just ordered 2 68khz 120watt generators and four 60w 68khz tranducers. Each PCB is 220mm x 280mm x 100 having searched pretty hard it looks like I'll be building the enclosure for these, electrical boxes big enough are a vilainous price. Sourcing the tank won't be hard I've seen a bread pan about the right size and some other commercial catering tins look good too. $258 us in the red so far.
Most model train/airplane hobby shops have brass telescopic tubing in 1/32" increments. 9/32" OD - 1/4" ID. Then you can use a small piece of 1/4" OD - 7/32" ID, and then 7/32" OD - 3/16" ID until you get down to 1/8" ID to fit the motor shaft. I was thinking about making a flat spot on the motor shaft and crimping the inner piece of tube to engage the shaft so a screw or collar would not be necessary.
BTW, why so long on delivery from Independant Dental? 30 days to ship...really?
Not a chance. But if it did, you could always use a piece of 1/4" OD inside some 9/32" OD and double the effective wall thickness. You could just braze them together with a little solder. That would support 5#.
I'll have to get everything here and in front of me to see. The motor should be in early next week. I have pleny of time to work out the transport details while waiting for the Sonix to arrive!
With the help of a fellow DIYer, I got my cleaner up-and-running.
This is based on the Sonix IV ST-126H as I wanted a larger unit to handle more albums at one. This unit's sweet spot is 6 albums at a time. More will fit on the spindle, but the weight seems to impact the rotational ability of the assembly.
The frame is made from 80/20 aluminum extrusion that I had left over from building my audio rack. It came together nicely, and the folding bracket bolts directly to the channel in the extrusion.
I'm using a 12RPH motor as the slower units were out of stock. Since 12RPH is one revolution every 5 minutes, I set my time for 10 minutes and get 2 revolutions during a cleaning. Seems to work well.
This is based on the Sonix IV ST-126H as I wanted a larger unit to handle more albums at one. This unit's sweet spot is 6 albums at a time. More will fit on the spindle, but the weight seems to impact the rotational ability of the assembly.
The frame is made from 80/20 aluminum extrusion that I had left over from building my audio rack. It came together nicely, and the folding bracket bolts directly to the channel in the extrusion.
I'm using a 12RPH motor as the slower units were out of stock. Since 12RPH is one revolution every 5 minutes, I set my time for 10 minutes and get 2 revolutions during a cleaning. Seems to work well.
Nice!
Is it any better when the far end of the spindle is not resting on the bath's edge? I expect that contact point might be introducing extra loading through friction. I have a similar setup to yours, with the purpose of the bearing being to enable the spindle to be held from one end only.
Is it any better when the far end of the spindle is not resting on the bath's edge? I expect that contact point might be introducing extra loading through friction. I have a similar setup to yours, with the purpose of the bearing being to enable the spindle to be held from one end only.
Far end of Spindle
Hi Catastrofe,
I like the high-capacity, 6-LP unit!
I agree with Shaun that if you implement the bearing near the motor correctly, you should not need to support the far end of the spindle. My unit, shown in the photo, works without support, as does Shaun's.
From your photo with the arm raised, it looks like your spindle and bearing setup is rigid enough to not need support on the far end of the spindle. Therefore, perhaps you can just shorten your spindle and have the rounded nose over the tank, instead of resting on the extrusion on the other side.
Cheers,
B B
Hi Catastrofe,
I like the high-capacity, 6-LP unit!
I agree with Shaun that if you implement the bearing near the motor correctly, you should not need to support the far end of the spindle. My unit, shown in the photo, works without support, as does Shaun's.
From your photo with the arm raised, it looks like your spindle and bearing setup is rigid enough to not need support on the far end of the spindle. Therefore, perhaps you can just shorten your spindle and have the rounded nose over the tank, instead of resting on the extrusion on the other side.
Cheers,
B B
Actually, without the support on the opposite side of the bath, the spindle tilts downward due to the weight. I'm hoping the friction is minimal, but I do plan to look for a bearing of some type that will reduce it further.
Well, if you have a weight issue, you may want to go to lighter weight spacers. I imagine your wood spacers are fairly heavy.
If you do need to support the far end of the spindle, you might consider cutting off the top half of a bronze bearing and the bearing housing. You could simply bond the half-bearing in place on the half-housing, and have the end of the spindle rest in the half-bearing when the arm is down.
B B
Last edited:
Or merely slip a unmodified bearing over the end and let it rest on the frame when in the down position. You might add two small pieces of something fore and aft of the ideal position to locate the bearing on the frame. Should be easy with that aluminum frame stuff you have there.
Question for the group. . .
Is there a sweet spot for the RPH rating of the motor? I'm using a 12RPH unit (H&R was out of the 5RPH and 12 was all they had in stock), which equates to a 5 minute cycle. Ten minutes on the timer provides 2 full revolutions through the bath.
The 5RPH unit equates to a 12 minute cycle, with twelve minutes on the timer providing one full revolution.
Is there any evidence (empirical or otherwise) that a single, long cycle is better than 2 shorter cycles, or vice-versa?
Is there a sweet spot for the RPH rating of the motor? I'm using a 12RPH unit (H&R was out of the 5RPH and 12 was all they had in stock), which equates to a 5 minute cycle. Ten minutes on the timer provides 2 full revolutions through the bath.
The 5RPH unit equates to a 12 minute cycle, with twelve minutes on the timer providing one full revolution.
Is there any evidence (empirical or otherwise) that a single, long cycle is better than 2 shorter cycles, or vice-versa?
Work in progress
Hello DIY'ers...
A couple years ago I came back to vinyl, and soon realized how badly the used records I was buying needed to be cleaned. I went the 3-fluid/brush/slotted vac-attachment route; the results were acceptable, but it's such a tedious process.
Then I came across the fella selling the UCR on Audiogon, and lights began going off. I wanted an US machine for washing vegetables for my salads, and also for making liposomal Vitamin C (that's another story... there's a great Yahoo group if anyone's interested) so it only made sense to make the investment for a good machine, since it would see multi-use duty.
Here's the one I found on ebay. 20/40Hz, power adjustable, w/ a heater and a timer. I'd be happier if it was 60Hz, but I believe 40Hz will get the job done.
TinyURL.com - shorten that long URL into a tiny URL
I had a Farberware rotisserie laying around that at one time was going to become a drum coffee roaster (I'm a coffee roaster by trade) and I scavenge the motor and spit from that. The motor is 2rpm, and the spit was 1/4" sq. that I ground roughly rounds to 9/32". Spacers are 1" wide x 2" diameter oak. The 'frame' is maple, and the sits on top of the tank; I couldn't start drilling holes because the other uses the USC sees. The spit being square makes it simple to insert it into the square drive of the motor, and the other end of the spit simply rests on the maple rail and is held in place w/ two small screws.
I used it once w/ the distilled water/IPA/Photo-Flo solution that seems most popular, cleaning 8 records at a time, in 15min. cycles. It took most of an evening to run ~100 records. I had a 1/4" aluminum rod which I clamped to a cutting board w/ both ends available for drying time.
But... I have the parts coming to make a filter like bbftx's... same pump w/ a 1-micron filter. I found that apparently the URC did a fine job of getting the crud out of the grooves, but w/o a filter, enough of the crud settled back onto the records that I find a consistent little clump on my stylus. It's the same little clump of crud on the stylus from record to record, so that I'm lead to believe a small amount was redeposited onto the vinyl. On the few records that I knew were clean didn't go through the URC, and the stylus stays perfect while playing those, and with the records that did go through the URC the stylus looks about the same regardless of how dirty the record was before cleaning. So need a filter. Unfortunately, because my records were not in any order before cleaning and I did not put them back into the same order they were cleaned, I can't say if the ones I cleaned at the beginning of that evening were any better than those cleaned at the end of the session. So once the filter is in place, I will run them through again, and keep track of the sequence.
To the question in the post above, I'm not sure if a super-slow motor is critical. Ultimately, I think a 2rpm turn and a 5 per hour turn will keep any given grooves in the solution for the same amount of time over a 15min. period. The difference may be magnified in a system that is not filtered and using dirty solution, in that if any of the dirt in the solution was riding w/ the vinyl when it spent time out of the solution would have more opportunities to dry back onto the vinyl.
Thanks for reading the long post of a 1-time-poster-newb... I have some 9/32" rod on the way to make some spare spits so that they can be pre-loaded, and will make some collars to mount permanently on each spit so that they can be loaded over a coffee mug, as pictured earlier. I may also make some drying racks, per the photos on Audiogon.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ptkr23e
Hello DIY'ers...
A couple years ago I came back to vinyl, and soon realized how badly the used records I was buying needed to be cleaned. I went the 3-fluid/brush/slotted vac-attachment route; the results were acceptable, but it's such a tedious process.
Then I came across the fella selling the UCR on Audiogon, and lights began going off. I wanted an US machine for washing vegetables for my salads, and also for making liposomal Vitamin C (that's another story... there's a great Yahoo group if anyone's interested) so it only made sense to make the investment for a good machine, since it would see multi-use duty.
Here's the one I found on ebay. 20/40Hz, power adjustable, w/ a heater and a timer. I'd be happier if it was 60Hz, but I believe 40Hz will get the job done.
TinyURL.com - shorten that long URL into a tiny URL
I had a Farberware rotisserie laying around that at one time was going to become a drum coffee roaster (I'm a coffee roaster by trade) and I scavenge the motor and spit from that. The motor is 2rpm, and the spit was 1/4" sq. that I ground roughly rounds to 9/32". Spacers are 1" wide x 2" diameter oak. The 'frame' is maple, and the sits on top of the tank; I couldn't start drilling holes because the other uses the USC sees. The spit being square makes it simple to insert it into the square drive of the motor, and the other end of the spit simply rests on the maple rail and is held in place w/ two small screws.
I used it once w/ the distilled water/IPA/Photo-Flo solution that seems most popular, cleaning 8 records at a time, in 15min. cycles. It took most of an evening to run ~100 records. I had a 1/4" aluminum rod which I clamped to a cutting board w/ both ends available for drying time.
But... I have the parts coming to make a filter like bbftx's... same pump w/ a 1-micron filter. I found that apparently the URC did a fine job of getting the crud out of the grooves, but w/o a filter, enough of the crud settled back onto the records that I find a consistent little clump on my stylus. It's the same little clump of crud on the stylus from record to record, so that I'm lead to believe a small amount was redeposited onto the vinyl. On the few records that I knew were clean didn't go through the URC, and the stylus stays perfect while playing those, and with the records that did go through the URC the stylus looks about the same regardless of how dirty the record was before cleaning. So need a filter. Unfortunately, because my records were not in any order before cleaning and I did not put them back into the same order they were cleaned, I can't say if the ones I cleaned at the beginning of that evening were any better than those cleaned at the end of the session. So once the filter is in place, I will run them through again, and keep track of the sequence.
To the question in the post above, I'm not sure if a super-slow motor is critical. Ultimately, I think a 2rpm turn and a 5 per hour turn will keep any given grooves in the solution for the same amount of time over a 15min. period. The difference may be magnified in a system that is not filtered and using dirty solution, in that if any of the dirt in the solution was riding w/ the vinyl when it spent time out of the solution would have more opportunities to dry back onto the vinyl.
Thanks for reading the long post of a 1-time-poster-newb... I have some 9/32" rod on the way to make some spare spits so that they can be pre-loaded, and will make some collars to mount permanently on each spit so that they can be loaded over a coffee mug, as pictured earlier. I may also make some drying racks, per the photos on Audiogon.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ptkr23e
Slow Rotation is Very Important
I do think it's better to leave the surface you're cleaning in the bath for 3 to 4 min. straight. Only about 1/3 of the LP is immersed at any one time.
Twelve 20 sec periods in the tank does NOT equal 1 continuous 4 min exposure. If a spot on the record is in 20 sec, out 40 seconds, everything dries out in between immersions. All of the grime you're trying to get off may not be dislodged in 20 sec. If it dries, you're just starting over from scratch.
Any rotation speed faster than 1 rpm leaves the lower portion of the record in the bath for 20 seconds or less. That is simply not enough time, and anyone that says otherwise is just trying to justify their own setup that has a multi-rpm motor instead of a 5 to 12 rpH motor.
From Branson Ultrasonics: "Studies of particle removal indicate that most particles are removed within the first 30 seconds and that little additional benefit is gained after 5 minutes of ultrasonics."
Is "Most" good enough for you? Probably not, so I'd say 30 seconds in the bath per rotation is too short. That would say a 40 Rev Per Hour motor is too fast (=0.67 RPM). If you're using a 2 RPM motor, each section of the record is only immersed 10 seconds at a time -- clearly too short.
5 Minutes immersion would be the upper time bound using the Branson statement. That would be a 4 Rev Per HOUR motor. Logic would say 5-12 revs per hour, (not rpm), is a good range in which to operate.
Cheers,
B B
I do think it's better to leave the surface you're cleaning in the bath for 3 to 4 min. straight. Only about 1/3 of the LP is immersed at any one time.
Twelve 20 sec periods in the tank does NOT equal 1 continuous 4 min exposure. If a spot on the record is in 20 sec, out 40 seconds, everything dries out in between immersions. All of the grime you're trying to get off may not be dislodged in 20 sec. If it dries, you're just starting over from scratch.
Any rotation speed faster than 1 rpm leaves the lower portion of the record in the bath for 20 seconds or less. That is simply not enough time, and anyone that says otherwise is just trying to justify their own setup that has a multi-rpm motor instead of a 5 to 12 rpH motor.
From Branson Ultrasonics: "Studies of particle removal indicate that most particles are removed within the first 30 seconds and that little additional benefit is gained after 5 minutes of ultrasonics."
Is "Most" good enough for you? Probably not, so I'd say 30 seconds in the bath per rotation is too short. That would say a 40 Rev Per Hour motor is too fast (=0.67 RPM). If you're using a 2 RPM motor, each section of the record is only immersed 10 seconds at a time -- clearly too short.
5 Minutes immersion would be the upper time bound using the Branson statement. That would be a 4 Rev Per HOUR motor. Logic would say 5-12 revs per hour, (not rpm), is a good range in which to operate.
Cheers,
B B
Last edited:
Please don't take this as being combative, but the above statement is conjecture with regard to others' motives. Those people may simply believe or understand the process differently than you.
Not entirely accurate; you're not starting over from scratch if indeed 20 sec. worth of grime has been removed. The next trip through the bath would be starting over in the sense that the record has dried, but I would think that the US cleaning process would start almost simultaneously to the vinyl re-entering the solution, at which time it is given another 20 sec. worth of cleaning. This would point the idea that a good filter is more important than w/ a slow-turning motor.