Bill @whart and Terry @terry9 thank you for the compliments. I would like to add a few items for those reading:
1. What @terry9 says about the equipment power rating can be very true. The German made Elmasonic UT machines are quite powerful, and this is easily noted by how quickly the bath fluid heats up. Essentially, the ultrasonic power (watts) is converted to heat, and the fluid heats-up. The inexpensive UT machines at 6L are generally rated at 160-180W (three 60W transducers), but there are a number of details such as how the transducers are attached to the tank and the tank wall thickness that will affect how much power actually gets into the tank.
2. All of the spinners provided with the inexpensive units spin way too fast; and lower kHz units (<80kHz) are very sensitive to flow in the tank. If the flow rate in the tank >50% volume/min, the cavitation intensity decreases very quickly. The book PACVR 3rd Ed Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press Section XIV.5 has an equation that you can use calculate the number of records and speed (rpm). The spinners are all VDC and by varying the VDC you can slow the motor down and Amazon has various cheap variable VDC power supplies you can buy and the book XIV.5.5 has a link.
3. Bottom firing transducers can benefit record cleaning. Without going into detail (see the book XIV.1.7), standing waves develop in the tank and these standing waves create layers of high/low cavitation energy. Industry tries to minimize these with sweep frequencies because parts are generally static in the tank. But the record(s) is rotating and standing waves may be beneficial since the record is exposed to a scrubbing type action as the record alternately moves from areas of lower cavitation intensity to areas of higher cavitation intensity.
4. When cleaning more than one record at a time, it is good practice to space the records no closer than the tank wavelength which for a 40kHz is about 1" (see the book IXV.3.7 for further details if interested).
5. Fresh fluid or fluid that has sat for about 12-24 hrs needs to be degassed to remove dissolved gases. Failure to do so will pretty much make the first few records cleaned not actually exposed to much if any cavitation. If you see bubbles, that is not evidence of cavitation. Cavitation produces no bubbles; and time to degas is proportional to the kHz (and volume). Lower kHz requires more time (~15-min) while a 80-120Khz can degas in ~5min. For UT units that have no degas function, just operate the tank. The book XIV.2.1 goes into further detail.
Overall, UT is great cleaning process, but there are many details necessary to get the best results. The book Chapter XIV goes into other details, but the above are the ones that many people miss on the performance side. Otherwise, depending on the cleaning agent (generally a simple nonionic surfactant) you can go for a no-rinse just wetting concentration or a concentration with detergency that should be rinsed and the book XIV.10 has some suggestions. And, unless you have a large source of DIW (and its relatively easy & not too expensive to make your own - see VII.4) bath management is something you need to consider if you want to get the best possible results and book Chapter XIV has lots of info, as well as a tutorial on how to setup a DIY filtration system with three different price options (with parts list) at the end.
Good luck, but "The devil is in the details".
Neil
|
@orthomead,
What you are doing by first cleaning with the VPI vacuum-RCM and then cleaning with UT is what @whart does with his Monk & KLAudio, and if you were to read the book, and step-back what it preaches is pre-clean/rinse/final-clean/rinse/dry which is the foundation of precision cleaning with aqueous cleaners. And as the book says, this was all worked out 30-yrs ago forced by the elimination of CFC-solvents.
There are many ways to put together a cleaning process using the concept of pre-clean/rinse/final-clean/rinse/dry. If you sink clean with a pure manual process, you can use chemistry and concentrations that you would not use with machine-based processes.
You can use only a vacuum-RCM and get excellent results by using the right chemistry (aggressive pre-cleaner and then mild final-cleaner), the right brush and the right technique.
You can use an Elmasonic P-series dual frequency UT that you would use 37-kHz for pre-clean and 80-kHz for final cleaning. Although really gross records would still benefit from a manual-type pre-clean - i.e., sometimes you need two pre-clean steps which is what the manual process in the book Chapter V does.
At the end of the day, my technical position is that there is no best cleaning process. With the right chemistry, the right technique, the right hardware and the right process they can all achieve a clean record; but the devil is in details. Ultimately it comes down to how much convenience do you want and how much are you willing to compromise because of time, space, money, etc.
So, I always, state, the best record cleaning process is the one best for you and the book is written accordingly - how to get the best from each process.
Take care,
Neil
|
@drbond,
As written in the book -
VIII.7: KODAK™ PHOTO-FLO 200: This is a wetting agent that is water mixed with a combination of 25-30% propylene glycol (i.e., anti-freeze) that acts as a solvent and as an antibacterial and antifungal agent and 5-10% nonionic surfactant. The nonionic surfactant by the CAS number 9036-19-5 is most likely Dow™ Triton™ X-114. This type of surfactant (octyl-phenol ethoxylates) is an environmental aquatic toxin and is being phased-out (see CHAPTER IX. DISCUSSION OF THE FINAL CLEANERS: for details). If the surfactant is Dow™ Triton™ X-114, the surface tension will be about 31 dynes/cm, the CMC will be 120 ppm, but the low 25°C/77°F cloud-point limits this product mostly to applications equivalent to room temperature.
If you add a cap-full that may be 10-ml, at best only 1-ml of surfactant is added, but (1-ml/6000-ml)(100) = 0.0167% = 167 ppm. So, there should be enough for it to act as a wetting solution. The propylene glycol diluted does nothing other than increases the non-volatile residue which if not rinsed, can leave a viscous type of residue.
My recommended nonionic surfactant is Tergitol 15-S-9 which is a very high-performance surfactant - Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com). At 1-ml in 6L tank, the 167-ppm will provide excellent wetting and also provide detergency that Triton X100 will not unless you add 3X more - Tergitol 15-S-9 is much more efficient, mixes easier and rinses much easier.
Edit: FYI - Tergitol 15-S-9 is not the same as Tergikleen - different products and the book addresses in detail the difference in Chapter IX.
|
@drbond & @lewm,
Please be careful with high concentrations of IPA in water and use with a heated ultrasonic tank.
25% IPA/water has a flashpoint of about 80F; and no ultrasonic tank you can afford is explosion-proof. With an ultrasonic unit three mechanisms are now in play - the heat that speeds up evaporation; the record turning is drawing fluid out that is evaporating, and the ultrasonics are agitating the fluid surface and a mist/vapor is often produced. All of this has the potential to setup the necessary conditions to develop flammable AND explosive vapors. At 100% IPA, the lower and upper explosive limits are 2.3 to 13.2%. But, even diluted with water, at 25% water-IPA, the lower and upper explosive limits are 2.3 to 7.1%. In a common domestic setting, it is very unlikely that the high ventilation turn-over rates that are required in medical and industrial settings that prevent the accumulation of flammable/explosive vapors will be used. So, the risk in a domestic setting is higher.
|
@drbond,
The 'solvent' in Kodak Photo-Flo as I addressed is propylene glycol - and it is not harmful to a record; and it is non-toxic in many cosmetic products.
|
@drbond,
Good to hear of the improvements.
The book is only available free by download, Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press. Bill Hart @whart runs a tight ship as they say, and I can only guess that the book (pdf) has been downloaded many, many times with no one ever indicating any malware or virus. The document was scanned for viruses and malware before being posted and the (my) computer that was used to write the document has a very high cyber security posture and the book is password protected from making any changes.
If you download the book, before opening, with MSWindows you can right-click and there will be an option to scan the document for viruses/malware.
|
@dogberry,
The book addresses Degas as follows:
XIV.2.1 Dissolved Gases & Degas: Fluids exposed to air will absorb air and the solubility of air in water is inversely proportional with temperature and can decrease by about 25% between 20°C/68°F and 40°C/104°F. Air that is dissolved in the fluid will interfere with cavitation. As the cavitation bubble forms, the dissolved air in the fluid migrates into the cavitation bubble preventing maximum cavitation intensity when the cavitation bubble collapses. The degas process operates the ultrasonics with a tank of fresh liquid to remove some or most of the dissolved air. Degas efficiency is dependent on frequency, power and volume. Low frequency 40-kHz and less can take 30 minutes or more to fully degas a large tank, while 80 kHz and greater can accomplish degas in as little as 5 minutes. During the degas process, bubbles may be seen rising in the fluid; the fluid may go from cloudy to clear; there may be a change in sound; and the surface can change to smooth with just a slight rippling effect caused by the ultrasonics.
The book does not state to degas each day if using the same bath although it is implied with the first sentence above. If the book is ever revised, XIV.2.1 will be revised to be more explicit.
|
@terry9,
WRT to cleaning the Tiger-cloth - the only thing I do is once dry - I shake it out. Used only during to assist with drying the record after DIW rinsing, the Tiger-Cloth only sees DIW. So, after use, I hang to dry and then shake it out and store in clean bag. The cloth is a very fine weave and anti-static, so it does not hold on to particles/lint - ergo a good snap-shake dislodges any lint/particles, and this has been verified with the UV light (the cloth does not fluoresce). I have been using the same Tiger-cloth for >2yrs. Otherwise, I periodically inspect the cloth with the UV light and someday when it shows that its 'dirty' I will just toss and use a new one; they are not expensive. To me, it's not worth the effort trying to clean it and then use multiple DIW to rinse out the cleaner which if you do not, when you use the cloth to assist with drying the record, it will leave a very slight haze which is the diluted cleaner residue, which I have seen with those microfiber cloths with some nap.
Note that I use a PVA sponge (as discussed in Chapter V of the book) to remove the bulk of the DIW; using the Tiger-cloth only for the final-dry which is not intended to fully dry the record, but to leave a thin-film that prevents any static being developed and then the record air dries in 3-5 minutes.
|
@pindac,
When you cleaned the camera lens did you use the tiger-cloth dry, or did you use your lens cleaning solution and try to dry with the tiger-cloth?
When you use sponge & tiger-cloth for record drying, do you wear gloves?
What specific sponge are you using? How do you get the water out of the sponge after use and how do you store it?
In between cleaning steps, do you rinse/dry your free-hand (that works the brush) a little which will pick up some cleaning agent? I have a lint-free microfiber cloth that I hang and grab it with my free-hand to somewhat dry it between steps to minimize cleaner carryover noting that when I go to dry with the sponge, it's the same free hand that was working the brush with the cleaners.
The tiger-cloth is not very absorbent - so if used with a lens cleaning solution, it may not remove the lens cleaning solution enough to prevent leaving a residue. If used dry it could just smear what was on the lens.
Again, for record drying, the tiger-cloth is not used to dry the record. Instead, it takes the water left behind by the PVA sponge and absorbs some (but not much), but mostly it spread outs the water to a thin uniform film which then dries quickly. Otherwise, water droplets can take over an hour to dry.
After cleaning six records - my PVA sponge is very wet (I just ring-it out) but the Tiger-cloth is barely damp.
In the meantime, I have used the same tiger-cloth as I address in the book over 500-times w/o problems. Any haze is readily evident on the lead-in groove and the dead-wax (run-out) areas. I have contaminated a PVA sponge and the haze was evident - I tossed it (reproposed for floor cleaning) and got a new one.
|
FWIW,
One of keys to successful use of UT is bath management - how long is the bath good for use? There are a number of variables.
Detritus being removed from a record are either insoluble (i.e. particles) or soluble such as mineral salts and previous cleaners such as Dawn. The particles can be easily filtered, the soluble components not. What’s the work around to get maximum use of the bath? Well, most of the soluble detritus is ionic. If the cleaning bath is nothing more than water + nonionic surfactant and maybe a splash of IPA (which is nonionic) it’s very easy to monitor the ionic contaminant level - total dissolved solids (TDS) with a TDS meter - here’s a good one - Amazon.com: HM Digital 716160 COM-100 Waterproof Professional Series Combo Meter, 7", White/Purple : Industrial & Scientific.
So, if you are filtering with a good filter (book has recommendations), and a good 10" filter with a good pump may last for a year, a new bath will start at <1 ppm TDS, and I recommend bath refresh at 5-10 ppm, and most people get 2-4 weeks depending on how many records are being cleaning. Note: a 0.2 micron ’absolute’ filter will remove bacteria. And a 0.2 micron does not remove the surfactant - the surfactant micelles are too small (book Chapter IX Table X lists the diameters).
And the book does address no-rinse surfactant concentrations such as 50-75 ppm Tergitol 15-S-9 which is enough to get maximum wetting (critical micelle concentration) but no detergency. The residue thickness is not much different than the record surface roughness but if it is not uniform it may be audible by some people with very experienced/sensitive hearing. To get detergency with Tergitol 15-S-9 you need 135-150 ppm, but rinsing is recommended to prevent residue that may be audible. The book XI.7.2 and Table XVIII Residue Thickness from Cleaner address in further detail if interested.
Otherwise, there is always the brute-force approach to bath management - produce enough DIW to refresh the tank very frequently which is addressed VII.4 Home Production of DIW.
Devils in the details.
PS/As far as Lab-grade or Professional - it’s mostly nonsense. The P4875(II)+MVR5 (isonicinc.com) is nothing more than a 6L usable stainless tank with three 60W transducers which is the standard configuration for any of these that are using standard offshore sourced components and maybe assembled USA with bells and whistles that may add some cooling for electronics. The German-made Elmasonic P-series with dual-frequency Elmasonic P Series - Elma Ultrasonic Cleaners is a way different unit with cost and documentation commensurate. And then there are real industrial table-top units designed to operate 12-hrs/day such as Tabletop Ultrasonic Cleaners - Zenith Ultrasonics (zenith-ultrasonics.com).
|
@drbond,
If you were to download the book the answers would be in Chapter VIII, IX and XIV but I suspect you did not download the book. So, accommodating this:
1. First - Dawn may be a great dish detergent and safe for your hands and cleaning oil from birds, but for UT cleaning it's not appropriate. There are some 20 ingredients CPID (whatsinproducts.com) of which only 3 do any cleaning. Salt is added to thicken the product.
2. My recommendation for surfactant as previously stated is nonionic surfactant Tergitol 15-S-9 Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com) used 0.005 to 0.0075% (~0.5ml/6l tank) for a no-rinse concentration (wetting only) or 0.0135 to 0.0150% (~1-ml/6L) for a concentration (wetting & detergency) where the record will be post-rinsed. If you want to stay with Triton X100, you need to increase the concentrations 3.5X. Has to do with the difference in critical micelle concentration (CMC) discussed Chapter VIII with CMC details in Chapter IX.
3. Because of liability issues I will only recommend 2.5% IPA which is not flammable and if using 91% IPA is 2.5/0.91 = 2.75%. This small amount can have benefit by a process call soiled roll-up that is addressed Chapter VIII of the book. IPA at low concentrations 2.5% can assist cleaning by combining with low surface tension surfactants to improve the solubility at water-oil interfaces causing some organic soils to swell thereby allowing surfactants (in the cleaner) to lift the soil from the surface. A solution of 2.5% IPA has shown to be complementary with very low concentrations of non-ionic surfactant added only for wetting (i.e., no-rinse). HOWEVER:
VIII.8.8 Alcohol Evaporative Losses: Ethanol and IPA at low concentrations (<50%) are not azeotropes and can evaporate separately from water; and this is quite evident when reviewing the applicable vapor-liquid equilibrium diagram that when boiling shows the vapor vs the liquid concentration. At low concentrations, the alcohol vapor concentration is much higher than the liquid concentration. At higher concentrations when an azeotrope forms, the alcohol concentration in the liquid and vapor are the same. For those that may use Ethanol or IPA at low concentrations in an ultrasonic tank (use only at concentrations that are not flammable); over a period of time, the alcohol will evaporate from the water faster than the water evaporating. Unless the alcohol concentration is monitored (alcohol hydrometers are available), the concentration will drop if the tank bath life is extended.
4. For length of time you want an equal number of rotations (i.e., no fractions) but at an accumulated time of starting at 5-10 minutes. Calculate the time = (number of rotations)/(rpm) so for example (20 rotations)/(2.5-rpm) = 8 min. You can increase to an accumulated time of 15-min but much beyond generally provides no benefit.
Good Luck,
|
@drbond,
Thank-you for the compliment.
Regarding which kHz is better for LP cleaning; ideally you want both 37-48kHz for preclean and then 80-120kHz for final clean since each frequency targets different type detritus as illustrated in the book Figure 53. Which is why the Elmasonic P-series is popular with those seeking best achievable cleaning - example Figure 56. They clean records first at 37kHz (w/o filtering to get maximum cavitation) and then at clean at 80kHz while filtering (higher kHz are not affected by tank flow) and the Elmasonic P-series has variable power and a high-powered pulse mode.
Otherwise, comparing different machines with different kHz becomes more a comparison of the machine than the kHz because of the many variables, just a few being (and all addressed in greater detail in Chapter XIV):
1. Power: The higher the kHz the more power is required for cavitation.
2. Power to Volume: As the tank volume decreases more power/volume is required because of the increase in tank surface area ratio to volume.
3. Power Efficiency: How much power gets into the water to produce cavitation. The transducer design and how it is attached to the tank affects how much power is actually usable for cavitation. This is actually pretty easy to measure with 'some' accuracy and the book XIV.15.2 details.
4. Record spin speed: This is an issue for lower kHz but not higher kHz because lower kHz machines are sensitive to tank flow. Create >50% tank flow/min and cavitation intensity decreases very quickly.
5. For bottom mounted transducers tank water level. How does it compare to multiples of 1/2 the kHz wavelength - the cavitation intensity can vary 20-30% see Figure 54.
Most any functioning ultrasonic tank can with the right process achieve a clean record. For low kHz the first is not to spin record(s) too fast. Then depending on machine power, adjust time & chemistry accordingly. A high-powered unit may get by with low concentration cleaner for only wetting, whereas added concentration to get detergency maybe needed for a low powered unit but that then dictates DIW rinse.
Take care,
Neil
|
For those that may be interested, here is a procedure that was developed for the Humminguru:
-Buy Tergitol 15-S-9 Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com)
-Buy this dropper bottle - Amazon.com: Nalgene Plastic Drop Bottle 2 oz. : Industrial & Scientific because it delivers a measured drop equal to 0.04 ul or 25-drops/ml. There are other places to buy the Nalgene Dropper Bottle.
-Fill the Nalgene Dropper Bottle 1/4 full with Tergitol 15-S-9 and then dilute to 25% by filling to full with Distilled Water (buy at a grocery store):
-Use as follows: three options.
1.-Add 2-drops to the HG 350-ml tank to get a no-rinse required wetting solution.
2. Add 3-drops to get a no-rinse required wetting solution with a touch of detergency. Note: If you have very sensitive hearing you should post rinse distilled water. Buy a 2nd HG tank to allow easy rinsing.
3. Add 4-drops to get a wetting solution with detergency. Post rinse with distilled water is recommended to avoid audible residue. Buy a 2nd HG tank to allow easy rinsing.
Note: When adding water for the first time cleaning you need to degas the fluid to get best cleaning. Run two 5-min cycles - see manual for steps HumminGuru_HG01_Owner_s_Manual_English_Version.pdf (shopify.com). You can be 'cleaning' a record during this degas process. The HG manual says nothing about degas - they missed it.
|
|
@pindac,
Thank-you for the compliments.
FYI - someone did a comparison of the PACVR Manual Method, and results are summarized here: Do I need to clean my LP's? | Page 2 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum in Post #31.
However, one better than another to achieve a clean surface is not a fair comparison because ANY precise/rigorous cleaning method can achieve a clean record with the right chemistry, the right process/technique adapted to the machinery specific to the method being employed be it manual, vacuum-RCM, ultrasonic, or combinations thereof but the devil is in the details.
For manual methods - YOU are the machinery and even with vacuum-RCM (except the few that are fully auto); YOU are the 'cleaning' part of the machinery. It's that manual-technique that with the brush and the chemistry that does the cleaning.
In vacuum-RCM, the blower strength in CFM and Lift are what determines how completely and how fast the fluid is removed from the surface - Vacuum Strength: CFM and Water Lift | Dustless Tools. So, every vacuum-RCM can be different. So here too, the machinery is important. And, once we get to ultrasonics, the number of technical variables/details increases exponentially.
Every method has its strengths and weaknesses, and after all is said and done, they all 'can' produce excellent results, but again the devil is in the details. And, what constitutes a clean record is quantifiable by surface cleanliness criteria and I detail this in Chapter XI, but Chapter XI is very technical. Unfortunately measuring surface cleanliness at the levels that would need to be measured are not readily available. So, the book compares against established cleanliness levels and probability of achieving the required level with the method in a residential environment in Chapter XI and XII.
Otherwise, the best cleaning method is the one best for you, and there are many factors in-play such how much convenience do you want, how much $$$ do you have to spend, how much space do you have, how much noise will you tolerate, how much are you willing to compromise, is your goal 'best achievable cleanliness", what is your work throughput, etc.
Take care,
Neil
|
@drbond
The spacing is fine. BUT you have a 6L tank. From a previous post you stated: "4. I slowed the rotation of the motor to about 3 cycles per minute (this is using a low voltage adjustable DC adapter set at its lowest 3V), which is as slow as my adapter will turn the motor.".
Spinning at 3-rpm and a 6L tank, the most records you should clean is 1-record. If you add another record, then to maintain maximum cavitation intensity you would need to decrease the spin speed to 1.5 rpm. See the book XIV.5.3.e.
|
@drbond
Kodak Photo Flow 200 is the wrong fluid to be used in a heated UT - read the book VIII.7; KODAK™ PHOTO-FLO 200: excerpt: " If the surfactant is Dow™ Triton™ X-114, the surface tension will be about 31 dynes/cm, the CMC will be 120 ppm, but the low 25°C/77°F cloud-point limits this product mostly to applications equivalent to room temperature."
Otherwise, Triton X100 is now banded from sale in EU/UK, and EU/UK cannot easily purchase Tergitol 15-S-9, but the book has some alternates see Chapter II. But I am not sending Kuzma an e-mail (I am very protective of my e-mail). The book is available for free, and people can use what they wish.
WRT to surface area - the book XIV.3.3 (NASA) The sum of the parts cross-sectional area should not exceed 75% of the tank cross-sectional area. The tank cross-sectional area is associated with the surface where the transducers are mounted. For bottom mounted transducers, the cross-sectional area is the tank length x width, and the record shows only its width x thickness (12” x ~0.1”). For side mounted transducers, the cross-sectional area is the tank height x length and the record shows its width x height (about 0.67 ft²/record) for a much larger cross-section. This suggests why stacks of multiple records “can” be cleaned with a UCM with bottom mounted transducers, but with some loss of efficiency.
Bottom line: for 40kHz keep record spacing about 1" but do not spin too many too fast.
|
@drbond
Cloud point is not unique to Triton X (100 or 114), it's a property of nonionic surfactants, the book:
VIII.2.4.c Nonionic surfactants for the most part do not ionize in aqueous solutions so that the hydrophilic head has a neutral charge. A unique property of nonionic surfactants is “cloud point”. Cloud point is the temperature when the mixture starts to phase-separate, and two phases appear, thus becoming cloudy. The cloud point is the (theoretical) optimum temperature for nonionic surfactant detergency, but above the cloud point the surfactant comes out of solution and detergency drops.
|
