Talk:Megasonic cleaning

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Acoustics Taskforce.

Merge with "ultrasonic cleaning"?[edit]

The article is very short and is written mainly in comparison with Ultrasonic cleaning, which has a much more complete article already. It does sound like there is some distinction between megasonic cleaning and "typical" ultrasonic cleaning (the ultrasonic article explicitly mentions typical frequency ranges in the opening paragraph). So rather than removing the article entirely, I guess a subsection could be added that explains what the point is in using higher frequency sound.

It's worth noting that I read the first citation, and it seems like a chunk of content is lifted directly from the linked article (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9781437778854100028). So I wondered whether there was anything worth copying at all. I found two things by reading it that sounded useful:

1. "cavitation that occurs is gentler and on a much smaller scale" and this is important for cleaning electronics 2. "the acoustic wave is found only in a line of sight from the transducer surface" and this means the cleaner has to be structured differently

Point 2 is technical and I don't see why it would be true. Or at least I don't see why there would be a step change between <1MHz and >1MHz rather than the wave becoming continuously more focussed as the frequency increases. But I'm not an acoustics person so I'm not really sure about the details. Danielittlewood (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From a quick look while there are similarities, the frequencies used are significantly higher so I think it belongs by itself. It could be improved, for instance there are newer pubs such as DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2021.105859, and papers that cite it such as 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101518 and 10.1016/B978-0-12-815577-6.00001-3 . I would certainly suggest some improvements, the refs are quite old, a lot of the statements are unsourced and it could do with a Figure to help readers understand (WP:Readers first).

N.B., @Danielittlewood I think you did the right thing by posting it to WT:Physics -- you might want to post to Electrical engineering. It would be good to get input from someone in the semiconductor industry, which I am not.

Ldm1954 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]