Hi Plow:Has anyone using a 2.5" x 5" filter for cleaning the record bath liquid tried one besides the Hydronix SDC-25-0501?
The sites I've checked recently (allfilters.com, discountfilterstore.com, walmart, amazon, newegg) seem to either be out of the Hydronix, or else the Hydronix is significantly more expensive than something like the Spiropure SP-P1-478 (allfilters.com).
I can't tell if this filter is something I'll regret not being brand-loyal about
There is nothing magical about the Hydronix filter. I bought it at the time because it was a 1 micron filter that fit my small filter housing and it had decent reviews. I'm sure there are other options.
Good luck,
B B
Manufacturers are just being lazy by using 3 RPM motors. It's harder to find 5 to 6 RPH motors and probably a bit more costly, so they take the cheap, easy way out and try to justify their selection by saying it doesn't matter. It does.
B B
I've just bought a unit and despite the spinner being advertised as 2rpm, it is in fact nearer 6rpm. Cutting the voltage from 12v to 3v reduces this to about 1.5rpm. However, this is still too fast. Luckily, the motor is very generic and it's very easy to replace the motor with a drop in 0.6rpm unit. This is still too fast, but I would expect that running it at 3v will give a rotation speed of 0.15rpm or 9rph. The new motor should arrive early next week.
This is probably slow enough, given that most of the cleaning action takes place over the first 30 seconds for any one part of the record. 15 minutes rotation time will permit two and a bit full rotations.
I've also settled on a cleaning solution of about 97.5% water, 2.5% IPA, Triton X100, Ilfotol and BAC50. Post clean, I do a rinse of mainly H2O with a little IPA and Ilfotol followed by a vacuum clean (Vinyl Vac clone).
I've done a bit of geometry and a few calculations. I've looked at how much of the cut portion of the record is exposed to US cavitation when the cleaning solution is up to edge of the label level.
I have assumed that the record is cut as far as the 120mm diameter as permitted by most standards. With the help of a bit of diagramming software, I have determined the following: The swept part of the record from outer edge to the 120mm mark is as follows: The outermost edge spends 144 degrees of rotation in the cleaning solution for every revolution. The innermost cut groove at 120mm diameter spends 72 degrees of rotation per revolution in the cleaning fluid. The challenge, therefore, is to have a rotation speed that is slow enough to give the innermost cut part of the record at least 30 seconds (and ideally longer) of cavitation per revolution.
72 degrees represents a fifth of a full revolution. If follows, therefore, that the fastest rotation time that can be effective is five times 30 seconds. This is 2.5 minutes. The fastest rotation speed must then be no faster than 0.4rpm (i.e. a full rotation in 2.5 minutes.). If the rotation speed could be reduced to 0.2rpm, then every cut part of the record will have at least 1 minute of continuous cavitation per revolution. Given that two full revolutions is probably desirable, then it would seem reasonable for 10 minutes of cavitation at 0.2rpm to be a minimum objective. If rotation speed could be cut still further to say 0.1rpm (6rph), then a single rotation of a fraction over 10 minutes will suffice.
2 or 3 rpm spinners are clearly going to be inadequate especially as one approaches the innermost cut grooves. At 3rpm, the innermost cut groove is going to be exposed to cavitation for a whopping four (yes 4) seconds per revolution. And as we know, cavitation time is not cumulative with respect to effectiveness.
I have assumed that the record is cut as far as the 120mm diameter as permitted by most standards. With the help of a bit of diagramming software, I have determined the following: The swept part of the record from outer edge to the 120mm mark is as follows: The outermost edge spends 144 degrees of rotation in the cleaning solution for every revolution. The innermost cut groove at 120mm diameter spends 72 degrees of rotation per revolution in the cleaning fluid. The challenge, therefore, is to have a rotation speed that is slow enough to give the innermost cut part of the record at least 30 seconds (and ideally longer) of cavitation per revolution.
72 degrees represents a fifth of a full revolution. If follows, therefore, that the fastest rotation time that can be effective is five times 30 seconds. This is 2.5 minutes. The fastest rotation speed must then be no faster than 0.4rpm (i.e. a full rotation in 2.5 minutes.). If the rotation speed could be reduced to 0.2rpm, then every cut part of the record will have at least 1 minute of continuous cavitation per revolution. Given that two full revolutions is probably desirable, then it would seem reasonable for 10 minutes of cavitation at 0.2rpm to be a minimum objective. If rotation speed could be cut still further to say 0.1rpm (6rph), then a single rotation of a fraction over 10 minutes will suffice.
2 or 3 rpm spinners are clearly going to be inadequate especially as one approaches the innermost cut grooves. At 3rpm, the innermost cut groove is going to be exposed to cavitation for a whopping four (yes 4) seconds per revolution. And as we know, cavitation time is not cumulative with respect to effectiveness.
Hey, guys, I have a simpler solution. Use Dawn Powerwash Spray on vinyl records. Rotate them in your hand while you run a felt brush over them -- I used a Stanton felt brush cleaner from the 1990s. Then rinse. The water will slip off, down to the last drop. Let it dry overnight. Play the record. You will be amazed.
I discovered this while using the spray to clean my shower door glass. Then I thought: "Hey, I can use this on my vinyl."
I discovered this while using the spray to clean my shower door glass. Then I thought: "Hey, I can use this on my vinyl."
That might be OK for a pre-wash, but whatever you do, DO NOT rinse with tap water and let that dry in the grooves! Mineral deposits from tap water will get stuck in there and be nigh impossible to get out.
Ultrasonics will still have their place for foreign matter that causes skips that regular cleaning can't get out, but I've stopped using mine entirely. I use a 10ml/liter dilution of Liquinox as a deep cleaner, a 10ml/liter dilution of Ilfotol as a secondary cleaner and mild anti-static, followed by a lab grade water rinse, all with at least a minute agitation on my RCM, and vacuumed off. That combo beats everything else that I've tried, and has become the standard among the vinyl ripping community. As long as that all takes, it still takes less time than a single 12 minute rotation with the diy ultrasonic.
I am a physicist and I am daily using ultrasonic cleaning for like ages (in applications where cleaningness is literally critical and important).
If there is a serious argument supporting that cleaning efficiency depends on continuous time (uninterrupted) 7 minutes good vs. 7 sec. bad (so factor 60x less), then I would say this: I did not read it anywhere.
So, here is with my 5cents which I would advise to all:
- that total time should count here, not the continuous exposure time.
- that rotation speed should be HIGH ENOUGH such that at end-of-record the centrifugal force should be higher than weight of water still present on the record (so water should spill OUT radially, and to-design a lid which collects this water and recirculates it after appropriate filtering).
- very important is also the choice for cleaning agent and its concentration; kitchen washing gel is good enough for most jobs, but it is not "the best". It might leave traces after drying.
- Energy balance: number of plates capable to be simultaneously cleaned depends on attenuation (damping, dissipation) of cavitation energy on TOTAL surface area/volume (incl. wet ones "outside" the liquid and eventually on O-rings of supports, etc)
- professional equipment combines multiple Piezo elements with slightly different frequencies: such that beatings will occur, to enhance/homogenize the cleaning effect.
- efficient rinsing and move dirt away from surfaces is equally important.
- proper drying method and parameters are actually equally important, probably even much more than rinsing!
The acoustic energy leaks out in the air, true, but not in this way (put a lid on the surface and you will see).
And yes, if you attempt to pad the bath and kill the noise inside liquid then you will make it impotent. You must kill it outside! (actually not so hard to do - but will be expensive like any frame - but who needs silence during a ultrasonic cleaning, and how many watts are we speaking, and in what room - living room or basement ?).
Be careful with padding inside: even a few nose-tissues can fully drop cleaning efficiency down to near zero. Experience tells...
This is actually how I adjust the strength of the US bath (I have very high power ones by default, and none have a setting for power variation), depending on the specific material and parts geometries which I want to clean.
Last edited:
Hi Elliott
There is a link to the parts lists for all versions in the original post of the thread. Those links do work.
Here is the link again to a post that has the attachments. Let me know if you still have trouble:
Link to posts with Parts Lists: #2,131
Cheers,
B B
bbftx - I seem to recall you suggested that a filter pump should operate so that it moves from 1/4 to 1/2 tank volume/minute. If so, how did you arrive at these #'s? Neil Antin touches on this on his Precision Cleaning book, but I've never been able to figure out the underlying logic. To extend the idea, if there is an optimum pump volume, it follows that one would have to spec the pump/filter combination to provide the desired flow. Any thoughts much appreciated - apologies if this has been already addressed in the previous 116 pages ..
Hi sdull, sorry for the delay in responding. There is nothing too scientific in my reasoning for about ¼ to ½ of the tank volume per minute. I've more or less come to the conclusion that it's best to filter the tank bath while the ultrasonic is not in use. Filtering too quickly, during the ultrasonic cleaning, can interfere with the cavitation in unpredictable ways. So why risk that? The ¼ to ½ tank volume per minute is primarily to allow for relatively quick turnover of the tank through the filter. 3 or 4 minutes, and you can be fairly confident you've filtered out most all of the suspended contaminants. Lower pump volumes simply drag out the process.
Last edited:
bbftx - Many thanks for your thoughts on this. My research (mostly from the Neil Anton's work) concurs exactly with what you say. I previously owned an Audiodesk unit which worked great - until it didn't. My repair efforts ended in frustration which drove me to start design a new approach to a multiple disk, edge driven unit (which was facilitated by your DIY project). Should have more details soon, and an eventually sort of "kit" geared to folks who want; high performance, > multiple disk/cycle throughput, convenience, and reasonable cost. Work has proceeded nicely, and includes a laser cut stainless steel frame, high performance filtering, and (mostly) automated process. Stay tuned.
So 60khz is the magic frequency. As for the solution does the photoflo evaporate as I'm sure the iso does even if at low concentration. I've debated building and installing one sunk into a laundry sink countertop. Or devise some sort of 1/4 footprint pint sized dishwasher. I'd imagine simply filtering the solution thru coffee filters would be sufficient for removing particulate matter. My first attempt decades ago was based around a thrift store vibrating foot bath. Believe it or not it wasn't half bad. The Nitty Gritty Mini Pro 2 I had was a joke and provided the motivation. The converted foot bath beat the heck out of it. Perhaps the market needs a fishtank type with led lighting, etc so folks can take it all in during the process. Plus devise a plop plop fizz fizz tablet to further enhance the light show. I bet they would sell. Sucker fish not included...
Clean records definitely rule.
DD
Clean records definitely rule.
DD