My version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner - Page 10 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Analogue Source

Analogue Source Turntables, Tonearms, Cartridges, Phono Stages, Tuners, Tape Recorders, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22nd September 2012, 12:56 AM   #91
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: northwest Montana
Smile Fantastic and Simple

My wife does not see why I need to spend hundreds of dollars on a record cleaner. You've just solved my problem. The only caution I would add is that 78RPM (shellac) records should not be exposed to alcohol. It dissolves them. Better to use an extremely dilute dishwashing liquid (the brand they clean oil-soaked birds with) on 78s.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2012, 01:55 AM   #92
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: northwest Montana
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbftx View Post
Hi Shaun,
The 60khz cleaner is a Sonix IV machine (6 quart version).
Warning: The fit and finish of the machine is terrible for a $500 item. I almost sent it back. (examples: control panel label wasn't put on flat and in the proper location. There were large, uneven lines of silicone sealant underneath the lip of the tank at the joint between the tank lip and the surrounding metal case.) But these problems don't affect function.
It works extremely well in it's functionality as a cleaner. So I kept it, and in the nature of DIY, fixed some of the problems myself--- e.g. it needed taller rubber feet so the drain valve is clear of the surface on which the unit sits.
The standing waves in the bath definitely are closer together and distributed better throughout the liquid than those in most 40khz units I've seen. And as I said, it did very well cleaning the jewelry I put in it. So, for me, it was worth the cost. But I want to make sure folks don't expect "Mercedes-level fit and finish" if they go down this path.

I looked into some 80khz units, like Zenith Ultrasonics makes, but these start at $1400 for a basic unit. Too expensive in my opinion. I get most of the benefits of higher frequencies at the $500 price point.
Shaun, here are my calculations: Sound travels at 1497 meters/sec in water at 25 degrees C or 4871 ft/sec at 70 degrees F. Depth of groove is 0.0029 = 2.417e-4 ft. = 0.0002417 ft (see KAB Electro Acoustics http://www.kabusa.com
4871 / .0002417 = 20.16 kHz. Since you might want two wavelengths into the groove to knock out smaller particles, you get about 40 kHz. Vinyl is very resilient and hard to damage. I once bent a 33 rpm vinyl record to try to break it. I bent it into a full U shape upon which it finally exploded with a loud retort sending shards into the wallboard. Fortunately, none of them hit my face. 78 rpm shellac records are brittle and have grooves twice as deep. One might want to keep the db level lower to avoid damage -- or sacrifice one 78 to see what causes damage.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2012, 04:25 AM   #93
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Default Cavitation Bubble Size

Quote:
Originally Posted by 78RPMcollector View Post
Shaun, here are my calculations: Sound travels at 1497 meters/sec in water at 25 degrees C or 4871 ft/sec at 70 degrees F. Depth of groove is 0.0029” = 2.417e-4 ft. = 0.0002417 ft (see KAB Electro Acoustics http://www.kabusa.com
4871 / .0002417 = 20.16 kHz
Hi 78RPM,
You're off by 3 zeros. You get 20.16 MHz.
The wavelength in water for these UC machines is 3 inches at 20kHz and 1 inch at 60kHz.

But wavelength is NOT the driver of cleaning penetration on a grooved surface in an ultrasonic cleaner.

Ultrasonic cleaners clean based on the cavitation bubble size, which is much, much smaller than the wavelength of the driving frequency. See the attached chart showing Dependence of the Bubble Radius upon Driving Frequency. The cavitation bubble in a 60 kHz machine will have a radius of about 5 microns. The radius of a 78 stylus is roughly 70 microns (0.0027 inches or 2.7 mils), MUCH larger than the size of the tiny cavitation bubbles.
A 33-1/3 rpm stylus has a tip radius of about 17 microns to 25 microns, so again, the 5 micron cavitation bubbles can easily get into the grooves of a modern LP.
I'll also repost the graph here showing the particle size removed based on frequency. Note the scale range of 0.3 to 7 microns (roughly our bubble size).

BB
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Cavitation bubble radius vs. frequency.jpg (84.4 KB, 682 views)
File Type: jpg phono_1mil_flat_w.jpg (28.0 KB, 670 views)
File Type: jpg UC Freq vs removal.jpg (93.2 KB, 670 views)

Last edited by bbftx; 22nd September 2012 at 04:52 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2012, 11:36 PM   #94
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Vancouver
Default Update - Budget Build

So it's been pretty quiet in this thread lately so I thought I would give an update on what I call my "Budget Build".

I call it that because I was unable to source a gently used 60KHz ultrasonic machine to use as my base and was looking at well over $600.00 (after taxes and shipping) to get my hands on a Sonic IV or Gemoro 60KHz machine. Being an impatient SOB I decided to take a flyer on a 40KHz machine and was able to find a brand new one for $259.00 including shipping on ebay. I have acquired all of my parts (thanks BBTX for the parts list) except the 6 RPH motor that was back-ordered from H&R. It is supposed to ship tomorrow. I spoke with the manufacturer of the motor and they said that they custom build the motors for H&R and that there is no other re-seller of those products. In the meantime I wanted to clean some records so I suspended the loaded spindle between two pieces of Styrofoam that the cleaner shipped with and gave the records a spin every four minutes.

I have to say that the 40KHz machine seems to work just fine. The results have been great with no damage to the vinyl. I had a few nasty, moldy records to use as a test. One Beatles album I picked up in a garage sale collection was so bad I had to peel the original paper record sleeve off before doing a test clean. A 12 minute cycle got almost all of the crud off. I used a carbon fibre brush and some cleaning solution to manually go over the problem spot, then back in the machine for another 12 minute cycle. The record came out sparkling clean and sounded great when I played it a while later. I am completely sold on this method of cleaning.

Once I get the motor installed I will take more photos and assemble a complete cost sheet but I think my total cost outlay will probably come in around $320.00. I am already thinking about my next machine that will have an increased record capacity.

Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to this thread, especially BB who has provided so much valuable insight.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg My-URC.jpg (932.6 KB, 671 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2012, 01:59 AM   #95
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: northwest Montana
Hi, Vinyladdict, that's good news. Why not try a gearhead motor such as this one which gears down motor speed to 4.5 RPM? see www.jameco.com Jameco Part no. 155821. You can gear down even more by visiting your local hobby shop and getting gears and pulleys made with Lego blocks. OR-- you could run it at a lower voltage than 12VDC to get slower speed -- OR -- you could put an inexpensive Pulse Width Modulator (L298 motor controller from CanaKit, $19) on it to run at slower speed -- OR -- you could put an NE555 timer on it to turn for a fraction of a second, pause, turn again, pause ... Any of these methods is cheaper than the solution you found so far.

They (Jameco) also have a 40kHz transducer, Matsushita EFR40K2, Jameco Part no. 2120268. Do you suppose we could wrap this transducer in a plastic bag and immerse it in water to provide the ultrasonic wave? Am I naive here?
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2012, 02:28 PM   #96
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by 78RPMcollector View Post
Why not try a gearhead motor such as this one which gears down motor speed to 4.5 RPM? You can gear down even more by visiting your local hobby shop and getting gears and pulleys made with Lego blocks. OR-- you could run it at a lower voltage than 12VDC to get slower speed -- OR -- you could put an inexpensive Pulse Width Modulator (L298 motor controller from CanaKit, $19) on it to run at slower speed -- OR -- you could put an NE555 timer on it to turn for a fraction of a second, pause, turn again, pause ... Any of these methods is cheaper than the solution you found so far.
78RPM - with all due respect, none of those options are cheaper than the Synchron motor, which is $19.95, and operates at the optimal output speed of 5 to 6 RPH without the need for additional gears, pulleys, or another gearbox to contain those additional parts, or a DC power supply. A 115 VAC motor like the Synchron is much more cost effective.

And no, simply putting a transducer in a liquid bath won't work.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2012, 05:00 PM   #97
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyladdict View Post
The results have been great with no damage to the vinyl. I had a few nasty, moldy records to use as a test. One Beatles album I picked up in a garage sale collection was so bad I had to peel the original paper record sleeve off before doing a test clean. A 12 minute cycle got almost all of the crud off. I used a carbon fibre brush and some cleaning solution to manually go over the problem spot, then back in the machine for another 12 minute cycle. The record came out sparkling clean and sounded great when I played it a while later. I am completely sold on this method of cleaning.
Addict - Glad to hear things are coming along. What mix of cleaning solution were you using for your first experiments?
BB

Last edited by bbftx; 29th September 2012 at 05:08 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2012, 07:33 PM   #98
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Vancouver
Hi 78RPM,

I appreciate your suggestion for alternate motors but the unit shipped finally shipped yesterday so I will continue spinning by hand until it arrives. I am a DIY noob and I am a big fan of not reinventing the wheel. In this case I have been fortunate to have received the benefit of other DIYers experience. I am assuming your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek when you suggested the transducer in the bag method?
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2012, 07:43 PM   #99
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Vancouver
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbftx View Post
Addict - Glad to hear things are coming along. What mix of cleaning solution were you using for your first experiments?
BB
Hey BB,

I started with your latest recommended mix - 150 oz distilled, 3 OZ IPA, and .2 oz of Triton X-100 instead of the photoflow. It seems to work quite well although I think on really dirty records I get from garage sales I will have to change the solution more often as the last few records of last nights batch sounded a bit fuzzy/distorted. I ran them through clean solution this morning and they sound great.

I may reduce the Triton X a bit as I seem to get some suds when I Degass and I am leery about the the air-drying part of the cycle.

I am attaching a photo of crud in the tank.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg photo (8).jpg (285.8 KB, 614 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2012, 08:43 PM   #100
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyladdict View Post
I am attaching a photo of crud in the tank.
Wow, that is some crud, alright! Do you have any "before" pics of the record?

I haven't used Triton X-100, so don't know how much is best. I wouldn't assume you'd use the same amount of Triton as if you're using Kodak Photo-Flo 200. Definitely needs to be reduced if you're getting bubbles. Seems like people are usually talking about using a few drops of Triton, not more than that.

The amount of either Photo-Flo or Triton needed can also be different depending on the water you're using.
B B
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I made myself a record cleaner Sclalars Analogue Source 228 5th June 2014 04:41 PM
My DIY record cleaner. mattjk Analogue Source 104 26th April 2013 09:10 PM
Ultrasonic Record Cleaner- any feedback Ianmac Analogue Source 7 13th November 2012 03:28 AM
diy ultrasonic cleaner, not using bought unit 3GGG Analogue Source 0 10th January 2011 09:28 AM
Ultrasonic Parts cleaner... DIY??? pk386 Everything Else 1 10th May 2004 06:55 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:43 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2