Sourcing Manufacturing from China

You have not seen a waterjet run or applied correctly.

As far as pollution. Have you every worked near ultra sonic cutter. Noise is a pollution also.

p911

It is easier to control noise pollution than it is to remove the pollutants from the air or water. Also, noise pollution is localized within the plant or can be controlled at the source through fairly inexpensive equipment or sound absorbing walls. Air pollutants will be vented to the community through the buildings air vents and doors. The metals in water contaminate the community's drinking water. Air and water pollutants cause cancer, birth defects, and other problems for the community and workers. Noise pollution generally only harms the workers through hearing loss. Hearing loss has a smaller risk factor since death isn't an end result. As for cost, PPE is much less expensive than purchasing and operating the appropriate pollution control systems for air and water.

The ultrasonic systems that I have seen in use were surrounded by a noise absorbing barrier to protect the workers. The levels were well below the threshold for PPE requirements in the US (OSHA regulations).

The last plasma cutter that I visited had indoor air quality problems and vented the fumes into the community to help reduce the problem. The water cutting operations at the facilities I have helped had large wastewater pretreatment systems to meet the discharge requirements for the municipal wastewater treatment plants.

Dollar for dollar, noise is a better pollutant to deal with than air or water pollutants.

Your quite a proponent for ultrasonics..............do you really think ultrasonics is the best choice for this, with the information given.

I too have experience with ultrasonics for practical uses. The material instead of cutting may absorb the energy instead.

As far as listed the best procedure, Its good to give some options, but to eliminate options it on the basis of contamination without considering the pros/cons is not wise.

As far as contamination such as what the waterjet produces, we had the waste material tested for heavy metals to see if it could go into a landfill. It passed.

But is it the best choice? No, not for me to decide.

But you do have a right to your opinion and choices.

p911

ps, I looked at your profile and understand your take on the matter........interesting. do you realize the pollution that is emitted doing layups of fiberglass for the?

Will that stop you from kayaking?

First, I wasn't trying to attack your first post. I was only adding other options. For the OP, ultrasonic may work. Don't know without more info.

Second, in my position, I only provide the opportunities that are considered cleaner and safer to manufacturers. It is up to the company to determine if the technology meets all of their needs and their budget. My agency does not regulate noise, but I do have a good understanding of noise pollution and OSHA requirements. Most of the Pollution covered in the Green Manufacturing Specialist Certification I just completed was based on noise. Examples of questions I would ask your facility: Can this be done in a way that doesn't produce any wastes (air emissions are waste)? How much is your company spending to landfill or dispose of that waste? How much money is spent on wastewater treatment materials? How much energy are you using to pump for the entire process including wastewater treatment? Is that counted in the cost per unit analysis completed by your management? Do you produce enough for a metal recycler?

As for white water kayaking, you missed the emissions from my car, the Yakima factories that created my roof racks, the helmet manufacturer, pfd factory, paddle (vinyl) factory, my dry gear and neoprene gear, and don't forget the fast food companies while on those trips. I do fully understand it. I wish I had the opportunity to make kayak manufacturing more sustainable, but the manufacturers are in other states. I do think it is better than having a 20ft speed boat with a 350 inboard pulled behind a truck with a big V-8. Not everything in life can be "Green". Sometimes there are better alternatives that meet our individual needs and sometimes there are not. E.G. I carpool to almost every kayaking trip and camp in a tent without electricity. I no longer buy bottled water or canned soda. We purchase whole foods or bulk items (reduced packaging). I could assess my lifestyle and you would find that other than replacing the coal fired power plant, I have done as much as I can to reduce my footprint and nothing I do compares to the power plant.

I didn't take it as an attack only a discussion

For the water jet it costs about $150.00/month, to remove and dispose of the material from the tank, and this is with it running about 60 hours a week. Total, pumping and disposal.

The energy for the waterjet is quite extensive, 60HP intensifiers. It takes time to cut 3" material as compared to a plasma, one has to decide on the process.

Consumables such as garnet, that gets pumped, and the tooling, the ruby or diamond would last 75 - 200 hour respectively, mixing tube 50-150 hours, do not have the costs at the moment.

I had designed using ultrasonics to cut food stuffs, other than that it was used for welding plastic such as seams on baby diapers.

BTW I'm from Wisconsin

You also pointed out some things that most posters forget about green manufacturing, and thats the carbon footprint it take to put the infrastructure in.

I have done as much as I can to reduce my footprint and nothing I do compares to the power plant.

Its the numbers that one has to look at, individual no, population as a whole, big effect.

p911

Great discussion! Have you thought about starting a thread on differenct cutting technologies, costs, wastes, pros and cons? I most certainly would be interested especially with your plant as an example.

have to see what past discussions on CR4 is first.