I am still on the hunt for a used machine to use in my build. BB has given some commentary on his 60Khz machine. Can you comment on the efficiency of your 40Khz unit?
Thanks
The tank is not really removable. It's enclosed by external sheet metal panels screwed together. Silicone sealant was used underneath the lip of the tank, sealing the joint between the tank and the external sheet metal.
the unit came with a lid and also a very nice basket, that can be lowered into the tank to hold small items for cleaning.
the unit came with a lid and also a very nice basket, that can be lowered into the tank to hold small items for cleaning.
How Many Records Can I Clean at One Time?
For the typical 6 liter ultrasonic cleaner, the answer is 3, maybe 4 LPs, at a time. This is a function of loading and spacing.
For loading, the rule of thumb often quoted by ultrasonic cleaning manufacturers is:
"The total surface area of the substrates, measured in square inches, should not be much greater than the tank volume, measured in cubic inches. In other words, the total surface area should not be greater than 230 sq. in. per gallon of tank capacity."
If we exclude the label area of an LP, one side of a record is about 100 sq inches. (sure, go ahead and check my math
)
So both LP sides together equals about 200 sq inches. Roughly a third of the area is submerged at any given moment in the URC, i.e. 66. sq. inches.
If you're using a 1.5 gallon, or 6 quart, or 6 liter cleaner, filled with about 5 quarts of fluid, the rule of thumb says that you shouldn't try to clean more than 290 square inches of surface at any one time (230 sq.in. per gallon x 1.25 gallons of fluid)
That would mean no more than 4 LPs at a time. (290 sq in. / 66 sq.in. per LP ). So, if you're trying to clean 8 or 9 or 10 closely spaced LPs in your 1.5 gallon URC, you're overloading the machine.
For spacing, 4 is pushing it, 3 seems better to me. That gives me about 1.25 to 1.5 inches between records, given the usable width of my tank. You might find guidelines that suggest closer spacing is allowable for objects in your tank. While putting several pieces of jewelry close together in a basket may work, remember that by putting relatively large LPs in the tank, we are essentially creating large baffles, running almost the full vertical dimension of the tank. These "baffles" (the LPs themselves) attenuate the cleaning action between the records.
For the typical 6 liter ultrasonic cleaner, the answer is 3, maybe 4 LPs, at a time. This is a function of loading and spacing.
For loading, the rule of thumb often quoted by ultrasonic cleaning manufacturers is:
"The total surface area of the substrates, measured in square inches, should not be much greater than the tank volume, measured in cubic inches. In other words, the total surface area should not be greater than 230 sq. in. per gallon of tank capacity."
If we exclude the label area of an LP, one side of a record is about 100 sq inches. (sure, go ahead and check my math
)So both LP sides together equals about 200 sq inches. Roughly a third of the area is submerged at any given moment in the URC, i.e. 66. sq. inches.
If you're using a 1.5 gallon, or 6 quart, or 6 liter cleaner, filled with about 5 quarts of fluid, the rule of thumb says that you shouldn't try to clean more than 290 square inches of surface at any one time (230 sq.in. per gallon x 1.25 gallons of fluid)
That would mean no more than 4 LPs at a time. (290 sq in. / 66 sq.in. per LP ). So, if you're trying to clean 8 or 9 or 10 closely spaced LPs in your 1.5 gallon URC, you're overloading the machine.
For spacing, 4 is pushing it, 3 seems better to me. That gives me about 1.25 to 1.5 inches between records, given the usable width of my tank. You might find guidelines that suggest closer spacing is allowable for objects in your tank. While putting several pieces of jewelry close together in a basket may work, remember that by putting relatively large LPs in the tank, we are essentially creating large baffles, running almost the full vertical dimension of the tank. These "baffles" (the LPs themselves) attenuate the cleaning action between the records.
Hi Kevin,
Is this the motor you are using? 0.5 RPM Gear Motor
Where did you source the case and wiring connectors?
I have found a lot of new units listed on Ebay that fit the bill. Here is a link to one that I am considering for purchase:
180W New 6.5L Ultrasonic Cleaner w/ Timer and Heater,100% Satisfied,6L,7L | eBay
180W New 6.5L Ultrasonic Cleaner w/ Timer and Heater,100% Satisfied,6L,7L | eBay
It seems to be the standard size tub for a 6 litre unit. The unit used by the OP has a tank that is 11.5 x 5.5 x 6.0 in which is pretty much the same size as the one I linked to.
Only 40KHz though.
AuroraB's transducer/driver idea is good and 60KHz units are available. Just need to find out how to implement them. I think the transducer is simply fixed to the bath in a certain place and causes the whole thing to vibrate.
I guess the question is will a 40KHz unit get the records clean? I have been looking for a few days on Ebay and I have not been able to find a 60KHz unit for under $500 USD. From what I can gather from reading other forums a lot of people have used the 40Khz units successfully so I think I will give it a go if I can't source a 60KHz from somewhere.
I started down the path of looking for transducers to build my own unit. There are 80 kHz and higher frequency units available. I'd go 80 or 120 khz if I was to build my own.
The only thing that gave me pause is that there is some engineering and experimentation that would have to be done. Mating the transducers (at least 3 to get enough power) to the tank and getting it to function correctly is not trivial. I believe you need to have the right mass loading and interface when mating transducers to the tank in order to get efficient energy transmission into the fluid. To get the tank bottom to function correctly as a diaphragm would take some experimentation, which I didn't have time for. Would love to see someone go down this path, though.
BB
The only thing that gave me pause is that there is some engineering and experimentation that would have to be done. Mating the transducers (at least 3 to get enough power) to the tank and getting it to function correctly is not trivial. I believe you need to have the right mass loading and interface when mating transducers to the tank in order to get efficient energy transmission into the fluid. To get the tank bottom to function correctly as a diaphragm would take some experimentation, which I didn't have time for. Would love to see someone go down this path, though.
BB
Hello all, I've been looking at building one of these. In a display of excellent timing Everyday Practical Electronics (UK magazine - epemag.com) ran a project article last month "Ultrasonic Cleaner, by John Clarke". It's a microcontroller based cleaner that runs frequency sweeps from 19kHz to 42kHz. With regards to the precision required in the fluid bath design, they built theirs using a plastic toilet tank - go figure. Hope this helps.
. Hope this helps.
... Everyday Practical Electronics (UK magazine - epemag.com) ran a project article last month "Ultrasonic Cleaner, by John Clarke". It's a microcontroller based cleaner that runs frequency sweeps from 19kHz to 42kHz. With regards to the precision required in the fluid bath design, they built theirs using a plastic toilet tank - go figure
Hi ColinAlex -- Thanks for mentioning that article. (It has been around --- originally published in Australia in 2010). My comments below are not directed at you, the messenger, at all.
But that article is a joke, frankly. The design won't work well enough to clean anything. Here it is online
Everyday Practical Electronics
1)The power supply is designed to only deliver 30W (12V x 2.5 amp). That's not enough to adequately energize the transducer they specify!
2)They specify one, 50W transducer. That is typically what you'd find in a 1 quart capacity ultrasonic cleaner, not a 6 quart or larger unit.
3)The circuit is designed to supply frequencies between 19khz and 42khz. The transducer they're using, and pretty much any ultrasonic transducer, won't resonate at such a broad range of frequencies. That transducer will only resonate between about 38khz and 42khz. (It has a bandwidth of 3.9 kHz.)
4)There are several good reasons that soundly designed ultrasonic cleaners mount the transducers at the bottom of the tank. Mounting it on the side won't work well.
5)The thick wall of the plastic tank they show in the article will not act as a diaphragm and transmit the resonant energy into the cleaning solution. There will be precious little cleaning action in that tank, even if they were providing enough power to the transducer in the first place.
Personally, I also think the design is reckless, in that they are energizing a transformer whose output side they say is at 800 or 900 volts. They are running a 2 conductor cable from that transformer in the control box, out in the open to a separate, poorly designed and executed enclosure with the transducer. There is really nothing protecting that cable. If the control box falls off the table, it's pulling directly on the cable termination at the transducer. The transducer assembly is also exposed to water and cleaning solution spills, etc.
There are much better DIY ultrasonic cleaner build concepts out there ...
Colin,
I wasn't able to find an "all-in-one-place" build description with evidence of successful cleaning. This was the first indicator to me that it might be more trouble than it's worth.
I did find bits and pieces of potentially useful info though.
If you really want to build something from scratch, this guy reverse-engineered the PCB of a small commercial unit:
Ultrasonic Cleaner Reverse-Engineering (Codyson CD-7810) Jumper One
You'd have to redesign the circuit for a larger machine, and I didn't go that far.
If you didn't want to start from true scratch-level components, you could buy transducers, use a sound card or oscilloscope to generate your frequency, and use a linear amp (capable of handling your frequency) to energize the system. Connect that output to your transducers, secured to the bottom of your stainless steel tank, and hope it works. That was the route I was investigating, but these two quotes, from two very experienced DIY project guys, were my next deterrent:
"Yes, I see how a PC sound card and software frequency generator could be used for a source signal, and how a linear amp could be used for power generation. If you're experimenting, I suggest trying a 120Vac PA amp. Working along these lines, I can see getting a working small tank together, maybe a couple gallons. When I looked at it for myself, I soon saw that the time and money to build such a thing was almost more than just buying one."
"The trouble is not driving the transducers or getting them to resonate, but TUNING the system (tank, horn, or whatever else will be vibrating) to resonate along with them. Just attaching a transducer to a metal pan will not make you an ultrasonic cleaner. It needs to be made to the right dimensions and thickness to resonate at the necessary frequency to get the waves into the water."
That last part is what ultimately deterred me. I understand resonance and all the engineering required --- I was a mechanical engineer. But I knew that there would be lots of trial and error to find the right design and setup. I foresaw buying lots of different stainless steel pans and perhaps going through many transducers!
And to top it off --- there is really no inexpensive way to measure the cleaning energy you're generating in the liquid at different areas in your tank! You'd have to build it, try cleaning stuff, and if it didn't work well, rearrange things and try again. And again. And again. All the while, not being able to measure what's really going on in the bath.
Ultimately, I've just got other things that interest me more than trying to build an ultrasonic system from scratch. Whoever does it successfully though, will be a DIY stud.
BB
I wasn't able to find an "all-in-one-place" build description with evidence of successful cleaning. This was the first indicator to me that it might be more trouble than it's worth.
I did find bits and pieces of potentially useful info though.
If you really want to build something from scratch, this guy reverse-engineered the PCB of a small commercial unit:
Ultrasonic Cleaner Reverse-Engineering (Codyson CD-7810) Jumper One
You'd have to redesign the circuit for a larger machine, and I didn't go that far.
If you didn't want to start from true scratch-level components, you could buy transducers, use a sound card or oscilloscope to generate your frequency, and use a linear amp (capable of handling your frequency) to energize the system. Connect that output to your transducers, secured to the bottom of your stainless steel tank, and hope it works. That was the route I was investigating, but these two quotes, from two very experienced DIY project guys, were my next deterrent:
"Yes, I see how a PC sound card and software frequency generator could be used for a source signal, and how a linear amp could be used for power generation. If you're experimenting, I suggest trying a 120Vac PA amp. Working along these lines, I can see getting a working small tank together, maybe a couple gallons. When I looked at it for myself, I soon saw that the time and money to build such a thing was almost more than just buying one."
"The trouble is not driving the transducers or getting them to resonate, but TUNING the system (tank, horn, or whatever else will be vibrating) to resonate along with them. Just attaching a transducer to a metal pan will not make you an ultrasonic cleaner. It needs to be made to the right dimensions and thickness to resonate at the necessary frequency to get the waves into the water."
That last part is what ultimately deterred me. I understand resonance and all the engineering required --- I was a mechanical engineer. But I knew that there would be lots of trial and error to find the right design and setup. I foresaw buying lots of different stainless steel pans and perhaps going through many transducers!
And to top it off --- there is really no inexpensive way to measure the cleaning energy you're generating in the liquid at different areas in your tank! You'd have to build it, try cleaning stuff, and if it didn't work well, rearrange things and try again. And again. And again. All the while, not being able to measure what's really going on in the bath.
Ultimately, I've just got other things that interest me more than trying to build an ultrasonic system from scratch. Whoever does it successfully though, will be a DIY stud.
BB
Heater
Hi Ishmail,
I've been experimenting with the heat function on the Sonix. But the heater on the Sonix is not set up real well. You're right, no user control of temp. It's on or it's off.
The top of the tank above the waterline can get very hot if you leave the heater on ---- I'm talking boiling point hot (even though the liquid isn't anywhere near that hot). So, it's a bit dangerous for fingers and vinyl. I don't know if heaters on other UCs have the same problem or not. I suspect they might, since heat applied to the steel tank would have a tendency to rise up the walls. The heater on the Sonix seems to be on the SIDE of the tank, not the bottom, on the same side as the heater switch.
The cleaning definitely works best if the liquid bath is warm rather than room temp. I shoot for 100 to 105°F to start with and leave the heater off once vinyl is in the vicinity. The cleaning solution seems to stay at that temp, and maybe get a little warmer, if you leave the machine running to do a number of batches. Since my heater is a bit flaky, it is almost just as easy to pre-heat the DI or distilled water to 100°F in the microwave oven, before you put it in your tank.
I bought the Sonix in part, because it came with the heater. But, now that I've seen that particular heater in action, I wouldn't buy one unit over another because of that feature. I still like the Sonix though, because of the cleaning action and 60 kHz frequency.
Hi Ishmail,
I've been experimenting with the heat function on the Sonix. But the heater on the Sonix is not set up real well. You're right, no user control of temp. It's on or it's off.
The top of the tank above the waterline can get very hot if you leave the heater on ---- I'm talking boiling point hot (even though the liquid isn't anywhere near that hot). So, it's a bit dangerous for fingers and vinyl. I don't know if heaters on other UCs have the same problem or not. I suspect they might, since heat applied to the steel tank would have a tendency to rise up the walls. The heater on the Sonix seems to be on the SIDE of the tank, not the bottom, on the same side as the heater switch.
The cleaning definitely works best if the liquid bath is warm rather than room temp. I shoot for 100 to 105°F to start with and leave the heater off once vinyl is in the vicinity. The cleaning solution seems to stay at that temp, and maybe get a little warmer, if you leave the machine running to do a number of batches. Since my heater is a bit flaky, it is almost just as easy to pre-heat the DI or distilled water to 100°F in the microwave oven, before you put it in your tank.
I bought the Sonix in part, because it came with the heater. But, now that I've seen that particular heater in action, I wouldn't buy one unit over another because of that feature. I still like the Sonix though, because of the cleaning action and 60 kHz frequency.
Last edited: