@antinn
Thanks Neil !
Thanks Neil !
Thumbs up for ultrasonic record cleaning
My Cleaner Vinyl ultrasonic record cleaner arrived today and it’s impressive.
Everything I’d read indicated that ultrasonic was the way to go, and now I count myself among the believers. Everything is better - records are quieter, less ticks and pops, more detail etc.
All my records had been previously cleaned with a vacuum record cleaner and were well cared for. Nonetheless, the difference is obvious and overwhelmingly positive.
Phil
Everything I’d read indicated that ultrasonic was the way to go, and now I count myself among the believers. Everything is better - records are quieter, less ticks and pops, more detail etc.
All my records had been previously cleaned with a vacuum record cleaner and were well cared for. Nonetheless, the difference is obvious and overwhelmingly positive.
Phil
373 responses Add your response
@terry9, @slaw Something new to try with the Kinetronics Tiger Cloth if using to wipe down a record prior to play - ever so slightly dampen the cloth with an ultra-fine atomized mist of demineralized/distilled water. I am using Nasacort (one spray/day) https://www.nasacort.com/for-adult-allergies/?&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=NSC_Nasacort_BR%7CExact_PRD_EN%7CUS_PP_USA%7CALL_Base_AWN_12-06-2019%7C12-31-2020&utm_term=nasacort+nasal+spray&utm_content=Nasal%20Spray, this year to prevent any allergies (sneezing in public these days could putting it nicely cause other people concern). However, the bottle is reusable. Each spray release 0.14 ml of water, and that is equal to about 2-drops. I am now using an empty bottle refilled with distilled water (flushed 3-times to clean-out), and before I wipe down a record before play, I hold the cloth 8-12 inches above the bottle and hit it with one spray. About half gets on my hand (hand feels initially wet - but dries almost instantly, its actually evaporative cooling), and half (equal to about one drop) gets on the cloth. The spray is an ultra-fine mist so that the cloth does not get wet, but only ever so slightly damp - just enough to improve pick-up of dust and improve static discharge from the record because when the cloth becomes ever so slightly damp - it improves its electrostatic discharge (ESD) properties. In the application, the record never gets wet, and the amount of moisture applied to the cloth surface (folded piece about 6-9 sq inches) is minimal so that by the time you use it for the next record - its dry, and being only distilled water - there is no cleanliness concerns. There are perfume bottles for sale (search Amazon) that advertise having a ultra-fine mist - I have no idea if they will work the same. I worked with what I had - and it cost me nothing. The real test will be this winter when the ambient humidity is much lower, but for now its working and there is some science behind it. Good Luck & Stay Well, Neil |
@slaw, You must be out of the USA, otherwise the Kinetronics Tiger Cloth is about $12 with shipping; https://www.amazon.com/Kinetronics-Anti-Static-Microfiber-Cloth-10x18-Inch/dp/B00009R7VT |
@slaw, You should be able to wash it without losing the anti-static properties. The anti-static property is provided by copper-infused threads that are woven into the fabric. Anti-static clothing worn by clean-room workers will have carbon threads woven into the fabric and they are laundered routinely. However, the clean-room garment fabric (made by Burlington) is much lighter & stiffer than the Tiger-Cloth (I bought a piece of the fabric to experiment). Otherwise, I have not washed my Tiger Cloths in over 2-yrs. I only use them to remove dust prior to play, and for record cleaning final drying of DI water. I just shake them out to remove any accumulated dust. |
@terry9 , I cut a piece from the main cloth about 4" x 6". Otherwise, if curious the paper/manual I addressed previously is now published and you can download here: https://thevinylpress.com/precision-aqueous-cleaning-of-vinyl-records/. |
Well I'm pretty damn happy now. I realized one thing I never did at all, especially between, fluid changes was to wash out my filters. Now, I unhook from the US cleaner, put that hose into a new gallon jug of distilled, and let that run through into an empty tank. Takes under a minute. I've in my 4th week in the latest fluid change...no cloudy water, no discolored water. |
@tomic601,Jim, I use the Record Doctor Clean Sweep Brush https://www.amazon.com/Record-Doctor-Clean-Sweep-Brush/dp/B07M92LY78. The bristle diameters are not so narrow that they will deeply penetrate the groove - so there is very limited risk of record damage. And, nylon absorbs water and when it does, it softens - so again no risk to the record or bristle breakage - and nylon returns to its original properties after it dries. But, the bristle diameter is large enough to just cover the groove, so when brushing back & forth, a lot of fluid agitation/cavitation is formed in the groove and that deeply cleans the record groove and side wall ridges especially with a light foaming surfactant. And then when rinsing, the brush with just water is effective in removing all trace of cleaner for the same reason - but mostly just agitation. A similar brush is the Osage, http://www.osageaudio.com/select.htm. Neil |
@tomic601, As far as my tech manual, it took a bit of turn, and it now stands at 54 pages. The manual cleaning procedure is not very long, but I am adding a lot of details of the rationale behind various steps, cleaning agents and rinsing and I expanded it to address vacuum RCM and some discussion for ultrasonic cleaning (but not a detailed procedure), and maintenance of cleanliness with a discussion of triboelectric effect and record brushes which was a bit eye opening especially after I found a NASA study - long story short I no longer use a brush to dust, I use a piece of Kinetronics Tiger Anti-static cloth to remove (light swipe) surface dust https://www.kinetronics.com/product/anti-static-tiger-cloth/ , and use the Audioquest carbon brush only as a conductive brush - just barely touches the surface. The carbon fibers are very narrow and can penetrate deeply into the groove, but the carbon fibers while stronger than steel along the shaft, are brittle cross-wise and subject to breaking at the tips contaminating the groove. At the moment I am researching chemical material compatibility since there is a lot discussion but not a lot of real data, and there is some confusion. This is because there is so much difference between rigid-PVC such a PVC pipe, plasticized-PVC such a flexible hoses and some toys/art-works and then there is the vinyl-record which a copolymer of PVC&PVA of which there is very little evidence of containing plasticizer. So, while alcohol and detergents can extract plasticizer from plasticized PVC depending on the exposure time (I found two real test reports), the vinyl record does not appear to have any. But, I did find that isopropyl alcohol even diluted down to 5% - the vapors are flammable with a flashpoint - that was a surprise. The good thing about manual cleaning is that the record exposure time to the cleaning agents is very brief and there are no ignition hazards. But ultrasonic cleaning can leave the record exposed to cleaning solutions for extended durations and can present an ignition hazard to flammable vapors. FYI - distilled water is safe for extended durations. At this point I expect to complete my tech manual in about 30-days, then I need to find a home for it - no interest in selling/making any money - just wish to give it away as a public service. |
@slaw Woops, misread your post, 5 weeks is not bad. You may want to check the chemistry with the shake test I discussed. Also, Versa-Clean specifies that the cleaner is mildly alkaline pH 9.75. You can easily monitor the tank pH with an inexpensive pH meter such as https://www.amazon.com/Accuracy-Quality-Measurement-Brewing-Laboratory/dp/B07Y32MXHY/ref=sr_1_3?dchi... You will need to see what is the pH of a fresh tank and measure weekly to see how it drops. Some cleaners will be 'buffered' so that the pH will decrease very slowly and then drop quickly which indicates the chemistry is depleted. |
@slaw Some other thoughts, If you have been using the same tank of water for 5 months without refreshing the chemistry, the 'chemistry' of the Versa-Clean is likely long since exhausted and the tank water may be acidic. Water at room temp and just warm will absorb air and CO2 which will then lead to formation of a weak acid - carbonic acid. You may be able to check the chemistry with a simple shake test - take a sample of tank water in a clean clear container, cap, and vigorous shake for about 15-sec - how much if any foam is produced, and how much is still present after 3-5 minutes. Compare with a fresh diluted Versa-Clean. That may give you an indication of remaining chemistry. Also, the carbon filter only has so much soil/particulate holding capacity before break-through after which the influent (goes-in) is the same as the effluent (goes-out). Depending on the number of records you are cleaning, using the same bath for more than 60-90 days is a stretch at best. At worst, the cloudy condition could be the formation of bacteria. |
@slaw, The activated carbon filter 'may' remove the surfactant that is in the Versa Clean, and that 'could' be the reason for the water clarity. As far as the cloudy water, that could be the build-up/accumulation of very small (invisible) particles that are smaller than the carbon filter rating. Note that filters are rated either nominal which can pass particles as much as 5X the nominal micron rating, or absolute which will pass no particle larger than the absolute micron rating. The 80 kHz frequency is very good for removing very small invisible particulate, but not as good at removing visible crud which is better accomplished with a 40 kHz machine or a vacuum record cleaning machine or manual cleaning with a record label protector such as the VinylStack. |
I bow down to the scientists here..... Here's my update: What I've found with the carbon filter is that it works well, I don't notice yellowing anymore...( the Versa-Clean has a dark piss color to it). After 5 weeks from a water change, the water is getting cloudy. So, I wonder if the carbon filter is removing more than the yellow color? Hmmmm? Records still sound great! The Vibrato is working well. After my experience with the Audiodesk (4 years). the Chinese tank (two years), now the Vibrato.....it's lack of noise has you wondering at first if it's really cleaning. (Remember, I'm going from two different 40 khz machines to an 80 khz machine here). The answer is yes! |
@antinn, What I showed was only an example. Use of the Groove Probe is limited only by your imagination. It offers you a complete, quantitative record of the groove, including high-frequency information. You can analyze the data any way you want. Before and after cleaning would be a great way to use it. I have used it to diagnose tracking problems in monaural records. I was able to watch and trace every little spot where the needle lost contact. Monaural records are a great way to detect minute problems that you might not otherwise find. Hgh-frequency noise is a also a suitable subject for analysis. Analysis of quiet sections might be especially revealing. For example, the lead-out groove is usually not supposed to have any signal recorded on it, so any noise you detect there is either surface noise or noise in your system. The lead-in bands (or whatever they’re called) also often have some signal-free regions. What kinds of things might you analyze? You might look at the amplitude and frequency distribution before and after cleaning. If you really want to kill some time, you could look at the time structure of the noise before and after cleaning. Does it look like embedded particles or something else? Micro-clicks? Or maybe defects in the plastic? Of course, there’s probably a floor of noise that we’ll never eliminate -- even the freshly cut master had some surface roughness. And here’s a question that some people might want answered: Did US make the problem worse by damaging the plastic? Good idea about the UV light. I have a 395 nm light and a 365 nm light. The 365 nm light is especially good at revealing practically EVERYTHING. I’ll try it next time I digitize an LP. |
@rexc, Let me also expand the problem. Verifying absence of particles from the groove that can cause ticks and pops is only part of the problem. The other problem is how clean are the groove wall ridges. If these ridges that at 20 kHz can be spaced at 15 to 10 microns are filled with oil/grease/debris then while there may be no pop or tick, there will be loss of high frequency detail/resolution that maybe noted as distortion or just reduced signal as the stylus fails to fully read the record. In this case, the audio file unless it is compared to the perfect file, may not detect this type of contamination. Neil |
@rexc, I can't argue on the value of measuring the after clean audio file. However, the intent of my comment was to address pre/after cleaning inspection at the time of cleaning. However, I am now using a 365nm UV blacklight Alonefire SV003 10W 365nm UV Flashlight Portable Rechargeable Blacklight Flashlight with good results. UV blacklight can detect particulate not otherwise visible, see VPI forum, General Audio, for some photos. Neil |
@JTimothyA and Antinn Both of you have affirmed that there is no standard for measuring what is clean.I would like to draw your attention to my thread in this forum, entitled "The Groove Probe, for optimizing and evaluating record cleaning systems". There is a summary of it in the post in the first reply. While it doesn't rise to the level of a standard for evaluation, I believe it does offer a way to quantify cleaning results. I certainly would appreciate comments, either here or there. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-groove-probe-for-optimizing-and-evaluating-record-cleaning-systemshttp:// |
| Post removed |
@terry9 The Alconox Liquinox cleaner has been around for many years, and is very well doucumented. The company Alconox has a lot of data available, most of the ingredients are specified, and Liquinox is available Amazon www.amazon.com/Alconox-Liquinox-Critical-Cleaning-Detergent/dp/B003FZAQKG?th=1, $21/Qt, $67/Gal, which at 1:100 dilution makes it pretty cheap. Read the application notes here https://alconox.com/resources/standarddocuments/tb/techbull_liquinox.pdf Post rinse with these products is absolutely necessary to prevent leaving cleaning residue behind, and Liquinox recommends flowing water for rinse, and states "For critical cleaning do final or all rinsing in distilled, deionized or purified water." Note that these products (Liquinox) are not that much different from household dish detergent such as Dawn, designed to mix with tap-water, except they are fragrance-free, and the ingredient concentration is formulated more for the industrial and medical sector. My use of Tergitol 15-S-9 mixes it with DI water and uses a soft nylon record brush whose bristles do not penetrate deeply into the groove, and nylon softens when exposed to water so very limited risk of record harm. But a brushing action develops a lot of agitation, so I can get away with just a single Non-Ionic Surfactant. For ultrasonics - you have the cavitation, and this is excellent for blind holes and inaccessible surfaces, but use for records that have no inaccessible surfaces is really about efficency, except for deeply embedded partcles that may be removable with heated ultrasonics. Good Luck, R/Neil |
@antinn Not cheap - how true! But the specs looked good, formulated for plastics, and it was recommended by Fisher, so ... In any case, a better bet than Audio Snake Oil Formula 6 at $99/l. Too bad I didn't know an expert to ask before now. IIRC - If I Remember Correctly - which I may not 'hint of oil' - as in a fingerprint I was going to try soaking in 100% VersaClean for a few minutes and then trying US, but haven't got around to it. |
@terry9 The Fisherbrand™ Versa-Clean™, is a broad-base cleaner, with a combination of surfactants and corrosion inhibitors and some alkalinity, and the recommended concentration for use is not less than 60:1, but as much 10:1. The product details are pretty limited, and although it says concentrated, it is actually a diluted form of very concentrated surfactants. There is no way to know if a 2.5% solution will achieve the lowest surface tension. So, 2.5% (40:1) may not be enough, but its not cheap. And what is IIRC? When you say a hint of oil are you talking about oil as the original contaminant on the record. The Tergitol 15-S-9 that I use for a cleaning solution is very similar to what the US Library of Congress uses to clean delicate shellac records, and is a non-ionic water soluble surfactant. It is a replacement for Triton X100 that you may often see discussed in these forums, and has the same performance, but at 1/3 the concentration and is not an evironmental hazard. Tregitol 15-S-9 is very concentrated and is quite cheap, a Qt is $38.70 and at about 4ml/gal https://www.talasonline.com/Tergitol-15-S-3-and-15-S-9, would make about 250 gallons of cleaning solution. A similar product to the Fisher Versa-Clean is Liquinox, https://alconox.com/liquinox but it is likely more concentrated since it only requires 100:1, and at that concentration it will achieve a low surface tension of 29, but it is anionic and will foam. R/Neil |
@antinn So good to have a technical conversation free of snake-oil. Thanks! I was wondering about your step 1: a fresh, low concentration bath for each cleaning session. I use 80KHz near the maximum temperature for vinyl (45C), at a 2.5% solution of VersaClean, and, IIRC, a hint of oil can remain after 15 minutes, or even 30 minutes, even for the first pair in the series. This leads me to question a low concentration of surfactant. But it could just possibly be bad memory. Your views? |
@terry9 First the R/ = shorthand for Respectfully, and I noted an error in post - meant to "... the stylus does contact..." In precision cleaning, the industry standard for water is ASTM-D1193. Once we get past tap-water, ASTM-D1193 has essentially 3 classes of water, Purified (Type 4), Pure (Type 2) and Ultra-Pure (Type 1) and theses are generally specified by resistivity - ohms (or its inverse - conductivity). You can get on the web and find TDS to resistivity conversion charts, but 30 ppm TDS is equal to about 20K-ohms. Definitely way better than 200-ppm tap-water, but this is how it compares: -Purified Water (single step distilled, demineralized, RO) = >200K-ohms -Pure Water (two step distilled & demineralized) = >1,000K-ohms (1M-ohm) -Ultra-Pure Water (generally about 3-steps) = >18,000K-ohms (18M-ohms) 30 ppm water that is about 20K-ohm is fine for cleaning, but is a bit short for the final polish. The purer the water, the more aggressive it becomes believe it or not, and of course the less residue. Ultra-Pure water is used to clean semi-conductor chips, but it can takes weeks for the applicable system to clean themselves to the point that they are clean (i.e. system commissioned), and has no application here. Even Pure Water is a stretch, but Purified Water for the final touch/polish should be the goal. That being said, in the past (now retired) I have approved Navy cleaning procedures where the final polish was only 50K-ohm, and it was acceptable, but the particulate cleanliness was not critical, anything less than visual was not a problem. But very small particulate and salts/mineral residue is an issue here, so, my recommendation for the final polish would be Purified Water (distilled or demineralized) to get the best results. R/Neil |
@antinn Hello R/Neil. Thank you for the long response. Much appreciated. My filtration system gets me down to 30ppm of dissolved solids. I use that for rinsing before the distilled bath. Two questions: 1) Is 30ppm low enough to use for cleaning? (have been using distilled) 2) Is 30ppm low enough for polish? Thanks!! |
@terry9: This is going to be a long thread, but the devil is in details. The fundamental challenge with cleaning records, is that we are trying to achieve a cleanliness level better than what we can see. Right now, the record UT vendors are using post cleaning microscopic inspection to determine the process parameters. For critical application precision cleaning cleanliness is defined by two parameters - non-volatile residue (NVR) which relates to oils/grease and the like, and particles. For cleanliness levels that are below visible, very high purity fluids are used to flush for final clean/verification of the surface to determine residual NVR that an be determined by a number of different methods sensitive down to about 1 mg/ft^2, and for particulate cleanliness. A particle count is used and measurements to 1 micron are common. Unfortunately, none of this is practical ($$$$$) for a record. Additionally, the groove design and that fact that the stylus does contact the entire groove surface makes it difficult to determine what is the minimum cleanliness level required, some particulate may be inconsequential depending where it is. But, your process of reviewing post cleaning effluent is often used. You establish minimum process requirements such as chemistry, equipment, temperature and time and then observe the effluent at the end to determine if the process has removed all the contaminants it can. Although the eye cannot see individual particles much less than 50 microns, in clear water, very small particulate can often be detected as a bloom/turbidity - very small particles act as colloidal suspensions and can conglomerate into larger particles that can then be detected. When you try to make the process cost effective, a whole other level of challenge arises. If you are going to push the bath chemistry, it has to be the right chemistry that will suspend the contaminants to prevent redisposition with enough concentration to get repeatable cleaning performance - the last records in the bath are cleaned as well as the first, and the first records are rinsed or cleaner just as well as the last. In another post on UT tank cleaning, I wrote something similar to the following, that I have slightly modified by adding a cleanliness verification step: If you are using UT to clean a lot of record, consider using a demineralizer, and this is the best value I have found, https://dirinse.com/product/d-i-rinse-pro-50-unit/. If your tap water is of reasonable quality, it can produce about 2000 gallons of demineralizer water at a cost of $0.20/gallon, and it can be refilled ($200 for 2 refills), and the valve arrangement can make a very coinvent install. If you have a source of readily available cheap DI water, then you don't need to worry about bath life or filters/pumps etc to extend the bath life. And, you could easily add an effective rinse/cleanliness verification step as follow: Step 1. Clean records in UT tank with aqueous chemistry. You do not need to use a lot of cleaner since you will only be using one tank-bath for each batch of record. This way you can baseline that every record batch will be exposed to the exact same chemistry. Step 2. Drain UT tank to household waste drain. While draining use just warm tap-water to flush over records for first rinse. This will remove most cleaner residue and loosen contamination. Step 3. Refill UT tank with only DI water and using ultrasonic, perform rinse/final clean to remove mostly any remaining very fine particulate. Hopefully the chemistry in Step 1 removes all surface oils and greases that may trap/cover fine particulate, so that only DI water is required to do the final polish. If you want to do a cleanliness verification - at the conclusion of Step 3, obtain about a 100 mL sample of the UT DI water in a clean clear container. Cap, shake and verify no stable bubbles - this will verify the cleaner has been removed. To check for particulate, place a piece of white paper behind the container and inspect for visible particulate or turbidity. You should not see any visible particulate and unless very turbid (and this will take some experience), at this point the process has done all it can do. If the sample is very turbid, reclean. Note - if you are constantly having to reclean, then Step 1 needs to be adjusted - it may be the chemistry, the chemistry concentration, the bath temperature, exposure time, record loading, or the tank Hz and watts. But an occasional (not frequent) reclean is generally indicative of a pretty efficient process. If you never have to reclean, chances are you doing more than 'required', but that is not necessarily bad. Step 4. Remove records to dry.; or if cleaning records again proceed to Step 5. Step 5. If cleaning another batch of records, or cleaning the same records again, just add cleaner to the existing DI bath and begin at Step 1. This reduces the amount of DI water used. Quick analysis with a 1.5 gal UT tank volume. The demineralizer should provide enough for 1333 tanks, and assuming you are cleaning 3 records/batch, that is 4000 records. The initial cost is $0.30/tank for DI water, and for the Tergitol 15-S-9 at 6 ml/tank, is ~$0.28/tank for at total of $0.58/tank or about $0.20/record. After the first 1333 records, the DI water cost drops to $0.07/tank, so the total per tank cost drops to $0.35/tank, and the per record cost drops to ~$0.12/record based on the assumptions of this analysis. Clean 6 records per batch, and the per record cost adjusts proportionally, down to as low as ~0.06/record. This is just a quick analysis. Like I said, you are still in the experimentation phase. Good Luck R/Neil |
@antinn Thanks for your expert contribution. @jtimothya What I do to gauge results is clean 50 records to the lower standard, allow chemistry to settle overnight, drain drop by drop, and note (e.g. photograph) the solids deposited on the bottom of the tank. Then I change chemistry, retaining a sample of the old, and clean the same 50 records according to the higher standard. After letting the chemistry settle overnight and draining drop by drop, I compare the solids deposited on the bottom of the tank to the photo, and compare a sample of the newest chemistry to the old. The comparison is therefore of the lower standard to the increment of lower standard plus higher standard, which is approximately (in my experience) the higher standard. Not precise, granted, but good enough for hobby work. Although I welcome R/Neil’s comment and correction. |
@jtimothya, Energy supplied to the transducers is actually very close to the energy in the tank, since thin stainless steel is essentially transparent to ultrasonic energy. If the plastic is easily deformable such as a PVC record, unlike thicker metal, then plastic will absorb energy which will be cause an increase in PVC record temperature, increase in the bath temperature from UT notwithstanding. Overloading for metals used for UT tank cleaning has been a topic of conversation and analysis for some time with fixturing and spacing applied to achieve acceptable results. But for metals (and some non-metallic) cleanliness verification has been in use for decades. For critical applications such as high pressure oxygen were surface contamination levels as low as 5 mg/ft^2 and particles as small as 50 microns (if accelerated by flow) can lead to a fire (that looks like an explosion) NASA and the Navy have very detailed cleanliness verification methods using very specific chemistries and analysis methods - you may find this report of some casual interest - https://p2infohouse.org/ref/14/13872.pdf; I wrote it. I developed the cleaning and verification procedures and I share the patents for Navy Oxygen Cleaner, the details are now formally documented MIL-STD-1330/1622; so I do have 'some' knowledge in this area. However, use of UT to clean PVC records is a relatively new application. But, in the case of PVC records that have a very defined geometry and surface area, overloading can be analyzer by number of records per tank and per watts. But, this can be complicated by UT transducer location - side of tank or bottom. If side of tank, will record(s) in the center of the stack see the same cavitation energy? The record grove is pretty well defined reported as a V-shaped groove that is 56 microns (0.0022") wide at the top, a radius of 6 microns (0.00025") at the bottom, and a nominal depth of 28 microns (0.0011"), with groove spirals are nominally 200 grooves per inch equal to a groove separation of 125 microns (0.005"). Note that since the stylus rides below the record surface, contamination on the surface of the record should have little impact unless it is deep enough to affect the surface the stylus sees, which is why some used records with very fine surface scratches (likely caused by use of multi-stack record changers) can still play perfect. The chemistry used in the UT tank can have a significant impact. The very small grooves of the record really need a cleaning agent/fluid that will reduce water surface tension to assist with wetting/getting into the groove. This is very different from smooth metal surfaces. Tergitol 15-S-9 is a gentle non-ionic surfactant and at 0.06 wt% is at its critical micelle concentration (CMC) and will reduce the surface tension of the water from 72 dynes/cm to 30 dynes/cm, and with a 13.3 hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) categorizes it as detergent. When using surfactants you target a concentration of 5-10 times the CMC to get acceptable bath life, any more and you only complicate rinsing. If you do not rinse with water (can be simple tap followed by DI water final simple spray rinse), softly adherent contamination may remain and the surfactant will bind to the PVC in an invisible transparent layer (just angstroms thick) that can affect the record sound and 'gunk' will build up on the stylus. Using any aggressive solvent based chemistry or high temperature or too much power and you risk extracting or possibly eroding some of the PVC binders in the groove noting that the groove ridges are much smaller than the groove. What you are trying to clean, has a significant impact, and for most general type cleaning such as a PVC record, a wide variety of contaminants can be present. Depending on the type of contaminant, there will be a minimum exposure time, and in precision cleaning for sensitive material such as PVC a maximum duration of 10 minutes would apply (ref MIL-STD-1330). But, the PVC itself presents a difficult material because particles may be embedded in to the surface. Temperature always helps since the PVC will expand helping to free up embedded invisible particles (as small as 1 micron and less), and simple oils will soften and flow. The human eye assisted with bright white light can see particles sized 50 microns (ref MIL-STD-1330D, I wrote it). So this is not small enough to see the smaller particles that could be in the trough - ~6microns, let alone those between the groove wall ridges. Have you ever tried Ultraviolet (Black) Light to inspect for particles and fingerprints? Blacklight can detect contamination at about 25 mg/ft^2 and particles as small as ~30microns? Animal/vegetable fats will fluoresce. Mineral based oils/greases generally will not fluoresce. But, like you say, there are currently are no cleanliness verification methods for PVC records other than play and listen. So, you are still in the experimentation phase. Otherwise, I do not use a UT tank for record cleaning. I developed my own manual cleaning procedure (that steps off from what the Library of Congress uses) using the VinylStack record protector that I can clean/dry 6 records in about 45 minutes which is good enough for me; and I am fine with the results. I am using a multi-step process of pre-rinse with flowing tap-water, clean/scrub with Tergitol 15-S-9, post-rinse/scrub with flowing tap-water, final rinse with DI water spray, then two step dry - medium-pile lint-free microfiber and final dry with anti-static cloth - after which it only takes another few minutes to completely dry. I developed a fully detailed procedure just for an exercise formatted similar to a Military Standard-Tech Manual. Hoped the above expands upon the knowledge base, and Good Luck. R/Neil |
@terry9
Okay. Given enough time leaving an object in a constant stream of water will often result in a clean object. Exposed to the milder implosive power of more small bubbles coming off a higher frequecy may remove a substance - given enough time. But I don’t want to think about the composition of the dirt on a record or continually vary the time of a cycle according to that composition. Through trial and error I arrived at 10 minutes at 80kHz and 10 minutes at 37kHz - and that works. Rarely do I need another cycle. Wrt the whole wavelength isse, which I see as largely theoretical, hopefully we’ll just agree to disagree. My dual frequency approach can process 5-6 records in 20 minutes and I’m quite satisfied they are clean. But I’m not a dogmatist, I will try using an extra spacer and 4 records though I’m uncertain how I would gauge results unless there is a significant difference. The use of multiple frequencies within a cycle is common practice for industrial ultrasonic cleaning - I read no articles that talk about wavelength, for example specific item spacing for 40kHz, which is probably the most common frequency used. When f=.037MHz and c=1480m/s (water) Wavelength=40mm My spacing is ~31mm. Thanks for your engagement on this topic. I appreciate your interest. |
@antinn Thank you for your interest in this topic and your contributions. Fwiw, we are talking about units costing more than $2k. At least I am; I don't know what Terry9's machine cost.. I tried the cheap Chinese route and it proved unreliable. If I'm willing to spend a lot more time with a lot more mess, I can get a record as clean with a one-at-a-time horizontal machine and enzymes (eg Loricraft and AIVS) as I can an ultrasonic with filtering. My goals were to maximize throughput, reduce the time needed to spend on cleaning while still obtaining clean records. My setup and technique are designed to meet those goals. Your comments seem largely related to sizing. I'm sure we can agree that issues will occur with a rig improperly sized to do the job that one asks of it. Generalities warrant assessment against specific set-ups. An inherent problem with using ultrasonics to clean PVC is that as a plastic, it is going to absorb ultrasonic energy Everything vibrates and everything absorbs energy. That PVC absorbs energy is not an inherent problem to the use of ultrasonics for cleaning records, at least to the point that whatever "problem" may exist is not a deterrent to its use.. The successful use of ultrasonics for cleaning records - and it can be successful - is demonstration of its efficacy. There is no standard for measuring what counts as clean. There is no effective way to compare techniques or methods. You cannot clean the same record twice. When do you stop cleaning? My rule is: if it sounds clean it is clean. I'm familiar with Fuchs and Zenith and consider them knowledgeable resources. Apart from observing that plastic baskets absorb energy, It is unclear how basket design is relevant in the case of cleaning records which uses no basket. If you overload the UT tank with records, you are going to significant reduce the power available to clean. There are many sized tanks. This statement begs the question. As Fuchs points out tank size, surface area, proximity to transducers, etc. are relevant. So what counts as overloading? This argument simply says a tank is overloaded when there is a significant reduction of power availalbe to clean.. Energy asorbed within the tank is not the energy used to power the transducers whose output is independent of what is absorbed. If the tank and its transducers are insufficient to do the job then there's a sizing problem. It's not like absorbed energy reduces the overall energy in a tank at a given time. Transducers continually cavitate, continually cause the creation of vacuum bubbles for the length of a cycle. Records continually rotate across working transducers. |
All, An inherent problem with using ultrasonics to clean PVC is that as a plastic, it is going to absorb ultrasonic energy http://www.zenith-ultrasonics.com/part_positioning.htm, and https://techblog.ctgclean.com/2011/11/reader-question-baskets-for-ultrasonic-cleaning/, noting that John Fuchs with Blackstone ultrasonics has been in the business of UT cleaning for over 25 years, and is a recognized expert. This is a good article addressing some of the basics written by John Fuchs, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950025362.pdf. If you overload the UT tank with records, you are going to significant reduce the power available to clean. Note UT came into promenance 25 years ago when the elimination of CFC solvents forced the industry to develop environmentally suitable aqueous cleaning solutions. But, this was mostly for metal cleaning. You can compensate the high plastic load with more power, that is variable, but you are talking industrial units starting at over $2K. Check the units at Blackstone and Crest Ultrasonics, these companies have been manufacturing USA made UT tanks/consoles & systems for over 25 yrs. |