My version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner - Page 28 - 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 4th March 2013, 10:47 AM   #271
diyAudio Member
 
Kindhornman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles, California
Andyr,
And there is your answer and I know that Sy knows what he speaks of. And he was on the other thread so perhaps that answers your question why we could talk about what is going on here and answer without being a part of the thread here. Ask the right questions of the right people and you can get an informed answer.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2013, 12:04 PM   #272
bbftx is online now bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
bbftx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Default DIY Ultrasonics

Quote:
Originally Posted by ketchup View Post
Have any of you guys opened up your ultrasonic cleaners? I'm curious as to how many transducers are typically used, where on the tank they are placed, and the way in which they are attached to the tank. Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bibio View Post
i would also like to know as i can have Stainless Steel tanks made up to any shape or size i want.
Hi Ketchup and Bibio (awesome user names by the way),
To be most effective, transducers are attached to the bottom of the tank. You're essentially creating an ultrasonic speaker radiating upward. You want the bottom of the tank to resonate and project the sonic waves into the liquid in the tank.

Transducers are either attached with high grade epoxy that can withstand the energy transmission and vibration, or in extreme work environments they may be vacuum-brazed to the tank. Mass loading needs to be correct for efficient energy transmission into the liquid.

80-100 watts per gallon of tank capacity is the proper design power. For the size tanks we're talking about (6 quarts or so), three 50-watt transducers is optimal. Using multiple transducers allows more even distribution of energy into the cleaning liquid throughout the tank.

While I think it would be very cool to build one's own Ultrasonic machine from scratch, reading about other people's attempts quickly dissuaded me from doing this. Here is a link to an earlier post I wrote in response to this question:

DIY Ultrasonics?

Will be curious to know if you guys embark on such an effort.
Cheers,
B B

Last edited by bbftx; 4th March 2013 at 12:06 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2013, 06:49 PM   #273
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Thanks for that! Do you have an idea of what, roughly, the nominally-loaded Q of the system may be? I am still intrigued by the possibility of a swept-frequency system to move standing waves through the grooves being cleaned.

Brad
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2013, 07:52 PM   #274
diyAudio Member
 
Kindhornman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles, California
Brad,
How would a standing wave generation of the ultra sonic waves have a better affect than the random action of the ultrasonic waves themselves. Would you need to have a phased array to accomplish anything like you are talking which seems to be steering the waves in a directed pattern of motion across the surfaces?
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2013, 08:06 PM   #275
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
I guess I don't visualize the ultrasonic energy as random, unless somehow it becomes chaotic (which isn't really random either but looks like it ).

I'm seeing standing waves forming quickly, and then slowly sweeping those so the compressions and rarefactions shift slightly at a given location on the LP under cleaning. This, potentially, in order to avoid having to move the disc itself.

I'd add that I have a personal and nearly immediate interest in this, as I have been excavating ancient and sometimes very dirty LPs of late and using my budget Nitty Gritty machine to mixed results.

Last edited by bcarso; 4th March 2013 at 08:08 PM. Reason: afterthought
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2013, 08:07 PM   #276
bbftx is online now bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
bbftx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Default Sweep Freq

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcarso View Post
Thanks for that! Do you have an idea of what, roughly, the nominally-loaded Q of the system may be? I am still intrigued by the possibility of a swept-frequency system to move standing waves through the grooves being cleaned.

Brad
Hi Brad,
The nature of the transducers is that their frequency response is fairly narrow, maybe 2-3khz either side of the resonant frequency. So frequency sweeping is not really effective in these devices. The efficiency and power delivered drops off quickly if you deviate from the resonant frequency.

I would contend that it's not needed anyway since we're moving the object being cleaned ----the LP---- through the fluid in the tank. Any standing wave issues are handled by that movement of the object. In addition, by using higher frequency transducers (60 or 80 khz instead of 40khz), you can also minimize this potential issue. Fact is, swept frequency ultrasonic cleaners are not much more than marketing and sales hype, really. To their credit, Zenith Ultrasonics explains this on their website.
Cheers,
B B
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2013, 08:09 PM   #277
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Last night it was a Bootsy record, and man was it filthy --- the surfaces, not the content. As I remarked online, funky in a not-good way =]
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2013, 08:10 PM   #278
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbftx View Post
Hi Brad,
The nature of the transducers is that their frequency response is fairly narrow, maybe 2-3khz either side of the resonant frequency. So frequency sweeping is not really effective in these devices. The efficiency and power delivered drops off quickly if you deviate from the resonant frequency.

I would contend that it's not needed anyway since we're moving the object being cleaned ----the LP---- through the fluid in the tank. Any standing wave issues are handled by that movement of the object. In addition, by using higher frequency transducers (60 or 80 khz instead of 40khz), you can also minimize this potential issue. Fact is, swept frequency ultrasonic cleaners are not much more than marketing and sales hype, really. To their credit, Zenith Ultrasonics explains this on their website.
Cheers,
B B
I had supposed something like that. But (see above) I'm looking for a strategy that obviates the need to move the record.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2013, 09:06 PM   #279
diyAudio Member
 
Kindhornman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles, California
Brad,
Then it would seem the solution to not moving the record would be that the entire disk be submerged and something placed over the label on both sides and held through the center hole that would protect the label like a silicone disk on each side. You would need more solution and a higher amplitude I would think for the added volume you would have in the tank.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2013, 09:58 PM   #280
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kindhornman View Post
Brad,
Then it would seem the solution to not moving the record would be that the entire disk be submerged and something placed over the label on both sides and held through the center hole that would protect the label like a silicone disk on each side. You would need more solution and a higher amplitude I would think for the added volume you would have in the tank.
Yes, I guess the trouble to protect the labels does make the whole enterprise less appealing. Oh well.
  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 05:41 PM
My DIY record cleaner. mattjk Analogue Source 104 26th April 2013 10:10 PM
Ultrasonic Record Cleaner- any feedback Ianmac Analogue Source 7 13th November 2012 04:28 AM
diy ultrasonic cleaner, not using bought unit 3GGG Analogue Source 0 10th January 2011 10:28 AM
Ultrasonic Parts cleaner... DIY??? pk386 Everything Else 1 10th May 2004 07:55 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21 AM.


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