Talk:Ultrasonic atomization

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 29 December 2024 by reviewer Kovcszaln6 (talk · contribs).

Method engineering (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Method engineering, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Method engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Method engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Method engineeringMethod engineering

Science

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The development of ultrasonic metal atomisers has been misattributed

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)[1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request for Comment: Representation of modern development

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]