My version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner

RRushton , never mind the error, but thanks for the references. I'll have to see if I can get Quats here in the chemical market. I'm working on a vacuum cleaner and will then venture into making a US device. We have someone local who makes the US tanks but I want to see if I can make them from scratch !
Will use 60Khz piezo's from the Net. I see that some people mentioned that the oscillation frequencies tend to be lower than advertised on Chinese piezo's. I guess that shouldn't matter much ?
 
Disabled Account
Joined 2011
I am going to DIY an ultrasonic cleaner, just ordered the ultrasonic cleaner.

I have a rotating device I built to turn records in my spin clean that has a 5RPM synchronous motor on it. I was wondering if 5RPM is too fast for ultrasonic. It would save me a lot of time if I used this device instead of building something else or changing the motor.

Is 5RPM too fast?
 
I am going to DIY an ultrasonic cleaner, just ordered the ultrasonic cleaner.

Is 5RPM too fast?

Seems too fast too me, Cyto, but can't say I've tried it. Any given piece of the LP will be in the bath 4 seconds or so, then out for 8 seconds, then back in for 4. I don't know how many rotations you'd need to get good cleaning results, if at all. I would guess it would be quite a few spins.
I'd guess you'd also run into issues of cleaning fluid drips rolling down across the label area of the LP, so you'd need very good label protectors of some sort. Slow rotation makes that much less of an issue.
BB
 
Disabled Account
Joined 2011
Seems too fast too me, Cyto, but can't say I've tried it. Any given piece of the LP will be in the bath 4 seconds or so, then out for 8 seconds, then back in for 4. I don't know how many rotations you'd need to get good cleaning results, if at all. I would guess it would be quite a few spins.
I'd guess you'd also run into issues of cleaning fluid drips rolling down across the label area of the LP, so you'd need very good label protectors of some sort. Slow rotation makes that much less of an issue.
BB

I have the labels covered, don't have a problem. I ordered a 1rpm replacement motor for it, this is the device I made. I have since replaced the bolt with a threaded handle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqA2u6QRmkk
 
I haven't been able to make it through the entire thread but have read a good bit. I have seen a lot of discussion out there about 40KHz vs. 60 and most people seem satisfied that 40 does the job and doesn't damage the vinyl. I haven't seen a lot of discussion about 180W vs 240W. Do most think the 180 is sufficient?
 
Paully,
Power requirements depend on the size of the tank. As a general rule of thumb, average RMS power for ultrasonic cleaning required for a small tank (under 2 or 3 gallons) is about 70 to 100 watts RMS per gallon.
The problem is that the power numbers you're seeing specified for cheap 40k units (like "180W" or "240W") are almost always total PEAK power in watts. If the unit has a heater, these peak power consumption numbers also sometimes include the watts consumed by the heater, making it difficult to ascertain what the average (RMS) power delivered to the tank as ultrasonic energy. 180W peak is probably sufficient in any case. You shouldn't necessarily believe ANY of the specs on inexpensive machines, particularly the frequency spec. It sometimes is wrong.
B B
 
Paully,
Power requirements depend on the size of the tank. As a general rule of thumb, average RMS power for ultrasonic cleaning required for a small tank (under 2 or 3 gallons) is about 70 to 100 watts RMS per gallon.
The problem is that the power numbers you're seeing specified for cheap 40k units (like "180W" or "240W") are almost always total PEAK power in watts. If the unit has a heater, these peak power consumption numbers also sometimes include the watts consumed by the heater, making it difficult to ascertain what the average (RMS) power delivered to the tank as ultrasonic energy. 180W peak is probably sufficient in any case. You shouldn't necessarily believe ANY of the specs on inexpensive machines, particularly the frequency spec. It sometimes is wrong.
B B

Thanks for the response. That really helps. I was going to get a 10L/240W cleaner so that I would have the 240W. But I would much rather get the 6L as I only want to clean one record at a time anyway. So the lower size should help offset the lower power and end up being about equal either way (provided the specs are even remotely accurate). So thanks for the input, that helped me make a decision!

Paul
 
The link to making cosmetics Inc was just the job. They have both the quats and edta and ship internationally. The postage is a bit of a killer. Having pure ingredients without additives of unknown and possibly negative effects is worth it to me.
I now have pretty much everything required to build the ultrasonic record cleaning system and the cleaning solution ordered. A couple of bits still to work out.

Niffy

Niffy, did you order from Making Cosmetics? (I'm in the UK and have just done so). I'd be interested in hearing what you did with the Behentrimonium in its solid form - how much did you dissolve, for example? (I'm thinking of following Rushton's lead of having a premix of the Behentrimonium, Triton X-100 and isopropyl alcohol).

Thanks.
 
Having mixed results. Bought one of the CleanerVinyl.com Pro kits and a ultrasonic cleaner from ebay. Using 95% distilled and 5% IPA with just a teaspoon of Disc Doctor's Miracle Record Cleaner. Definitely cleans the lead-in grooves much, much better that the brush/vacuum method, but finding that sometimes it takes both methods to have best results for the remainder. I've tried running the ultrasonic cleaner from up to 30 minutes, but can't see much difference from 15 minutes. After about 100 records, my experience is that the ultrasonic cleaner is good enough for records that are not heavily soiled and on lead-in groves. It gets them totally clean. But it the record has any areas that are heavily soiled, it still requires the brush/vacuum to fully clean.
 
Elinter,
What makes you think that ONLY the lead in groove is being cleaned by your ultrasonic cleaner and not the rest of the LP? There is absolutely no rational reason I can think of why your lead in grooves would be cleaned and the rest of the record wouldn't unless you have a single hot spot in your tank where most of the ultrasonic energy is focussed, that happens to be where the edge of the LP is passing through. That would be an odd occurence.

Oh, but wait, you bought a cleaner off of eBay...

I seem to repeat myself, but: The cheap cleaners found on eBay often don't work well. Not sure why so many people persist in buying them when at most, half the reports are favorable and the others aren't. It's a crap shoot with bad odds.
Elma, Sonix, Tuttnauer, Zenith are all better options, with better customer service if something doesn't work. Yes, they are more expensive, but yes, they are better.
Best of luck trying to find better results,
B B
 
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I did some additional testing and it appears only one of the transducers is fully functioning. So I guess that was creating a hot spot directly under the lead-in grooves. Oh well...will take it apart and see if there's something obviously wrong. Only cost me $120 to experiment.

Is this the type of device you recommend: NEW ! Elma Sonic E60H 1.5 Gal. Ultrasonic Cleaner w/Timer + Heat + Cover | eBay

Thanks
Mike
 
elinter,
The E60H is a quality 37khz machine, but I prefer higher frequency. If there aren't financial constraints, the Elma P60H offers dual 37k/80khz frequency and can be had for $1300 or so.
Others to look at: Crest CP500HT (45khz), Tuttnauer CSU-3 (60khz) and Sonix in various sizes (60khz).

Based on what type of evidence are you stating that only the lead in grooves are getting clean and not the whole record?
Cheers,
B B
 
Thanks for the information. I'm just using my ears and eyes. I can clearly hear the difference after ultrasonic cleaning in the lead-in groves on records previously cleaned with a brush and vacuum. I can also see fingerprints or stains towards the middle and lead-out groves after using the ultrasonic cleaner that I can clean with the brush/vacuum.
 
elinter, How about some more detail.

You can hear what differences in the lead in grooves?

What kind of "testing" did you do to decide that you have a non-functioning transducers?

What kind of LPs do you have that are so badly handled -- fingerprints and stains? Pictures of some examples?

B B
 
I’ve built my Version 3 of a setup for Ultrasonic Record Cleaning. Several features distinguish this version from Version 2.

1) Version 3 stands alone from the Ultrasonic tank, enabling the basic version to be used with almost any tank preferred by the user. I built Version 3 with an eye toward using a 10 quart, 4 transducer machine (Sonix ST-126), which enables one to effectively clean 5 LPs per batch instead of 3.

2) Version 3 takes fewer tools to build. For non-DIYers and apartment dwellers, one can assemble this setup using only a drill, hacksaw and file if necessary. (If one was willing to pay the aluminum tubing vendor to make the cuts, no hacksaw needed.) I’ve found a commercially available pole spear shaft with the proper LP-spec 9/32” diameter that can be used as a spindle in place of a 9/32” drill rod machined on a lathe, and instead of the ¼” spindles that most people are using because of the difficulty in finding 9/32” bearings and couplers.

3) Magnetic spindle attachment. This provides more flexibility around loading and unloading the machine, and allows one to load a second spindle with records, ready to go when the first one is finished in its cleaning cycle. The shaft output from the motor, and the dual bearing setup to support the spindle weight can be made with ¼” components —easier and cheaper to find. The magnetic coupling allows a 9/32” spindle to be used without the necessity to find a ¼” to 9/32” coupler. My magnet is very strong, a 32mm diameter Neodymium magnet. It definitely won’t fall off! (The threaded stud on the magnet mates directly to the 9/32” spear shaft, so it’s a simpler assembly than using a smaller magnet too.)

4) Version 3 frame is collapsible. Again with apartment dwellers in mind, the frame can be disassembled easily and stored more compactly. For those that have space, a more permanent assembly could be built using slightly less expensive fittings without the locking snap buttons.

5) Simple record height adjustment using a telescoping column: Carefully matching outside and inside diameters of 1” and 1.25” tubing, one can build a stable, adjustable column to be raised for loading/unloading, and lowered into the bath. This avoids having to build a carriage of some sort that slides on the column. There is very little play between the inner and outer tube on the column. I’ve used snap buttons to lock the telescoping tube into the loading and washing positions. (Alternatively, you can make the column height adjustable in quarter-inch increments using a cotterless hitch pin, so the unit can adapt to different machines and/or fluid levels in the tank. But the snap buttons are easier to use when cleaning records.)

My frame is primarily from EZTube components. They sell nice looking black anodized 1” square tubing and the plastic snap button connectors. The telescoping column uses a very nice 1.25” square, .110" thick wall tube from ALCobra. The corners of the inner 1” EZ Tube column need to be machined or filed down to fit in the ALCobra tube. But the result is a very, very smooth sliding telescoping column that is used to raise and lower the LPs on the spindle. Alternatively, the whole setup could be built with ALCobra telescoping tubing to eliminate the need to file the EZTube piece. However, there aren’t plastic corner fittings for the ALCobra tubes, and therefore the frame would have to be secured with holes, brackets, bolts and screws, or rivets.

6) Other less important design options:
Instead of a cord with an inline thumbwheel switch, I’ve added an illuminated toggle switch that is mounted on the motor box. Easier to use, and easier to immediately see by the lighted switch whether the slowly rotating LP spindle is moving or not.

Attached are a few pics, and here are links to 2 videos showing how quickly the unit can be assembled for use.

Assembly Demo: http://youtu.be/xsU0qylYAc0
Load / Unload Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d10ABHtDs6M

The attached parts list also provides some build guidance, but I'm happy to answer questions.
Cheers,
B B

I really like what you have made and I appreciate you sharing the parts list! I am going to try and duplicate your system but I do have a question. Can you please give us the dimensions? I understand that it depends on the size tank being used, I will be using a 13" W X 10" L X 10" H tank. Maybe I should be asking for the clearance around the tank but any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
Marco
 
Hi Marco,
Here's what I cut:
Two 9" lengths, Two 7" lengths, One 4" length, One 10" length for inside stationary column. The rising column is 12" long and made out of larger tubing per the parts list.
I've attached a photo noting which lengths I used where.

The second photo shows the inside column. This is the piece that required some work for my set up. I had to machine off the sharp corners so the riser could slide over the column. Also I machined slots for the motor spindle and axle to have clearance.
Cheers,
B B
 
Hi Marco,
Here's what I cut:
Two 9" lengths, Two 7" lengths, One 4" length, One 10" length for inside stationary column. The rising column is 12" long and made out of larger tubing per the parts list.
I've attached a photo noting which lengths I used where.

The second photo shows the inside column. This is the piece that required some work for my set up. I had to machine off the sharp corners so the riser could slide over the column. Also I machined slots for the motor spindle and axle to have clearance.
Cheers,
B B

Thank you! Now it's time to order some stuff and start the build.:)