In general: it's no surprise that there is a general bias towards higher-frequency sensitivities in animals. That's why we often have to measure (and speak) in terms of ultrasound when it comes to animals. A general rule of thumb holds that for mammals, frequency is inversely-proportional to size. 

In a previous post, we wrote about how realistic laboratory vibration criteria for sensitive tools like electron microscopes could be developed from data relating performance to vibration level. Having real data is important for both customers and consultants, since non-physical criteria aren’t helpful to anyone. In this post, we discuss where a useful criterion might fall on that curve.

Many laboratory instruments are exquisitely sensitive to “energetic contaminants” like vibration, noise, and electromagnetic interference. It’s not always easy reading and interpreting these criteria; they’re sometimes confusing even to vibration consultants. But to be honest, it’s not easy developing them, either. So, where do these criteria come from, and what do they mean?