Milspec,
Yes, this 2nd tank rinse is a great idea and is consistent with how ultrasonic cleaning is on done on an industrial scale (albeit with more complicated cleaning solutions). It's fairly efficient if you want a separate rinse stage. Since my cleaning fluid is more than 95% purified water anyway, running through a filter, I don't bother with a separate rinse tank. I generally just do a quick rinse with the outlet house of my recirc pump.
Cheers and thanks for the video of your setup. Looks great,
B B
Yes, this 2nd tank rinse is a great idea and is consistent with how ultrasonic cleaning is on done on an industrial scale (albeit with more complicated cleaning solutions). It's fairly efficient if you want a separate rinse stage. Since my cleaning fluid is more than 95% purified water anyway, running through a filter, I don't bother with a separate rinse tank. I generally just do a quick rinse with the outlet house of my recirc pump.
Cheers and thanks for the video of your setup. Looks great,
B B
Hi JSMD,
Although you'll get a variety of opinions on this question, here is why I went with a single revolution configuration (5 or 6 rph motor for 10 to 12 minute cycle).
Manufacturer recommendations for ultrasonic cleaning time for a relatively clean, plastic surface like an LP (or a circuit board for example) are usually in the 3 to 10 minute range at most. There are lots of variables, but that range is typical.
Roughly one third of an LP is in the ultrasonic bath at any time. So, for a 12 minute revolution, most of the record will be in the bath about 4 minutes. That's an appropriate cleaning time, so good to go.
There are a lot more 1 rpm motors available however than low rph motors, so many people go with the 1 rpm option, aiming for multiple revolutions to get to the right in-bath cleaning time. Here is my concern with that approach: the average spot on the record will be in the bath 20 seconds, then out in the air 40 seconds, then back in for 20 seconds. What if the impurities on the record don't come off during the 20 second immersion time? What if that area then dries during the 40 second out of bath time? Will the impurities be removed during the next 20 seconds in the bath? It seems to me (hypothesized, but untested by me) that 4 minutes of continuous immersion will yield better results than twelve, 20 second immersions spaced out over time. (and certainly better than 120 two second immersions for a 10 rpm motor!)
I know my approach works for me, so I have run with it. And I'm sure you'll also hear from folks for whom the 1 rpm approach works as well.
Vive la difference!
B B
Thanks BB!
The only 120v synchro motor that I found on the internet is the Hansen H1-29 12 RPH sold by Herbach.
My goal is 1 revolution in 10 minutes.
Any idea where to find a 120v 6 RPH?
Motors
First, you can ask H&R if they plan to ever restock with the H1-46 motor (6 rph).
The other thing to search for is the rpm equivalent. 6 revs per hour equals 0.1 rev per minute. Try this guy at Digikey for under $35.
01.rpm motor = 6 rph
Cheers,
B B
First, you can ask H&R if they plan to ever restock with the H1-46 motor (6 rph).
The other thing to search for is the rpm equivalent. 6 revs per hour equals 0.1 rev per minute. Try this guy at Digikey for under $35.
01.rpm motor = 6 rph
Cheers,
B B
Herbach sells a Hansen 600 series 110v 6 RPH Synchronous Timing Motor (H1-46 Price: $23.95). Therefore, 10 minutes for one full rotation.
Good?
More expensive than the Chinese 3 and 5 RPM! I need three 6 RPH motors: one for the US tank (40 Hz), one for the rinsing tank and one for the drying cube.
Also, I have seen in this Forum, some arguing about the number of LP on one spindle from 3 to 6 LPs. Some one was quoting a relation between the immerged surface of the LP and the volume of the US tank.
I have been putting 4 LPs; but I can fit easily 5 LPs in my Chinese US tank, with 18mm (11/16") separation.
Good?
More expensive than the Chinese 3 and 5 RPM! I need three 6 RPH motors: one for the US tank (40 Hz), one for the rinsing tank and one for the drying cube.
Also, I have seen in this Forum, some arguing about the number of LP on one spindle from 3 to 6 LPs. Some one was quoting a relation between the immerged surface of the LP and the volume of the US tank.
I have been putting 4 LPs; but I can fit easily 5 LPs in my Chinese US tank, with 18mm (11/16") separation.
Hi J
Just because they fit doesn't mean they'll get cleaned effectively. The transducers in your tank only put out so much power.
More spacing also works better, particularly if you're cleaning at 40khz rather than a higher frequency.
And finally, you should leave even more space between the tank wall and the LPs. References here from my earlier postings:
Surface Area vs tank volume
Spacing from tank wall
I go with 3 at a time on a 60 khz machine. Try 3 to 5 and see what you think.
Best of luck,
B B
Just because they fit doesn't mean they'll get cleaned effectively. The transducers in your tank only put out so much power.
More spacing also works better, particularly if you're cleaning at 40khz rather than a higher frequency.
And finally, you should leave even more space between the tank wall and the LPs. References here from my earlier postings:
Surface Area vs tank volume
Spacing from tank wall
I go with 3 at a time on a 60 khz machine. Try 3 to 5 and see what you think.
Best of luck,
B B
Thanks BB.
I will follow you rules of thumbs and recommendations for my Vevor PS-40 10-liter 40 Hz, which is much larger than the referenced 6-liter, but less powerful than the 60 Hz.
Is there also a correlation power|surface in the equation, or a rule of thumb?
My current configuration: 5 LP with 38mm (1 1/2") from the side of the tank and 18 mm (11/16") between LPs.
I will follow you rules of thumbs and recommendations for my Vevor PS-40 10-liter 40 Hz, which is much larger than the referenced 6-liter, but less powerful than the 60 Hz.
Is there also a correlation power|surface in the equation, or a rule of thumb?
My current configuration: 5 LP with 38mm (1 1/2") from the side of the tank and 18 mm (11/16") between LPs.
J:
The operating frequency (40kHz or 60kHz) is independent of power, expressed in watts. e.g. 300 watts. What is the ultrasonic wattage of your unit (not including the heater power - companies sometimes add these numbers together to show one higher power number)?
Generally, the appropriate ultrasonic power rating should be 70 to 100 watts per gallon of tank capacity, based on manufacturer recommendations (Average watts, not Peak --- mfrs also use Peak power to confuse or trick buyers).
B B
J,
In a 10L machine, you can probably run 5 LPs, as long as the machine really is delivering on the power specs quoted, the quality is up to standard, and it's functioning properly. I hope the actual operating frequency is really 40kHz and not any lower!
My 60 kHz machine is 6L, so 3 is really the max number of LPs I would ever run.
Cheers,
B B
In a 10L machine, you can probably run 5 LPs, as long as the machine really is delivering on the power specs quoted, the quality is up to standard, and it's functioning properly. I hope the actual operating frequency is really 40kHz and not any lower!
My 60 kHz machine is 6L, so 3 is really the max number of LPs I would ever run.
Cheers,
B B
BB:
2.6 Gal (10 L) x 230 sq. in. = 598 sq. in./ 66 sq. in. = 9 LP.
Therefore, my current configuration: 5 LP with 38mm (1 1/2") separation between them and also 38mm (1 1/2") clearance between the LPs on each side of the tank (minimum clearance: 1 1/2"), should work.
I am at the min. clearance to the side of the tank: 1 1/2"
Separation between LP: 1 1/2"
Is there a recommended separation between LPs?
2.6 Gal (10 L) x 230 sq. in. = 598 sq. in./ 66 sq. in. = 9 LP.
Therefore, my current configuration: 5 LP with 38mm (1 1/2") separation between them and also 38mm (1 1/2") clearance between the LPs on each side of the tank (minimum clearance: 1 1/2"), should work.
I am at the min. clearance to the side of the tank: 1 1/2"
Separation between LP: 1 1/2"
Is there a recommended separation between LPs?
Rinsing
Hi BB and everyone
This is my 1st post and I am building my US cleaner.
I seem to recall you suggest 2 rinses after the US wash.
I also read Rushton Paul says 1st rinse use pure water.
For 2nd rinse he uses Type 1 Reagent water + few drops of 95% ethanol to form a 3% dilution.
What is your take on rinsing?
Would not Hepastat 256 be better for rinse2 given it's antimicrobial, antistatic and mild lubricant properties?
Thanks Denis
Hi BB and everyone
This is my 1st post and I am building my US cleaner.
I seem to recall you suggest 2 rinses after the US wash.
I also read Rushton Paul says 1st rinse use pure water.
For 2nd rinse he uses Type 1 Reagent water + few drops of 95% ethanol to form a 3% dilution.
What is your take on rinsing?
Would not Hepastat 256 be better for rinse2 given it's antimicrobial, antistatic and mild lubricant properties?
Thanks Denis
Hi Denis,
I'm not a multi-rinse guy. I'm in the "keep it simple" camp, and I generally just rinse off any floaters or residue using the output from my recirculating filter setup. Occasionally I've had a load of really dirty LPs that I'll wash at the very end of a session, and used a separate purified water bath to rinse. But that was just a handful out of the hundreds of LPs I've cleaned.
I'm also not an ethanol fan. It's rated a "C" on most chemical compatibility with PVC charts. Isopropyl is A-rated.
I don't see the need for Hepastat for most records either really, especially since it also contains ethanol and coloring dye. And why would I want to leave Hepastat residue on an LP? Preventing microbial growth isn't necessary in most air conditioned (i.e. clean air, humidity controlled) homes. If you have things growing on LPs on your shelf, what else is growing on other surfaces in your house?
These aren't medical devices we're cleaning, they're plastic LPs. Simple ultrasonic cleaning solutions (i.e. water + a little Isopropyl) can clean the vast majority of impurities that end up on an LP. The ultrasonic action is what cleans the records, so I believe why complicate the chemistry more than necessary?
Just my 2 cents,
B B
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your kind words and glad to hear you have a URC up and running.
Cheers,
B B