Adding my two cents, I prefer the 60 KHZ for more general cleaning of typical dirty records. The 80 KHZ is great for detail cleaning for records that have been well kept. Louis sorry to hear you can't get the 60's as I wanted one of yours.
I think also there is a point of diminished returns the higher up you go in frequency. The comparisons that 20 KHZ is like a steel brush whereas 80 KHZ is like a soft tooth brush. As mentioned I seem to get better cleaning action with the 60 KHZ (Sonix4) than with the 80 KHZ (Vibrato). I had a 36 KHZ (Chinese crap) which still showed finger prints after use. Obviously results will vary depending on cleaning solution, temperature and individual. The sweet spot for now (My opinion) is the 60 - 80 KHZ but would like to see how a 50 KHZ unit does.
Louis, I'd be interested in the 50 KHZ unit. That would still give a better range of choices. Hopefully you maybe can find an alternate supplier of 60 KHZ transducers.
I think also there is a point of diminished returns the higher up you go in frequency. The comparisons that 20 KHZ is like a steel brush whereas 80 KHZ is like a soft tooth brush. As mentioned I seem to get better cleaning action with the 60 KHZ (Sonix4) than with the 80 KHZ (Vibrato). I had a 36 KHZ (Chinese crap) which still showed finger prints after use. Obviously results will vary depending on cleaning solution, temperature and individual. The sweet spot for now (My opinion) is the 60 - 80 KHZ but would like to see how a 50 KHZ unit does.
Louis, I'd be interested in the 50 KHZ unit. That would still give a better range of choices. Hopefully you maybe can find an alternate supplier of 60 KHZ transducers.
Last edited:
I'd be very interested in this. In fact, i'm going to hold off ordering a cleaner until you get more in stock.
Thanks!
Thank you everyone for the input!
I am awaiting quotes for the 69khz Transducers, and a possible new supplier for the 60khz transducers!
Also, an update on my father. He underwent 4 rounds of the toughest chemo for small-cell bladder cancer, and as of a week ago, he is now cancer-free!
It is a very aggressive cancer, and may return, but for now we are very happy with this good news!
Thank you to everyone for your support!
Sincerely,
Louis Steele
Vibrato, LLC.
Thank you everyone for the input!
I am awaiting quotes for the 69khz Transducers, and a possible new supplier for the 60khz transducers!
Also, an update on my father. He underwent 4 rounds of the toughest chemo for small-cell bladder cancer, and as of a week ago, he is now cancer-free!
It is a very aggressive cancer, and may return, but for now we are very happy with this good news!
Thank you to everyone for your support!
Sincerely,
Louis Steele
Vibrato, LLC.
That's great news about your father, Louis. I wish him all the best and a speedy recovery,
Can anyone tell me what a suitable test load for a 40KHz US generator so that I can test it on the bench with a CRO. I understand that you cannot connect it dry to the transducer.
Also is there any way to test a transducer independent of the generator?
I built a cheap diy US bath but it no longer works, even with a change of transducer and a change of generator. Trying to understand what is wrong as I never ran it dry and it worked at first. These are parts off ebay that presumably go into the cheap Chinese units. My bath is a round flat pan set up for a horizontal record.
thanks
Also is there any way to test a transducer independent of the generator?
I built a cheap diy US bath but it no longer works, even with a change of transducer and a change of generator. Trying to understand what is wrong as I never ran it dry and it worked at first. These are parts off ebay that presumably go into the cheap Chinese units. My bath is a round flat pan set up for a horizontal record.
thanks
Truetone:
Here is a schematic equivalent of a PZT Transducer, with suggested component values. View attachment 529890
Note: I have never use this for testing purposes and do not know if it will function. Your best bet is to troubleshoot the circuit!
At my former ultrasonic employer, they sometimes used incandescent lightbulbs (2 to 3 in series in the 200W to 300W range) with a large voltage capacitor ( 0.01uf , 600 volts, at least) in series to test some heavy-duty power transducers.
I don't know if you have troubleshooting skills or test equipment, but from my experience, it is possible that a resistor may be "open"; probably a large white 5 Watt ceramic resistor that should be in the value-area of 0.5ohms or 1 ohm. (if it is a small circuit board, this resistor may be a 2 or 3 watt metal-film or carbon variety).
If it is blowing fuses, you may have a shorted output transistor.
A website called Jumper One reverse engineered a chinese circuit and uploaded a schematic (Codyson Ultrasonic). You may find that useful, also!
-Louis
Vibrato, LLC.
Here is a schematic equivalent of a PZT Transducer, with suggested component values. View attachment 529890
Note: I have never use this for testing purposes and do not know if it will function. Your best bet is to troubleshoot the circuit!
At my former ultrasonic employer, they sometimes used incandescent lightbulbs (2 to 3 in series in the 200W to 300W range) with a large voltage capacitor ( 0.01uf , 600 volts, at least) in series to test some heavy-duty power transducers.
I don't know if you have troubleshooting skills or test equipment, but from my experience, it is possible that a resistor may be "open"; probably a large white 5 Watt ceramic resistor that should be in the value-area of 0.5ohms or 1 ohm. (if it is a small circuit board, this resistor may be a 2 or 3 watt metal-film or carbon variety).
If it is blowing fuses, you may have a shorted output transistor.
A website called Jumper One reverse engineered a chinese circuit and uploaded a schematic (Codyson Ultrasonic). You may find that useful, also!
-Louis
Vibrato, LLC.
Number of records in a 40k unit
Hi guys.
My current project of scratch building a turntable is nearly complete, in the fine tuning stages. I've been following this thread almost from day one and have had it earmarked as my next build from then. My wife has just had to have a major operation so I've been playing nurse which unfortunately means NO building for a couple of months. It has however given me the time to completely reread this entire thread, start my design and to compile a parts list. Thank bb and all for the inspiration and information you've supplied.
I live in the UK where only 40khz ultrasonic cleaners are readily available. I have found a couple of dual frequency units that are 35/80khz but the cheapest of these (the elma) is £1250 excluding postage. That's about $1800 at current exchange rates. Way above my budget. I will therefore have to use a 40khz unit. I'm not too bothered by this as it will almost certainly out perform any other cleaning system available.
It has been mentioned several times in the thread that the records should be at least one wavelength of sound apart. The speed of sound in water at 40℃ (105℉) is about 1525m/s (4995ft/s). Assuming that the other cleaning agents don't have to much of an affect, at 40khz the wavelength will be 38mm (1 1/2"). I assume that you also want the spacing between the tank wall and records to also be at least one wavelength. All of the 6lt unit are about 150mm (6") wide at the top and slightly narrower at the bottom. If you clean 3 records at a time you will inevitably be spacing the records less than one wavelength apart. With cleaning 2 records the the spacing will be just over one wavelength. Have any of you who have a 40khz unit experimented in this area.
I've also been thinking about the best way to implement a filter. Particles that are dislodged from the record surface will do one of three things.
1. Sink to the bottom.
You want any particles that sink to the bottom to either remain there and not be disturbed or to be drawn straight into the filter.
2. Remain in suspension in the cleaning fluid.
You want the the cleaning fluid to be regularly drawn through the filter to remove these particles. As the amount of fluid that will remain on the record when it is removed from the tank is very small compared to the volume of the tank little decontamination should occur.
3. Float to the surface.
These seem to be the real problem. As the record rotates out of the cleaning fluid floating particles will tend to be drawn back towards the record. Several members of this thread have reported a line of particles across the record as they are lifted from the tank. I know bb uses the output from his filter to wash these off but he's washing them back into the tank where they can contaminate the next batch of records. If the filter draws from the bottom of the tank floating particles will not be drawn into the filter.
My plan is to make a narrow surface skimmer that sits across the rear of the tank. This will draw the cleaning fluid from the surface and should therefore eliminate/reduce both floating and suspended particles. The clean return will then be reintroduced horizontally at about half the depth of the tank. This should be adequate to mix the cleaning fluid to prevent temperature stratification but not disturbed particles that have sunk.
The motor I am planning to use is from a solar water heater and is designed for continuous operation pumping fluid with an elevated temperature.
Have I missed anything obvious in my thinking?
Niffy
Hi guys.
My current project of scratch building a turntable is nearly complete, in the fine tuning stages. I've been following this thread almost from day one and have had it earmarked as my next build from then. My wife has just had to have a major operation so I've been playing nurse which unfortunately means NO building for a couple of months. It has however given me the time to completely reread this entire thread, start my design and to compile a parts list. Thank bb and all for the inspiration and information you've supplied.
I live in the UK where only 40khz ultrasonic cleaners are readily available. I have found a couple of dual frequency units that are 35/80khz but the cheapest of these (the elma) is £1250 excluding postage. That's about $1800 at current exchange rates. Way above my budget. I will therefore have to use a 40khz unit. I'm not too bothered by this as it will almost certainly out perform any other cleaning system available.
It has been mentioned several times in the thread that the records should be at least one wavelength of sound apart. The speed of sound in water at 40℃ (105℉) is about 1525m/s (4995ft/s). Assuming that the other cleaning agents don't have to much of an affect, at 40khz the wavelength will be 38mm (1 1/2"). I assume that you also want the spacing between the tank wall and records to also be at least one wavelength. All of the 6lt unit are about 150mm (6") wide at the top and slightly narrower at the bottom. If you clean 3 records at a time you will inevitably be spacing the records less than one wavelength apart. With cleaning 2 records the the spacing will be just over one wavelength. Have any of you who have a 40khz unit experimented in this area.
I've also been thinking about the best way to implement a filter. Particles that are dislodged from the record surface will do one of three things.
1. Sink to the bottom.
You want any particles that sink to the bottom to either remain there and not be disturbed or to be drawn straight into the filter.
2. Remain in suspension in the cleaning fluid.
You want the the cleaning fluid to be regularly drawn through the filter to remove these particles. As the amount of fluid that will remain on the record when it is removed from the tank is very small compared to the volume of the tank little decontamination should occur.
3. Float to the surface.
These seem to be the real problem. As the record rotates out of the cleaning fluid floating particles will tend to be drawn back towards the record. Several members of this thread have reported a line of particles across the record as they are lifted from the tank. I know bb uses the output from his filter to wash these off but he's washing them back into the tank where they can contaminate the next batch of records. If the filter draws from the bottom of the tank floating particles will not be drawn into the filter.
My plan is to make a narrow surface skimmer that sits across the rear of the tank. This will draw the cleaning fluid from the surface and should therefore eliminate/reduce both floating and suspended particles. The clean return will then be reintroduced horizontally at about half the depth of the tank. This should be adequate to mix the cleaning fluid to prevent temperature stratification but not disturbed particles that have sunk.
The motor I am planning to use is from a solar water heater and is designed for continuous operation pumping fluid with an elevated temperature.
Have I missed anything obvious in my thinking?
Niffy
Hey Niffy,
On the choice of UC unit, have you considered ordering from the US? The 60 kHz Sonix ST-136 is available from various medical and dental supply outfits around $700 +/-. I imagine that you could find one willing to ship to the UK and come in much cheaper than the Elma. This would also let you use slightly closer record spacing.
Re: floaters, I manually skim them from the bath after taking out the records and rinsing with the filter output. I've toyed with the idea of an auto-skimmer of some sort, but my setup doesn't really have room for that, and I find it easy to skim manually with almost any utensil handy. If I was inclined to implement a dedicated auto-skimmer, I'd probably buy the 10L Sonix or other 10L machine to provide more space for the skimmer inlet. I look forward to seeing what you come up with skimmer-wise.
Cheers,
B B
On the choice of UC unit, have you considered ordering from the US? The 60 kHz Sonix ST-136 is available from various medical and dental supply outfits around $700 +/-. I imagine that you could find one willing to ship to the UK and come in much cheaper than the Elma. This would also let you use slightly closer record spacing.
Re: floaters, I manually skim them from the bath after taking out the records and rinsing with the filter output. I've toyed with the idea of an auto-skimmer of some sort, but my setup doesn't really have room for that, and I find it easy to skim manually with almost any utensil handy. If I was inclined to implement a dedicated auto-skimmer, I'd probably buy the 10L Sonix or other 10L machine to provide more space for the skimmer inlet. I look forward to seeing what you come up with skimmer-wise.
Cheers,
B B
Thanks bb.
The only US exporter I've found willing to export a 60 or 80khz unit to the UK is vibrato, who is currently out of stock. To be honest even his much lower price is still above my budget especially when you consider that I'll need a step down transformer. So unfortunately I'll have to stick with 40khz.
My surface skimmer idea would be quite small, probably only 16mm by 50mm, so it wouldn't impact the tank volume too much, especially if I'm only cleaning two records at once. Having said that I may be over thinking the problem as your fine fish net skimming between batches is simplicity itself.
Niffy
The only US exporter I've found willing to export a 60 or 80khz unit to the UK is vibrato, who is currently out of stock. To be honest even his much lower price is still above my budget especially when you consider that I'll need a step down transformer. So unfortunately I'll have to stick with 40khz.
My surface skimmer idea would be quite small, probably only 16mm by 50mm, so it wouldn't impact the tank volume too much, especially if I'm only cleaning two records at once. Having said that I may be over thinking the problem as your fine fish net skimming between batches is simplicity itself.
Niffy
@niffy. I wouldn't worry. Higher frequency units have a theoretical advantage, but all commerical ultrasonic cleaners are 40kHz and there are no complaints I have seen about them missing dirt. Unfortunately actually testing the efficacy difference is very difficult, so best to work on the fact that a sub-optimal ultrasonic cleaner is better than no cleaner.
niffy, I imported a SonixIV 60Khz unit to Oz with no trouble. Try them here: www.http://sonixiv.com/products/
I ordered their extra-wide, 60KHz 126 model, with heater.
Despite what "guru bill" says, there are advantages in getting a higher-than-40KHz unit. Vibrato has an 80Khz unit but Sonix can only supply a 60KHz unit - however, the extra wide tank of the 126 model swayed me. Plus it has an outlet, so you can easily rig up a filter.
Andy
I ordered their extra-wide, 60KHz 126 model, with heater.
Despite what "guru bill" says, there are advantages in getting a higher-than-40KHz unit. Vibrato has an 80Khz unit but Sonix can only supply a 60KHz unit - however, the extra wide tank of the 126 model swayed me. Plus it has an outlet, so you can easily rig up a filter.
Andy