My version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner - Page 38 - 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 9th September 2013, 11:36 AM   #371
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Default 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

Click the image to open in full size.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2013, 11:37 AM   #372
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun View Post
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.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2013, 11:41 AM   #373
diyAudio Member
 
WntrMute2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by catastrofe View Post
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.
What about letting it ride on a piece of Teflon or Delrin?
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2013, 11:41 AM   #374
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by catastrofe View Post
Actually, without the support on the opposite side of the bath, the spindle tilts downward due to the weight.
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 by bbftx; 9th September 2013 at 11:45 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2013, 11:51 AM   #375
diyAudio Member
 
WntrMute2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbftx View Post
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
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2013, 11:54 AM   #376
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Thanks for the tips guys. . .I'm sure I can incorporate something into the design for better spindle support.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2013, 11:58 AM   #377
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2013, 03:57 AM   #378
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Default 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.



Attached Images
File Type: jpg U S Record Cleaning 003.jpg (53.0 KB, 360 views)
File Type: jpg U S Record Cleaning 004.jpg (53.5 KB, 358 views)
File Type: jpg U S Record Cleaning 005.jpg (43.3 KB, 354 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2013, 11:13 AM   #379
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Default Slow Rotation is Very Important

Quote:
Originally Posted by catastrofe View Post
Question for the group. . .

Is there any evidence (empirical or otherwise) that a single, long cycle is better than 2 shorter cycles, or vice-versa?
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 by bbftx; 12th September 2013 at 11:19 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2013, 02:57 PM   #380
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Quote:
...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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
  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 09:26 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