Sonix Heater Update
I just finished cleaning a large batch of records on my URC. I was more aggressive with the heater on the ultrasonic machine, while closely monitoring the water and machine temps.
As long as I had the fluid level up to and just above an internal shoulder (fill line) in the tank that is about 1-1/8" below the top lip of the Sonix, the temperature remained in control. Even the top edge of the tank didn't get scalding hot.
With the heater on constantly, the liquid in the tub seemed to max out and maintain 120°F. This is not too hot for vinyl and while very warm, isn't unbearable for fingers either.
I'm now comfortable leaving the heater on to run a complete cycle (12 min), as long as the fluid level is above the fill line. I check water temp before and after each cycle. Please check your own machine though, as I'm sure there might be variation from unit to unit and manufacturer to manufacturer.
BB
I just finished cleaning a large batch of records on my URC. I was more aggressive with the heater on the ultrasonic machine, while closely monitoring the water and machine temps.
As long as I had the fluid level up to and just above an internal shoulder (fill line) in the tank that is about 1-1/8" below the top lip of the Sonix, the temperature remained in control. Even the top edge of the tank didn't get scalding hot.
With the heater on constantly, the liquid in the tub seemed to max out and maintain 120°F. This is not too hot for vinyl and while very warm, isn't unbearable for fingers either.
I'm now comfortable leaving the heater on to run a complete cycle (12 min), as long as the fluid level is above the fill line. I check water temp before and after each cycle. Please check your own machine though, as I'm sure there might be variation from unit to unit and manufacturer to manufacturer.
BB
Last edited:
Addict,
10 cycles for total of 30 records. Yes, same solution for all. Just drained it. These were fairly clean records --- no real grungy ones. The solution probably could have gone longer. Some dirt particles at the bottom of the tank. Solution still had faint IPA smell and was still "slippery" from Photo Flo surfactant.
10 cycles for total of 30 records. Yes, same solution for all. Just drained it. These were fairly clean records --- no real grungy ones. The solution probably could have gone longer. Some dirt particles at the bottom of the tank. Solution still had faint IPA smell and was still "slippery" from Photo Flo surfactant.
Cleaning Solution Filter
You've got me thinking about extending cleaning solution life, Addict.
I think it would be fairly easy to rig up an inexpensive aquarium pump with an inline, sub-micron filter. It could probably be done for $20-30 all-in I bet.
Your ultrasonic cleaner would have to have a drain, as I don't think there is room for a submersible pump and filter in the tank. You could just hook up the drain to the pump inlet and filter using some flexible tubing. Then, pump the filtered cleaning solution back into the top of the tank. You could circulate in between record batches, or probably even filter while the records are being cleaned.
You've got me thinking about extending cleaning solution life, Addict.
I think it would be fairly easy to rig up an inexpensive aquarium pump with an inline, sub-micron filter. It could probably be done for $20-30 all-in I bet.
Your ultrasonic cleaner would have to have a drain, as I don't think there is room for a submersible pump and filter in the tank. You could just hook up the drain to the pump inlet and filter using some flexible tubing. Then, pump the filtered cleaning solution back into the top of the tank. You could circulate in between record batches, or probably even filter while the records are being cleaned.
BB,
Thanks for the update on your explorations on the temperature issue. According to this article, I was probably too conservative about how much heat vinyl can take in an earlier post. It's interesting that the suggested range, 140 - 170 degrees F, is the same as the preset range on the GemOro, according to what I was told.
I'm also interested in filtering, and possibly a rinse step as well. This is based on the Cleaning Efficiency table, about midway through this article, as well as experience and common wisdom with multi-step vacuum cleaning systems.
On another question, is there a reason to prefer completing the entire clean cycle in one revolution, or would it be just as good to spread it out over 2, 3 or 4 revolutions? For example, one could get the same cleaning exposure as your current cycle of one revolution at 5 RPH by choosing, for example, a three-revolution cycle at 15 RPH (or 4 revolutions at 20 RPH). This would afford more choices in finding a suitable motor (maybe Addict would find one in stock). I think that 3-4 minutes per revolution would still be slow enough to allow the water to drain down the grooves w/o dripping into the label area. It would also provide flexibility to experiment with shorter cleaning cycles.
Thanks for the update on your explorations on the temperature issue. According to this article, I was probably too conservative about how much heat vinyl can take in an earlier post. It's interesting that the suggested range, 140 - 170 degrees F, is the same as the preset range on the GemOro, according to what I was told.
I'm also interested in filtering, and possibly a rinse step as well. This is based on the Cleaning Efficiency table, about midway through this article, as well as experience and common wisdom with multi-step vacuum cleaning systems.
On another question, is there a reason to prefer completing the entire clean cycle in one revolution, or would it be just as good to spread it out over 2, 3 or 4 revolutions? For example, one could get the same cleaning exposure as your current cycle of one revolution at 5 RPH by choosing, for example, a three-revolution cycle at 15 RPH (or 4 revolutions at 20 RPH). This would afford more choices in finding a suitable motor (maybe Addict would find one in stock). I think that 3-4 minutes per revolution would still be slow enough to allow the water to drain down the grooves w/o dripping into the label area. It would also provide flexibility to experiment with shorter cleaning cycles.
Hi BB,
I still have been unable to find a suitable motor so I am going to put one one back order with H&R....should arrive by the end of the month. I was wondering if you can give me a part number for the 2 wire line cord with plug and switch?
Addict,
Any cord you want to use will work. The one I got from H&R is part no. TM93LIN2352
On the motor, there are other distributors. Call Hansen, the manufacturer, and get their part number. H1-46 and 47 are H&R part nos.
Ish- I do think it's better to leave the surface you're cleaning in the bath for 4 min. straight. Eight 30 sec periods in the tank does NOT equal 1 continuous 4 min exposure. If you're in 30 sec, out one minute, then in, then out, everything dries out in between. The tough grime you're trying to get off may not be dislodged in 30 sec. If it dries, you're just starting over from scratch in my opinion.
BB
Fantastic and Simple
My wife does not see why I need to spend hundreds of dollars on a record cleaner. You've just solved my problem. The only caution I would add is that 78RPM (shellac) records should not be exposed to alcohol. It dissolves them. Better to use an extremely dilute dishwashing liquid (the brand they clean oil-soaked birds with) on 78s.
My wife does not see why I need to spend hundreds of dollars on a record cleaner. You've just solved my problem. The only caution I would add is that 78RPM (shellac) records should not be exposed to alcohol. It dissolves them. Better to use an extremely dilute dishwashing liquid (the brand they clean oil-soaked birds with) on 78s.
Shaun, here are my calculations: Sound travels at 1497 meters/sec in water at 25 degrees C or 4871 ft/sec at 70 degrees F. Depth of groove is 0.0029” = 2.417e-4 ft. = 0.0002417 ft (see KAB Electro Acoustics http://www.kabusa.com
4871 / .0002417 = 20.16 kHz. Since you might want two wavelengths into the groove to knock out smaller particles, you get about 40 kHz. Vinyl is very resilient and hard to damage. I once bent a 33 rpm vinyl record to try to break it. I bent it into a full U shape upon which it finally exploded with a loud retort sending shards into the wallboard. Fortunately, none of them hit my face. 78 rpm shellac records are brittle and have grooves twice as deep. One might want to keep the db level lower to avoid damage -- or sacrifice one 78 to see what causes damage.
Cavitation Bubble Size
Hi 78RPM,
You're off by 3 zeros. You get 20.16 MHz.
The wavelength in water for these UC machines is 3 inches at 20kHz and 1 inch at 60kHz.
But wavelength is NOT the driver of cleaning penetration on a grooved surface in an ultrasonic cleaner.
Ultrasonic cleaners clean based on the cavitation bubble size, which is much, much smaller than the wavelength of the driving frequency. See the attached chart showing Dependence of the Bubble Radius upon Driving Frequency. The cavitation bubble in a 60 kHz machine will have a radius of about 5 microns. The radius of a 78 stylus is roughly 70 microns (0.0027 inches or 2.7 mils), MUCH larger than the size of the tiny cavitation bubbles.
A 33-1/3 rpm stylus has a tip radius of about 17 microns to 25 microns, so again, the 5 micron cavitation bubbles can easily get into the grooves of a modern LP.
I'll also repost the graph here showing the particle size removed based on frequency. Note the scale range of 0.3 to 7 microns (roughly our bubble size).
BB
Hi 78RPM,
You're off by 3 zeros. You get 20.16 MHz.
The wavelength in water for these UC machines is 3 inches at 20kHz and 1 inch at 60kHz.
But wavelength is NOT the driver of cleaning penetration on a grooved surface in an ultrasonic cleaner.
Ultrasonic cleaners clean based on the cavitation bubble size, which is much, much smaller than the wavelength of the driving frequency. See the attached chart showing Dependence of the Bubble Radius upon Driving Frequency. The cavitation bubble in a 60 kHz machine will have a radius of about 5 microns. The radius of a 78 stylus is roughly 70 microns (0.0027 inches or 2.7 mils), MUCH larger than the size of the tiny cavitation bubbles.
A 33-1/3 rpm stylus has a tip radius of about 17 microns to 25 microns, so again, the 5 micron cavitation bubbles can easily get into the grooves of a modern LP.
I'll also repost the graph here showing the particle size removed based on frequency. Note the scale range of 0.3 to 7 microns (roughly our bubble size).
BB
Last edited:
Update - Budget Build
So it's been pretty quiet in this thread lately so I thought I would give an update on what I call my "Budget Build".
I call it that because I was unable to source a gently used 60KHz ultrasonic machine to use as my base and was looking at well over $600.00 (after taxes and shipping) to get my hands on a Sonic IV or Gemoro 60KHz machine. Being an impatient SOB I decided to take a flyer on a 40KHz machine and was able to find a brand new one for $259.00 including shipping on ebay. I have acquired all of my parts (thanks BBTX for the parts list) except the 6 RPH motor that was back-ordered from H&R. It is supposed to ship tomorrow. I spoke with the manufacturer of the motor and they said that they custom build the motors for H&R and that there is no other re-seller of those products. In the meantime I wanted to clean some records so I suspended the loaded spindle between two pieces of Styrofoam that the cleaner shipped with and gave the records a spin every four minutes.
I have to say that the 40KHz machine seems to work just fine. The results have been great with no damage to the vinyl. I had a few nasty, moldy records to use as a test. One Beatles album I picked up in a garage sale collection was so bad I had to peel the original paper record sleeve off before doing a test clean. A 12 minute cycle got almost all of the crud off. I used a carbon fibre brush and some cleaning solution to manually go over the problem spot, then back in the machine for another 12 minute cycle. The record came out sparkling clean and sounded great when I played it a while later. I am completely sold on this method of cleaning.
Once I get the motor installed I will take more photos and assemble a complete cost sheet but I think my total cost outlay will probably come in around $320.00. I am already thinking about my next machine that will have an increased record capacity.
Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to this thread, especially BB who has provided so much valuable insight.
So it's been pretty quiet in this thread lately so I thought I would give an update on what I call my "Budget Build".
I call it that because I was unable to source a gently used 60KHz ultrasonic machine to use as my base and was looking at well over $600.00 (after taxes and shipping) to get my hands on a Sonic IV or Gemoro 60KHz machine. Being an impatient SOB I decided to take a flyer on a 40KHz machine and was able to find a brand new one for $259.00 including shipping on ebay. I have acquired all of my parts (thanks BBTX for the parts list) except the 6 RPH motor that was back-ordered from H&R. It is supposed to ship tomorrow. I spoke with the manufacturer of the motor and they said that they custom build the motors for H&R and that there is no other re-seller of those products. In the meantime I wanted to clean some records so I suspended the loaded spindle between two pieces of Styrofoam that the cleaner shipped with and gave the records a spin every four minutes.
I have to say that the 40KHz machine seems to work just fine. The results have been great with no damage to the vinyl. I had a few nasty, moldy records to use as a test. One Beatles album I picked up in a garage sale collection was so bad I had to peel the original paper record sleeve off before doing a test clean. A 12 minute cycle got almost all of the crud off. I used a carbon fibre brush and some cleaning solution to manually go over the problem spot, then back in the machine for another 12 minute cycle. The record came out sparkling clean and sounded great when I played it a while later. I am completely sold on this method of cleaning.
Once I get the motor installed I will take more photos and assemble a complete cost sheet but I think my total cost outlay will probably come in around $320.00. I am already thinking about my next machine that will have an increased record capacity.
Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to this thread, especially BB who has provided so much valuable insight.
Hi, Vinyladdict, that's good news. Why not try a gearhead motor such as this one which gears down motor speed to 4.5 RPM? see www.jameco.com Jameco Part no. 155821. You can gear down even more by visiting your local hobby shop and getting gears and pulleys made with Lego blocks. OR-- you could run it at a lower voltage than 12VDC to get slower speed -- OR -- you could put an inexpensive Pulse Width Modulator (L298 motor controller from CanaKit, $19) on it to run at slower speed -- OR -- you could put an NE555 timer on it to turn for a fraction of a second, pause, turn again, pause ... Any of these methods is cheaper than the solution you found so far.
They (Jameco) also have a 40kHz transducer, Matsushita EFR40K2http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10001_10001_2120268_-1, Jameco Part no. 2120268. Do you suppose we could wrap this transducer in a plastic bag and immerse it in water to provide the ultrasonic wave? Am I naive here?
They (Jameco) also have a 40kHz transducer, Matsushita EFR40K2http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10001_10001_2120268_-1, Jameco Part no. 2120268. Do you suppose we could wrap this transducer in a plastic bag and immerse it in water to provide the ultrasonic wave? Am I naive here?
78RPM - with all due respect, none of those options are cheaper than the Synchron motor, which is $19.95, and operates at the optimal output speed of 5 to 6 RPH without the need for additional gears, pulleys, or another gearbox to contain those additional parts, or a DC power supply. A 115 VAC motor like the Synchron is much more cost effective.
And no, simply putting a transducer in a liquid bath won't work.
Addict - Glad to hear things are coming along. What mix of cleaning solution were you using for your first experiments?
BB
Last edited:
Hi 78RPM,
I appreciate your suggestion for alternate motors but the unit shipped finally shipped yesterday so I will continue spinning by hand until it arrives. I am a DIY noob and I am a big fan of not reinventing the wheel. In this case I have been fortunate to have received the benefit of other DIYers experience. I am assuming your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek when you suggested the transducer in the bag method?
I appreciate your suggestion for alternate motors but the unit shipped finally shipped yesterday so I will continue spinning by hand until it arrives. I am a DIY noob and I am a big fan of not reinventing the wheel. In this case I have been fortunate to have received the benefit of other DIYers experience. I am assuming your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek when you suggested the transducer in the bag method?
Hey BB,
I started with your latest recommended mix - 150 oz distilled, 3 OZ IPA, and .2 oz of Triton X-100 instead of the photoflow. It seems to work quite well although I think on really dirty records I get from garage sales I will have to change the solution more often as the last few records of last nights batch sounded a bit fuzzy/distorted. I ran them through clean solution this morning and they sound great.
I may reduce the Triton X a bit as I seem to get some suds when I Degass and I am leery about the the air-drying part of the cycle.
I am attaching a photo of crud in the tank.
Wow, that is some crud, alright! Do you have any "before" pics of the record?
I haven't used Triton X-100, so don't know how much is best. I wouldn't assume you'd use the same amount of Triton as if you're using Kodak Photo-Flo 200. Definitely needs to be reduced if you're getting bubbles. Seems like people are usually talking about using a few drops of Triton, not more than that.
The amount of either Photo-Flo or Triton needed can also be different depending on the water you're using.
B B