add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
While not an overly big deal, any driver knows that
windshield wipers can be a pita. It can be drizzling out
enough to effect vision but not actually "raining" and the
wipers will make an annoying squeek. When wipers are
reaching the end of their useful life, it is always made
apparent by their
decreasing efficacy (and usually streaks
left behind). When it's obvious theyre no longer effective,
it means another trip to the local Autozone; which as
mentioned is another merely minor inconvenience. But
nonetheless, I think it could be easier.
Ultrasonic transducers vaporize most, if not all, liquids
they come into contact with, because the liquid medium
"tries" to follow the rapidly moving sound waves and
vaporizes instead. Mount a somewhat powerful stationary
transducer (even very powerful transducers do not consume
much energy, fyi) somewhere on the windshield, and I
figure you could instantly vaporize any rain, snow, etc that
would come into contact with it. Youd probably still need
a backup wiper for snow, some instances of dirt, etc. But
overal, this would certainly be a simpler, cheaper,
probably more effective alternative to the archaic
sweeping wiper. Also, ultrasonic transducers are used as
cleaning devices by literally vibrating dust and dirt
particulates off of a surface and into a liquid. Thus,
except for cases of major vision impairment from dirt
(getting mud all over a windshield from offroading for
example), I feel that this would still retain the ability to
remove dirt and etc. Thus, this device would retain nearly
all functionality of a wiper while eliminating all of the
inconveniences of wiper maintenence.
Note: the ultrasonic functioning is not limited to a
stationary transducer and could also be applied to existing
wiper blades to aid in ice, rain, dirt removal and etc to
improve functioning and increase longevity.
First link on Google for "Ultrasonic windshield wiper"
http://www.google.com/patents/US4768256 Doesn't atomize, rather produces directional frictional motivation. [Freefall, Jun 04 2012]
In the oven at McLaren
http://editorial.au...und?icid=autos_5092 Sorry about the link, but the source article at thesundaytimes.co.uk crashes. [scad mientist, Dec 16 2013]
[link]
|
|
Clarification query: would this set up the ultrasonic
frequency within the windshield glass itself, or overlay it
somehow? I can envision problems with the former. |
|
|
I'm afraid ultrasonic would be far too slow, and would simply evaporate the liquid while leaving the solids behind. |
|
|
Howabout a constant high-pressure stream like those 'airblade' dryers? |
|
|
[RayfordSteele] I'm not so sure about that; one of the drawbacks of ultrasonic humidifiers vs steam is that the steam ones leave solid particulates behind (albeit crusting up the unit) while the water evaporates, whereas with ultrasonic units, the solid particulates vaporize along with the water; thus creating potential health risks. |
|
|
The high pressure stream you mentioned was actually a feature on the prototype/pre-production version of the 2004 Acura TL. Somehow never made it to production. |
|
|
[Alterother], I was indeed thinking overlay. Since glass is very rigid and has good acoustic properties, placing a powerful enough transducer in contact with the rear of the windshield (inside the vehicle; say, mounted right in front of the rear view miror out of sight) would distribute the waves evenly across. |
|
|
It's a good idea, but I would be concerned about harmonic
build-up at the corners and loosening of the seals around
the glass. This is just my gut thinking; I don't know much
about the technical details of this sort of thing. It's just
that the structural fabricator in me always starts pondering
over stress points and material integrity. |
|
|
Didn't Bond James Bond use an ultrasonic window-
cleaning ring in The World Is Not Another Day? I
seem to remember it cracked the glass, though. |
|
|
If the glass were sufficiently heated - to 150 C - by embedded elements, the rain would just flash off as steam; and as rain has (in theory) no dissolved solids, there should be no residue. |
|
|
...and it would be quite hot inside the cabin of the vehicle,
and anyone accidentally touching either side of the
windshield would receive virtually instant 2nd-degree
burns, and... |
|
|
BTW, [acura]: sp. Ultrasonic, in the title. Just noticed it. |
|
|
//rain has (in theory) no dissolved solids// |
|
|
Rain is generally pretty filthy stuff. By the time it
reaches your windscreenshield, it has hoovered up
all the dirt and pollen from a raindrop-diameter
column of air several thousand feet high. |
|
|
[8th of 7] Yes, but the power draw would be akin to
that of a windshield-sized stovetop. |
|
|
One of the benefits of this is that even a powerful
enough transducer for this type of application
would draw require
very little energy; probably even a little bit less
than most wiper motors. |
|
|
Ultrasonic atomization. It is in essence a way to
vaporize liquids without the need to undergo an
endothermic phase change (though tiny cavitations
within the
liquid can reach thousands of degrees C and have
been researched for possible nuclear fusion
purposes, but I digress). To be more clear, there is
no required heat input whatsoever. |
|
|
My "magical vaporization" device would draw, as
mentioned, only the required energy to produce a
high-frequency sound wave with large enough
amplitude. |
|
|
I'd be happier to see something that kept bugs off my
windscreen. I'm sick of peering through dried
grasshopper guts. |
|
|
Better to eliminate the windshield altogether and replace it with a sideways-flowing hypersonic Laminar-flow air sheet? Wipers not needed. |
|
|
Fine until the semi trailer in front of you sheds a retread
and machete-sized chunks of steel-belted radial come
flying through your laminar air sheet. I'll stick with a solid
barrier, thank you. |
|
|
That hypersonic air sheet is nice until you decide to point at something and lose a hand. |
|
|
...or when the vehicle is off and it's raining outside/snowing/a bird decides to let loose/etc. |
|
|
So I think we're agreed that this is a good idea, but not
good enough to do away with the glass entirely. |
|
|
I suspect you wouldn't even need the ultrasonics to go so far as to vaporize the water. The vibration should reduce droplet adhesion, allowing it to flow off more readily. (I think, maybe, possibly, kind of.) |
|
|
The alternative is that it increases wetting by breaking the surface tension, but even then a uniformly wet window is easier to see through than droplets. |
|
|
I use Aquapel on our windshields. Over 60 mph wipers are
not necessary and below that not much either. One
application lasts for about 6 months to a year. The only
catch is that you have to clean the windshield very
thoroughly before you apply it. |
|
|
Sometimes it's a little tricky to get retail; I don't know
why. |
|
|
I did manage to get all the way from Bristol to Bath just by stopping and clearing off the windscreen with towel (Ford Sierra, everything broke at least once). |
|
|
What's really needed is a two layer graphene windscreen, with a variable gap, narrower in the middle, and a heat source. |
|
|
Heat the windscreen(s) to about 2000 degrees and get a thrust inducing ramjet effect at just above walking speed*. |
|
|
Rain on the windscreen becomes a thing of the past, along with colliding insects, pigeons, small children, parking tickets et al and matching asbestos driving gloves and steering wheels would be all the rage. <start trying to source on Ali Baba> |
|
|
*Assuming you can walk very quickly, that is. |
|
|
Thanks [lee_rimar]. I was trying to dredge up the memory
of which AC Clarke story had that bit in it. |
|
| |