I have an additional concern and that is the lack of some kind of bearing support between the motor spindle and the records/spacers. Eventually the weight of the records and spacers will lead to a premature failure of motor assembly due to the constant force. It may not happen immediately but do you want to have to find a replacement if the seller is out of business or no longer around?
Food for thought....
Food for thought....
Zg, All good points. Just thought I'd put it out there in case someone wanted to try it or modify their design to do something similar.
Here's another idea I was contemplating and would like some feedback. As has been mentioned in previous threads, when I have finished the cleaning I get a "line of debris" left on the record from floating material left in the water. I know some have used the pump to rinse it off, but I was wondering if a waterpik (used to clean to clean teeth) to clean it off and perhaps rinse out the grooves better. Any thoughts?
Here's another idea I was contemplating and would like some feedback. As has been mentioned in previous threads, when I have finished the cleaning I get a "line of debris" left on the record from floating material left in the water. I know some have used the pump to rinse it off, but I was wondering if a waterpik (used to clean to clean teeth) to clean it off and perhaps rinse out the grooves better. Any thoughts?
Whew 80 pages is a lot to read through! But I want to thank everyone for their input and contributions to this thread. I just bought a Sonix Iv SS140 cleaner off eBay. I could not find a smaller one at a reasonable price. I have a large number of records to be cleaned so i think I can do six at a time with this unit. I will have to experiment with spacing a bit but it's plenty big!
Reading through I saw some talk about using aquarium type surface skimmers. I was thinking of cutting a 3" wide slot down to the water line on each of the long sides of my UC and adding a water channel around the edge that dumps into a smaller rear tank. that way the water surface naturally flows away from the records. the water could then be pumped up through the bottom vent with minimal UC wave disturbance. I think.
Maybe it would be better to have the slots on the short ends? or maybe it would be better to have a single slot on the end of upward record rotation?
If I had a small external tank, I could put a heater in that tank so the the warm water flows up from the bottom. might help equalize the temps from top to bottom in the UC?
would love to hear your input.
Zc
Reading through I saw some talk about using aquarium type surface skimmers. I was thinking of cutting a 3" wide slot down to the water line on each of the long sides of my UC and adding a water channel around the edge that dumps into a smaller rear tank. that way the water surface naturally flows away from the records. the water could then be pumped up through the bottom vent with minimal UC wave disturbance. I think.
Maybe it would be better to have the slots on the short ends? or maybe it would be better to have a single slot on the end of upward record rotation?
If I had a small external tank, I could put a heater in that tank so the the warm water flows up from the bottom. might help equalize the temps from top to bottom in the UC?
would love to hear your input.
Zc
An interesting concept if it can be done. Be very cautious of cutting the Sonix US tank. If any of the power driver boards gets wet it will short the main PROPRIETARY transistor and Sonix will not sell replacements, just the whole board at $140 plus. I had to buy some smaller units on Ebay to cannibalize the driver board.
6 RPH
Nope, never got around to ordering a 6rph unit. I'm sure it would work fine, and if I was starting over, that's the motor I'd probably go with. But going with either 5 or 6 is fine, I'm sure.
B B
Nope, never got around to ordering a 6rph unit. I'm sure it would work fine, and if I was starting over, that's the motor I'd probably go with. But going with either 5 or 6 is fine, I'm sure.
B B
Last edited:
Hi Zc,
Cutting up your stainless steel tank probably isn't a great idea.
Since you have a large tank anyway, you should have room to experiment with aquarium surface skimmers ($10 on up) or use the space to build a weir system inside the tank.
Good Luck, let us know what you try.
B B
Let me ask a question about this: I assume that the filtering system is used to recycle the cleaning solution so that it can be used more than once. Thus, saving money, correct?
But distilled water is super cheap as is the IPA and Photoflo. So, is this a bit over overkill?
Can't the solution be poured through a man made filter much more cheaply than a pump and filter system?
Hey buzz
Here are my immediate thoughts --
I think I put about $40 to 50 into the pump and filter system. Not very expensive. And that is with a 1 micron filter which definitely improves the results during a long cleaning session.
I don't recycle my solution for more than one session. But the solution starts deteriorating from the first batch of records, so for me, the expense of the filtration setup was worth it for in-session solution quality and the convenience of an auto system.
I haven't done the math lately, but a batch of cleaning solution is probably $1.50 to $2.00 where I am, so the filter system pays off relatively quickly. Plus it was fun just to make a setup that works.
You could try to manually pour the solution through a 1 micron filter, but it would be excruciatingly slow without a pump. My time is definitely more valuable than that!
And you'd still need to pay something for that manual setup ($20 -$25?)
Cheers,
B B
Here are my immediate thoughts --
I think I put about $40 to 50 into the pump and filter system. Not very expensive. And that is with a 1 micron filter which definitely improves the results during a long cleaning session.
I don't recycle my solution for more than one session. But the solution starts deteriorating from the first batch of records, so for me, the expense of the filtration setup was worth it for in-session solution quality and the convenience of an auto system.
I haven't done the math lately, but a batch of cleaning solution is probably $1.50 to $2.00 where I am, so the filter system pays off relatively quickly. Plus it was fun just to make a setup that works.
You could try to manually pour the solution through a 1 micron filter, but it would be excruciatingly slow without a pump. My time is definitely more valuable than that!
And you'd still need to pay something for that manual setup ($20 -$25?)
Cheers,
B B
Yeah, I guess the main point is the fun in building the system. It was fun even though I'm a rank amateur and made lots of mistakes. Since my cleaner does not have a drainage hole, a pump/filter system might be harder to pull off; hence, my request for a manual solution.
I have several hundred records to clean so a filtration system is necessary I would imagine. I dont feel like mixing up 3+ gallons for every few batch's of records I run so I am going to duplicate most of the filter set BBFTX detailed with the added sub tank and run off system.
I got my Sonix for dirt cheap so I don't mind "experimenting" with this one. should it not go well I can always sell off the special transistors and recoup most if not all the $$
Zc
I got my Sonix for dirt cheap so I don't mind "experimenting" with this one. should it not go well I can always sell off the special transistors and recoup most if not all the $$
Zc
I've been reading this thread for ages now and am about to get the tank from Vibrato...do I need the 80hz or can I get the same thing out of the 60hz one? I too looked at the EBAy one...here is the motor deal:
Variable Speed DC Motor allows slow rotation of your records in the ultrasonic tank resulting in optimal ultrasonic cleaning (from 1 to 5 minutes per record revolution)
Is this good enough or do I need to make my own deal? I can do it out of wood as I have a shop, but I'm concerned about the rod and attaching it etc... I don't have a metal lathe, just a wood one. I can probably mount a motor assembly but have never worked with reducers etc...Need some help here, lol. thanks all.
Variable Speed DC Motor allows slow rotation of your records in the ultrasonic tank resulting in optimal ultrasonic cleaning (from 1 to 5 minutes per record revolution)
Is this good enough or do I need to make my own deal? I can do it out of wood as I have a shop, but I'm concerned about the rod and attaching it etc... I don't have a metal lathe, just a wood one. I can probably mount a motor assembly but have never worked with reducers etc...Need some help here, lol. thanks all.
In past discussions the optimal best time was between 10 - 12 minutes per revolution. This was to allow the US action to work to its full effect. I believe BB posted some white papers or links from some US manufacturers detailing the effective time in the cleaner. If you can afford the 80KHZ unit then do it, won't hurt. Bubbles are much smaller allowing better reach into the record groove. A 20KHZ is like a wire brush whereas a 60kHZ is like toothe brush, paraphrasing from a manufacturers site.
I'm not a metal worker so these two sites have some great parts you can use constructing a cleaner.
Welcome to ServoCity
All Electronics | Electronic and Electro-Mechanical Parts and Supplies at Discount Prices Great for project boxes, switches etc.
I'm not a metal worker so these two sites have some great parts you can use constructing a cleaner.
Welcome to ServoCity
All Electronics | Electronic and Electro-Mechanical Parts and Supplies at Discount Prices Great for project boxes, switches etc.
Thanks I'll check them out. I have MS and my cognitive is off at times. Was hard for me to follow all the posts on here. I thought that motor on the Ebay one wold allow a ten minute revolution,but I guess it doesn't. my biggest hold up on making something is getting the right rod and connecting it to the motor. If I can get a rod that is easy to connect, then I'll make one as I have scrap wood in the shop and can make this in a morning. Thanks
First, thank you bbftx for your inspirational thread. I just made a frame for a commercial US machine, and the results are equivalent to a component upgrade - "new record" sheen from garage sale records. Reduced stylus wear is just a bonus.
CT, you might want to consider wavelength (=1/f) as a factor. Wavelength should be small enough to fit between the tank sides and the record, and between the records. By co-incidence, I just did a test last month, in which I spaced records at .625 inches and cleaned them for 15 minutes at 80 KHZ. The wavelength at 80 KHz is .750 inches, so that was close to a fit, but not quite. There was no discernible wave action between the records, but they were rotated through an ultrasonically agitated solution of lab grade detergent and distilled water. This method produced a considerable deposit of particulates, and considerably improved performance (over VPI cleaning).
Increasing the spacing to 1.875 inches on all sides revealed a uniform wave action, and accomplished as much again: as much particulate as before, and a noise floor which I had never experienced before. On my first listening test of a mint audiophile record, the music simply exploded from blackness, like a firework. I am so glad that I sprang for the high frequency unit. YMMD
CT, you might want to consider wavelength (=1/f) as a factor. Wavelength should be small enough to fit between the tank sides and the record, and between the records. By co-incidence, I just did a test last month, in which I spaced records at .625 inches and cleaned them for 15 minutes at 80 KHZ. The wavelength at 80 KHz is .750 inches, so that was close to a fit, but not quite. There was no discernible wave action between the records, but they were rotated through an ultrasonically agitated solution of lab grade detergent and distilled water. This method produced a considerable deposit of particulates, and considerably improved performance (over VPI cleaning).
Increasing the spacing to 1.875 inches on all sides revealed a uniform wave action, and accomplished as much again: as much particulate as before, and a noise floor which I had never experienced before. On my first listening test of a mint audiophile record, the music simply exploded from blackness, like a firework. I am so glad that I sprang for the high frequency unit. YMMD