@cleeds , I did not say a dirty record, or a noisy record that is dirty. I said a noisy record of which there are many. I could have been more specific and said a noisy record that is not dirty. IMHO anybody whose records are so dirty that they are noisy should hang it up and stick with digital sources.
As far as record cleaners are concerned I am of the opinion that vacuuming the record dry is a major advantage. Each cleaning should be done with fresh fluid. Reusing fluid, even if it is filtered is a bad idea as a filter will not remove substances that are dissolved in the fluid and may leave a film on the record. So, in the world of mijostyn any method that uses the same fluid over and over again is rubbish which tells you what I think about most ultrasonic cleaners.
@lewm , Laboratory grade? I wonder what laboratory that would be. We had one in grade school where we dissected fetal pigs. Just another marketing term to make you think you are buying something special which usually means you are not. The real McCoy does not need to resort to such terms.
|
"So, in the world of mijostyn any method that uses the same fluid over and over again is rubbish which tells you what I think about most ultrasonic cleaners."
Um, isn’t that’s what rinsing is for?
’Laboratory grade’ is the kind of stuff sold by a laboratory supply company, which is certified to meet it’s specifications. It’s more expensive because consumer grade stuff could be a complete fraud and no-one would know the difference. Labs have the ability to test what they buy, and if it doesn’t meet spec, well, the MIC does have recourse. Think ’hospital grade’ power outlets, mil spec fasteners.
|
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).
|
@antinn
What, in your experience, do you think would be the best combination of additives to the distilled water in a 180W 40kHZ ultrasonic 6L bath for cleaning LP's (e.g. how much 91% isopropyl alcohol, Triton X, dawn dish detergent, or other.), and what time length would you think to be sufficient?
Thanks.
|
@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,
|
@antinn
Thank you for the detailed response. It looks like even on initial review that I could use 5+ oz of 91% IPA to get an approximate 2.5% solution in 6L. .. I am aware of alcohol's antibacterial properties, but I wasn't aware exactly what it did in the water bath: your explanation explains it quite well.
Thanks!
|
@antinn
I downloaded your book on an old ipad that is no longer used for anything with passwords, etc. It looks to be a great resource. Thanks to you and Bill for sharing that with the audiophile community!
Are you aware of any real world experience comparing the LP cleaning capabilities of an appropriately powered 40 kHz ultrasonic cleaning machine as compared to an appropriately powered higher frequency (120-200 kHz) ultrasonic cleaning machine? And, along the same lines do you think that there would there be any real world difference in LP cleaning capabilities between a 40 kHz cleaner and an 80 kHz cleaner?
Thanks.
|
A cleaning comparison is one that I had attempted to encourage in the Past, as the methods used across a Group of Friends has variations.
After pondering the method that seemed most suitable for the comparison purposes only. It seemed the best practice would be to use Three New Albums, as the deterioration and contamination would have the most potential to be a shared condition.
The Albums would have been demarcated on the Cover or Label to identify the cleaning procedure.
There is not any real-world method commonly used, that would enable a method of measuring the outcome. This is one that is assessed as an audible experience and receives merit, if an increased attraction for the changed condition has occurred.
The final analysis was to be carried out in front of a group of attendees, on a System to see which of the Albums seemingly was being perceived as the one that benefitted the most from a given cleaning procedure. The Trio of Albums were to be made available for others to assess within their own systems.
Interestingly within the Group there were Three Identical New Jazz Albums purchased, but the cleaning comparison never materialised.
As for Album Cleaning now, using the manual method from the @antinn Textbook, I can't foresee how an Album is able to be perceived as being any cleaner, so I am not needing to attempt to have an experience of comparisons.
In a similar method to make a discovery about a reduction in noise from a LP.
A long time before the above idea developed. I had success in having been offered the support from a Selection of Bearing Producers to supply their Alternative Bearings for a Comparison of Idler Drive Turntable Bearings.
It took a period of time to Win the Producers over, and maybe it was their own curiosity in the end that won through to allow my requests to be met.
From recollection there were Seven Bearings to be used, which was inclusive of an owned Original Bearing without any service history known and my owned PTP Bearing.
It was to be a simple affair; a Bearing was to undergo a Pre-use/ Warm Up on a Standard Model of the Idler TT and then be swapped to a 'PTP Version' of the TT.
It was estimated that time of 5-8 minutes would be the downtime between demonstrations.
From recollection, one Bearing producer was putting a condition on their supply of a Donor Model and requesting that all the Bearings used should have a Lazer Temp' taken and the Demo's should be carried out at a given temperature. I thought this a little anal, but the same person uses a Stethoscope to assess the noise produced from their Bearing Work, and what do I know about an optimised operating temperature, apart from that there is most likely one.
Again, the assessment made, would be to see where a group in attendance was to make it known which of the Bearings in use was seemingly being perceived as having the most impressive performance as a result of the materials used and work undertaken on the Bearing.
This one got tricky as there were Bearing Producers that wanted to attend, and that was to prove very difficult.
As an individual who has a long-time interest in Bearing Modifications, this one slipped through the net, and was a much-wanted experience.
I have seen quite a few Artisan Producers of Ancillary Parts for other TT's today, that are using quite similar materials and designs as used in some the bearings I was to use for a comparison.
The Artisan Producers have adopted the methods used and are creating parts offered as a commercially available product.
|
Second the Humminguru. Awesome product and so easy to use.
Excellent value and so convenient. I clean every new LP.
|
@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.
|
Yea, the cheap or inexpensive machines don't work, work well because they were originally designed to clean other things. Ok, the Humminguru sort of was designed for lp's but I don't know if it's much, if any better than a 16.5. The Degritter, and Audio Desk, are in a different league. Personally, the Degritter is the way to go. Easiest to use, cheapest to use, and most reliable machine out there. I.ve owned the VPI 16.5 (hated it) and others and spent money on cleaners(I should show you a photo of them all). If you like spending time cleaning records then go ahead, go low. If like me, you just want to drop an lp in the cleaning machine and press start, and come back to a clean-dried record. the Degritter is the one. Worth every penny. I promise.
|
I’ll throw one more log on the fire--using surfactants in an ultrasonic should also involve some method to rinse and remove the fluid/contaminants once the cleaning is done. Some of the made for LP ultrasonics use forced air. When I had an Audio Desk (older model), I had, at the suggestion of some early adopters, reduced the amount of AD fluid from a bottle to just a capful. I could still see what I believed was a function of fluid residue when the same record was recleaned later on the KL--- the way the water behaved on the record surface in the KL.
I think Neil addresses this as well in the book- it’s been a while since I read it. And @antinn, I know you and @jtimothya went back and forth on the value of a rinse step- he was at the time using a formula he had adapted from the London Jazz Collector site. Don’t know where that left things which is why I flagged him here as well.
Glad Dr. Bond got the book. It would cost to produce a decent print copy and I’m not sure people want to bear that cost. And then Neil would have to autograph them for deluxe editions, etc. :)
|
|
Thanks, Neil (@antinn) -that does sum it up nicely.
|
I'm another Degritter user. I wanted my records to be clean, but hate cleaning records. Some people turn it in to a second hobby, but I didn't want that. I was willing to pay for the combination of great cleaning and as easy a process as possible. The Degritter was created to hit that goal precisely. It's a joy to use.
That said, I have been particularly cursed in having more problems than most with the Degritter. I've had one replaced, had to send that replacement back. But...when it's working, it's great. (Again, it seems most owners wash thousands of records with no issues).
|
I have only tracked the results being reported on for the @antinn PACVR Text Book on the 'gon'.
It was good to be able to link to another forum and see the results being made known from another. Who has obviously taken their LP Cleaning very seriously and developed a method not to commonly seen.
The report on a small change being made to a regularly used Solution, brought a notable change, that was perceived to be a betterment to the cleaning process and is desirable to be maintained, is one further reason to give Niel a 'Hats Off' 🤠 Salute.
Something that might be off interest to a wider group could be, if the comparison cleaning method I was referring to previously in the thread was carried out. As the control available through using forum members to participate is better than my previous thought for the planning. The reason being, is that there are common solutions/mixtures being used for cleaning, as a result of the PAVCR Textbook.
These mixtures are being used in conjunction with different ancillaries in use to support cleaning methods.
The rethink on the methodology is as follows:
New Albums of the same Band/Title could be purchased between a selection of cleaning enthusiast who are using Different Cleaning Methods, but where all individuals are using Neils Suggested Solutions/Mixtures.
It does seem feasible this could be created, as the advisories from Neil seem to be adopted by quite a few enthusiasts.
Once LPs are Cleaned, the Albums will be Posted to each Participant, who in receipt will then be able to replay all the Cleaned LPs in short duration between replays and assesses the impact of the cleaning methods used, on their own systems.
For the few $$'s it would cost to set something up like this comparison trial, which could easily be funded as a Group Buy from an extended group within the forum, with an interest in the Outcome.
As a Guestimate:
4x Albums @ $100.
3 x postages to send all Cleaned Albums to One Address, approx', $30.
3 x Postages to send the Batch of Cleaned Albums for the additional assessments to other Addresses, approx', $30.
3 x Postages to return the Albums to their original cleaned address, approx', $30
Approx', $200 to put a valuable comparison information into the mainstream, for a group of experienced LP Cleaners to make their assessment known on the impact of a variety of LP Cleaning methods compared side by side. There does seem a lot to like, especially when the costs are accounted for, to acquire a device to assist with LP Cleaning. When others with an interest are looking into this as a practice, a machine is usually to be considered, and a Mid-Priced Model with a Brand Name can easily ask for a $1000ish to be paid.
From experience, I have cleaned New Purchased Vinyl, and have heard improvement (Surface Noise Decreased) as a result of the Cleaning Method, especially, when using the PAVCR Textbook Manual Cleaning Method.
It is to prove quite impossible to presume a purchase of used LPs will share a similar deterioration or contamination level.
I would suggest a purchase from Amazon of LPs to be selected for the comparisons, as there are quality issues that can be discovered with a purchase of New Vinyl and with Amazon the option to return and receive a replacement is very useful. I have returned particular Modern Bands Albums on at least three occasions, and on one particular Album returned it twice, to receive what I would class as an acceptable condition LP.
An undertaking of this type, if a few participants can be found to take part, will certainly be a good use of a connection between interested enthusiasts within a forum.
It would certainly assist with extending on advice being made known for others, 'if a common selection of cleaning ancillaries were to be used', whether a Manual Cleaning Method, RCM Method, Cheap range of US Tank Method or Expensive US Tank Method would be the most worthwhile to consider as a set up for cleaning.
The assessment would be quite straight forward, as recording quality is not being scrutinised, the assessment will be solely if a Particular LP has offered an impression that it is clean/quiet, and whether this impression is different depending on the cleaning method used.
I would be more than happy to donate a percentage of the overall cost to see this materialise, I'm sure a few others would be willing as well.
Working on the basis that a US Tank offered to be sued, is one with the most desirable design and build, is used as a cleaning method for the Trial, along with the monetary value attached, might be considered the one that will produce the best results.
If one such Tank is offered to be used, this could be the last Address to receive the Batch of LPs for an overall assessment. Once the assessment is done the US Tank could be used to clean the Three LPs not cleaned using the US tank and then returned to the original cleaners, they could then assess through recollection if the returned LP was presenting an impression of cleanliness that differed from their own recollection of their cleaned LP.
|
@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
|
Hi @antinn, I am not looking myself to be persuaded to do something different to the Manual Method, I have produced results that have been very satisfying, as said in previous posts, I don't refer to LPs having been through the PAVCR Manual Method as Cleaned, I much prefer the term 'Purified'.
My earlier report on Cleaning as a comparison exercise is prior to having a PAVCR Textbook to consult and producing a Cleaned LP that when purified, it is difficult to suggest it can be cleaned to the point, by other methods that it can be perceived as cleaner.
My suggestion for a Comparison Cleaning as referred to, is that the PAVCR Solutions/Mixtures are in use across a variety of Cleaning Methods, where ancillaries to support these methods are on other radar of others with an interest and can prove to be quite costly to acquire.
My thoughts were that if a Method was noticed out of all used, to be able to make a very good impression, and was one achievable on a reasonably easy to afford ancillary. The interested individual, with a purchase in mind, will be with a good base knowledge, certainly not having to buy blind, in the same manner I did when I purchased a US Tank. The interested party will have made known a Solution/Mixture, Ancillary and the best practice to be used for the procedure to be carried out, to mimic the result being reported back on.
I can't muster up the desire to use the purchased US Tank, to clean with or the later idea of a final rinse tank, neither seems required.
Altruistic approaches are even able to be shown when it comes to cleaning a Vinyl LP.
|
RE: "lab grade".
I stand corrected by antinn. I had no idea that the term had been hijacked as a marketing tool. I was using the term to mean, "of a quality appropriate to a commercial or scientific laboratory."
|
The Humminguru seems bargain priced.
The Kurmiss seems to clean as well as the Degritter and the Audiodesk based on Fremer's assessment, but a lot of steps to accomplish it.
KL is out of the USRCM business
The Degritter is a later design, does a comparable job, and generally has a lower price than the AudioDesk. Degritter is also working on a Reference model at $7k for sale in May 2023 - very surprised and curious that the current USRCMs sonic results can be improved upon.
|
I think the main change for the Degritter Pro is that it uses two baths, with one reserved for rinsing. It automates what many people already do by swapping the tank with a second one for a DW rinse.
I can take my cleaned record out of the Degritter and put it back on the Loricraft for a DW rinse and vacuum, but the the thing is, I can't hear any difference if I do that.
I am going to try using the Degritter with plain DW after a wash and vacuum on the Loricraft, hoping the ultrasonic cavitation alone will remove what the Loricraft missed, and at the same time rinsing any detergent residue left after the Loricraft vacuumed it.
|
@kennyc said" "KL is out of the USRCM business." They were. But Chad at Acoustic Sounds struck a deal to distribute a version of the smaller unit that has a separate reservoir. It also offers a connection to a household water supply.
I have no details on the effectiveness of the filtering. It is quite expensive.
Neil Antin, upthread, posted a link to What’sBest where a question of mine was answered regarding the use of a second bath. This one is DIY, using high grade hardware, filtering, possibly cooling as well. Not cheap either, but high "throughput" as Neil would say. (@antinn).
I use a Monks Omni for pre-cleaning, have the older, bigger KL (with the tank integrated into the unit) and will rinse the record and vac it on the Monks in some cases rather than "blow dry."
There are many DIY approaches that work well, but not all are money savers. :)
|
@antinn
The ultrasonic cleaner that I currently have it 6" in width, which leaves 3" on each side of the LP if I clean 1 LP at a time. Is there any practical or theoretical disadvantage if I were to clean 2 LP’s at a time, with a distance of 2" between each LP and 2" from each edge of the tub for a standard 180 W, 3 head, 40 kHz machine?
Thanks.
|
@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.
|
@antinn
Thanks. So it seems that, based on a flow calculation, due to speed of rotation, only 1 LP is recommended at a time in the 6 L tank. And on review, it looks like 1 LP should be cleaned at a time based on surface area as well. Your book also references a Kuzma rotater: I went to their website, and they have similar recommendations as your book, but not nearly as detailed. Unfortunately, it looks like the Kuzma website is also recommending Photo Flo 200, which has the Triton X, which is so bad for the environment, so perhaps you could send them an email to recommend the Tergitol instead?
|
@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.
|
@antinn
The cloud point is an interesting property of Triton X: I studied college level chemistry, and generally speaking, I thought most substances/chemicals were more solvent as the temperature of the solution increases. But with Triton X, having a cloud point of 25C indicates that Triton X becomes more insoluble as the temperature increases above 25C. . .
|
@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.
|
I received one of the inexpensive ultrasonic clears, as sold on Amazon, as a gift. Looking forward to trying it. Can anyone recommend a cleaning solution formula, using readily available products that are available in typical US retail establishments? Distilled water is easy (grocery store). What about a surfactant, detergent or alcohol?
I've been using a spin-clean for years and have spin-clean cleaner concentrate (if recommended). This will be my first attempt at using an USC.
|
|
