere, tubular resonator design, load-tolerant ultrasonic transducers, multifrequency excitation and resonance-control strategies. Finally, I added context on externally heated variants, including laser-assisted approaches, where ultrasonic vibration assists melt ejection and droplet breakup.

The purpose of these additions was not to promote any particular modern company, but to make the article technically clearer. In my view, they help explain how ultrasonic atomization of metals developed from early laboratory observations into more practical high-temperature metal-processing systems. They also show that the key historical issue is not only which organization filed a patent or commercialized a device, but also which engineering problems had to be solved: melt delivery, sonotrode durability, melt-sonotrode interaction, transducer protection, resonance stability and thermal isolation.

In this context, the statement that “3D Lab sp. z o.o. was the first company to file an application with the Polish Patent Office for patent protection for a device called the ultrasonic atomiser” is not entirely clear to me. The article already refers to several earlier patent disclosures relevant to ultrasonic atomization of metals, and the search report published by the Polish Patent Office for application P.425803 itself identified three documents classified as “Y”, meaning documents of particular relevance where the claimed invention may lack inventive step if combined with one or more such documents in a way obvious to a person skilled in the art. This does not necessarily preclude mentioning the Polish patent application as part of the chronology, but it suggests that the issue should be framed cautiously. At most, the application may support a limited bibliographic statement about year of submission, rather than a broader implication of technological priority or originality.

At the same time, I would like to clarify the reason for the December removals. In December, I removed material that had been reintroduced on 19 August, after having previously been removed on 10 August with detailed edit summaries. Those 10 August removals were not unexplained deletions; they were accompanied by specific concerns regarding verifiability, source quality and the interpretation of cited sources. In my view, these concerns had not been sufficiently addressed when substantially similar material was restored on 19 August. For that reason, the December edit was intended to avoid reintroducing content whose sourcing and interpretation remained questionable.

For example, in the edit made on 10 August 2025 at 17:48, the following edit summary was provided:

The indicated paragraph has been removed as it constitutes primarily marketing-oriented content rather than a scientifically substantiated contribution. It lacks additional scholarly references beyond those already present in the text, and the cited patent is presented in a questionable manner, notably by not preserving the original order of the inventors’ names. Furthermore, factual statements, such as “At the time of the grant’s approval [...]”, are not supported by any verifiable sources.

A related issue concerned the scope of the “Diamentowy grant”. In the edit made on 10 August 2025 at 18:30, the following edit summary was provided:

“The paragraph does not contain scientific information, and the remaining statements lack proper references. In the ‘talk’ section, the editor indicated ‘The research scope of the Diamond Grant agreement was extended by Annex No. 1 of 16 July 2020’, yet no corresponding citation was included in the text.”

This point was later effectively acknowledged in the edit of 19 August 2025 at 10:54, where the edit summary stated:

“The previous version gave the misleading impression that ultrasonic atomization research began with the 2017 ‘Diamentowy grant.’ The official source from the Warsaw University of Technology clearly states that the grant concerned bulk metallic glasses only. The extension in 2020 did include ultrasonic atomization, but since that annex is not publicly available it has been removed from the article. To stay accurate and verifiable, the grant is now presented only in its documented scope.”

In my view, this confirms that the unpublished annex cannot be used as a basis for article content. If a document is not publicly available, readers cannot verify it, and it should not be used to support a historical claim in the article. This approach also appears to have been accepted in the edit of 19 August 2025 at 10:54, where the statement concerning the 2020 extension was removed on the basis that the annex is not publicly available.

It is also worth noting that the cited publication in the article, doi:10.1016/j.addma.2023.103775, indicates in its funding section that it was financed under the “Diamentowy Grant” 0213/DIA/2017/46. The article concerns laser powder bed fusion of zirconium-based bulk metallic glasses and also refers to ultrasonic atomization in the context of powder preparation. This shows that the topics of metallic glasses and ultrasonic atomization became connected within the subsequent research work.

A further concern relates to statements about processing high-melting-point materials and the way in which the cited sources were used to support them.

In the edit made on 10 August 2025 at 18:16, the following edit summary was provided:

“The following paragraph has also been removed as it is primarily marketing-oriented rather than scientifically substantiated, and contains questionable use of a cited documents: ‘ATO Lab Plus allowed the processing of high-melting-point materials (up to 3400°C [...]’ - doi:10.3390/met11111723: Mo-20Si-52.8-Ti alloy was studies which melting point is not close to 3400°C – reference: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2024.116341”

This concern is important because a claim about processing materials “up to 3400 °C” is a strong technical statement. It should not be supported by a paper concerning an alloy whose melting point is not close to that value. If the cited scientific article concerns Mo-20Si-52.8-Ti, then it may support a statement about the atomization or processing of that specific alloy, but it does not by itself verify a general capability up to approximately 3400 °C. Presenting it in that way risks overstating what the source actually demonstrates.

In the edit made on 19 August 2025 at 11:31, the following edit summary was provided:

“The revised text omits the ‘3400 °C’ reference to avoid confusion with alloys of lower melting points. Instead, a documented case study on niobium atomization, reported in several feedstock forms, illustrates the system’s ability to process refractory metals. Tantalum (99%) is also listed among processed materials on the manufacturer’s website. Manufacturer documentation specifies capability up to ~3400 °C (tungsten), while the niobium case study provides peer-reviewed confirmation.”

However, this still raises a source-quality problem. The revised wording appears to rely partly on manufacturer documentation and a manufacturer website for claims about processed materials and system capability. Such sources may be acceptable only for very limited, attributed statements about what a manufacturer claims about its own product. They are not suitable as the main basis for broad technical claims in an encyclopaedic article, especially where the statement concerns processing capability, refractory metals or maximum operating temperature.

The reference to a “niobium case study” also requires caution. The cited source, “Producing spherical Niobium metal powder and High-Entropy Alloys with Ultrasonic Atomization”, published on metalatomizer.com and retrieved on 19 August 2025, appears to be a manufacturer report rather than a peer-reviewed scientific article. It should therefore not be described as “peer-reviewed confirmation” unless it was actually published in a peer-reviewed venue. Moreover, if the source only presents limited evidence, such as optical microscopy images, and does not provide a full scientific characterization of the powder, including chemical composition or contamination analysis, it cannot support broader claims about verified processing of niobium in the same way that a peer-reviewed materials-science publication could.

The article should therefore distinguish between three different types of statements: first, a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating atomization of a specific alloy; second, a manufacturer’s claim that a system can process certain refractory materials or operate up to a stated temperature; and third, independently verified scientific evidence of such processing capability. These are not interchangeable. A claim about processing high-melting-point materials up to approximately 3400 °C should be included only if directly supported by a reliable independent source. Otherwise, the wording should be limited and attributed, for example by stating that the manufacturer claims such capability, if that is considered relevant and proportionate at all.

In my view, this is another example of why the disputed material should not be restored without careful revision. The issue is not whether refractory-metal atomization can be discussed, but whether the article accurately reflects what each source actually supports.

A similar problem concerns the statement about producing highly spherical metal powders with low oxygen content. In the edit made on 10 August 2025 at 18:19, the following edit summary was provided: “The sentence is from deleted paragraph which contained questionable use of a cited documents - ‘The process enabled the production of highly spherical metal powders with low oxygen content’ doi:10.3390/ma15144938: in this article gas atomization and ultrasonic atomization were compared - results shown in table 4 indicates that ‘3D Lab—ATO System Wire→UA Powder’ has higher oxygen content than ‘Carpenter—LPW CT Powder Range 316L F’.” This is a source-use problem. If the cited article compares gas-atomized and ultrasonically atomized powders, and Table 4 reports a higher oxygen value for “3D Lab, ATO System Wire to UA Powder” than for “Carpenter, LPW CT Powder Range 316L F”, then the source should not be used to support a broad statement that the process enabled powders with “low oxygen content”. At most, the source may support a more limited and carefully worded comparison of the specific powders tested in that study. The later edit made on 19 August 2025 at 11:09 stated: “The critique of doi:10.3390/ma15144938 misinterprets Table 4: oxygen differences (~0.002 wt.%) are within EDS error and statistically irrelevant. Schönrath et al. (doi:10.1007/s40964-024-00668-z) also note EDS is unreliable for light elements.” However, this response does not resolve the problem. If EDS is unreliable for oxygen or if the reported oxygen differences are within measurement error, then the cited data should not be used to support either direction of a strong claim. In other words, the unreliability of EDS for light elements may be a valid reason not to conclude that one powder has meaningfully higher oxygen content than another, but it is also a reason not to claim, on the basis of the same data, that the process produced powders with “low oxygen content”.

For that reason, the article should avoid the phrase “low oxygen content” unless it is supported by an appropriate analytical method and a reliable source that directly establishes that conclusion. This is similar to the issue discussed above in relation to the statement that gas atomization is less suitable for reactive materials. The atomization mechanism alone does not determine the oxygen content of the resulting powder. Oxygen content may depend on several process-related factors, including the developed surface area of the droplets or particles, the melting route, the atmosphere used during melting and atomization, the feedstock condition and the degree of exposure to oxygen during handling. For example, vacuum induction gas atomization and inert gas atomization are both forms of gas atomization, yet they may lead to different oxygen levels depending on the atmosphere, melting practice and material being processed. Therefore, it would be too broad to attribute “low oxygen content” to ultrasonic atomization as such without a source that specifically demonstrates this relationship under controlled and properly measured conditions.

There are also two further issues with the wording introduced in the edit made on 28 April 2026 at 11:17.

First, the statement:

“Before 2016, ultrasonic atomization of metals remained largely experimental, hindered by sonotrode erosion, process instability, and difficulties in producing spherical powders.”

does not appear to be adequately supported by the cited chronology. In particular, the cited literature includes the 2011 publication titled “Production of SAC305 powder by ultrasonic atomization”. Since this publication predates 2016 and already concerns the production of metal powder by ultrasonic atomization, the phrase “Before 2016” requires a much more precise source. Without such a source, the statement risks creating an artificial chronological boundary that is not supported by the cited literature. If the intended point is that some aspects of ultrasonic atomization of metals were still technically challenging before later developments, this should be stated more cautiously and with reference to the specific limitations described in the relevant sources, rather than by implying that practical metal powder production was not demonstrated before 2016.

Second, the statement:

“However, gas atomization also had limitations for metal additive manufacturing: powders often contained satellite particles and gas porosity, showed broad particle size distributions with a significant coarse fraction, and were less suitable for reactive alloys such as titanium, which required crucible-free techniques such as Electrode Induction Melting Gas Atomization (EIGA).”

is technically problematic. It appears to conflate the atomization method with the melting route. EIGA is itself a form of gas atomization, using electrode induction melting as the melting approach. Therefore, it is not coherent to state that gas atomization is less suitable for reactive alloys and then present Electrode Induction Melting Gas Atomization as the solution, without making this distinction clear. Gas atomization is not inherently unsuitable for reactive alloys because of the atomization mechanism itself. The relevant distinction is not simply “gas atomization versus reactive alloys”, but rather the choice of melting and feedstock handling route within atomization systems. This is analogous to ultrasonic atomization, where different melting approaches, such as induction melting, plasma melting or other external heat sources, may be selected depending on material properties, including melting point and reactivity.

This issue had already been identified in the edit made on 10 August 2025 at 17:36, where the following edit summary was provided:

“The removed section of the article contains several factual inaccuracies and misleading references: ‘However, this method required extensive feedstock preparation and was less suitable for reactive alloys [17].’ – please refer to cited book and chapter ‘Atomization and Granulation’ where you can find that gas atomization is used for magnesium, titanium, beryllium and other reactive materials (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/gas-atomization).”

In my view, the same concern remains relevant here. If a source states that particular gas atomization configurations have limitations, that should not be generalized into a statement that gas atomization as such is unsuitable for reactive alloys. The article should instead distinguish between powder quality issues, such as satellites, gas porosity or particle-size distribution, and the separate question of how the material is melted and delivered to the atomization zone.

A more cautious formulation would be:

“Conventional gas atomization may present challenges for some additive-manufacturing applications, including satellite formation, gas entrapment and broad particle-size distributions. For reactive or high-melting-point alloys, specialized melting and feedstock-delivery routes, including crucible-free approaches such as EIGA, may be used to reduce contamination and improve process suitability.”

This wording would avoid the misleading implication that EIGA is an alternative to gas atomization, while still acknowledging the technical limitations that may be relevant to additive manufacturing powders.

The related chronological issue was also raised earlier in the edit made on 10 August 2025 at 17:32, where the following edit summary was provided:

“The removed section of the article contains several factual inaccuracies. Please confirm the accuracy of this date or provide the relevant supporting document, as referencing it in the context of the statement ‘Prior to 2015 […]’ may be inappropriate if the patent postdates the period being described. The limitations of the technology is mentioned in the previous paragraph: ‘They discussed its potential technical applications as well as limitations stating that […]’.”

This is relevant to the present wording because broad chronological statements such as “Before 2016” should not be introduced unless the date is directly supported by the cited source. Otherwise, the article may suggest a historical turning point that is not actually documented. This is particularly important because the December revision added material from the early 2000s and earlier patent literature precisely to show continuity between the first reported metal atomization experiments and more recent developments. A statement such as “Before 2016” risks obscuring that continuity unless it is carefully sourced and limited to a specific important technical point.

In light of the above concerns about source quality, verifiability and technical accuracy, I would also appreciate your comment on how the edits made on 10 April 2025 at 16:34 and 10 April 2025 at 16:36 contributed to the development of the article’s technical and scientific content.

The edit made on 10 April 2025 at 16:34 substantially changed the original wording of the accepted draft of the new Wikipedia article, which had been assessed as C-class:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultrasonic_atomization&diff=prev&oldid=1284930833

The edit made on 10 April 2025 at 16:36 concerned the removal of the graphic illustrating the ultrasonic atomization of water, which was taken from the cited publication doi:10.1016/j.addma.2024.104033:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultrasonic_atomization&diff=prev&oldid=1284931105

In my view, these changes should also be considered in the present discussion because they affected the article’s structure, technical explanation and sourcing. In particular, I would be grateful for clarification on how removing references to peer-reviewed scientific publications from established journals, including journals indexed in the Web of Science Master Journal List, as well as removing a technical illustration taken from a cited peer-reviewed publication, improved the article’s encyclopaedic quality, technical accuracy and compliance with reliable-source expectations.

I would also note that the statement that “Substantial content about 3D Lab / ATO has been removed in bulk, leaving the modern narrative largely focused on AMAZEMET” should be considered together with the actual edit history. In my view, the issue is not the removal of neutral information about a specific entity, but rather the removal of wording that repeatedly linked the article’s technical narrative to specific commercial entities or devices. Some of the disputed edits appear to have moved the text away from neutral, descriptive terminology and toward company-specific framing, including changes that replaced the neutral caption “State of the art metal ultrasonic atomizer” with a commercial device name, “rePOWDER metal ultrasonic atomizer”. My removals were intended to keep the article focused on the technology and its technical development, rather than on any organization.

To be clear, I am not opposing a short, neutral and properly sourced mention of modern commercial implementations where this is supported by reliable sources. My concern is that any such addition should be integrated into the broader technical chronology of ultrasonic atomization of metals, and should avoid unsupported technical claims, manufacturer-based performance statements or wording that goes beyond what the cited sources can verify.

If you consider that the article should be expanded further, I would be happy to discuss concrete wording and sources. However, in light of the repeated concerns described above, I think any future additions should be reviewed particularly carefully.

I hope this helps clarify the reasons for my previous edits and the sourcing concerns that, in my view, still need to be addressed. Alicja Głaszczka (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the RfC template because the requirements to start an RfC were not met, as there hasn't been prior discussion about the issue. If the other editor reverts without communication, please follow the Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss essay's guidance. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)