My version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner

Hi everybody. I am going to "build" my US record cleaner, and I'm studying these 135 blog pages. I am very gratefull to all your condivisions and ideas.
I write here beacause I have some doubts about the wavelength story. Actually, in my fantasy I was planning to put 10 LP in my chinese machine, with a separation of 1 cm. Then, reading here, I have found out that the spacing should be 3,8 cm (more or less), because this is the wavelenght (in my case, 40KHz). But..... doesn't this actually depends on the shape of the standing waves? Let's say (hypotetically) that my waves are generated at the bottom of the tank, and that the wave fronts are parellel to this plane.... in this case, as far as the LP is rotating, every part of the surface will pass through a high-changing compression zone (cleaning zone) and a no-changhing compression zone. everything should be ok. Am I wrong?
Clearly this is a limit situation: my tank isn't a perfect parallelepiped, so I expect that standing waves will have some kind of peculiar shape (for which we cannot really talk about wavelenght)...... but in any case, as far as the wave fronts are not parallel to my LP, and they are rotating.....
Another aspect is: does the presence of LPs disturb the waves? i guess yes.... but i stop here.

In any case, i will make (as soon as I start the machine.... it's just arrived) a test with 2 LPs, then 3 and then... 10.... to see if there is any difference.
Bye
Nidzo
 
Hey Nidzo
You seem to have overlooked an important factor for loading a UC. I'll repeat my statements from message #44 in this thread:

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.


Looking forward to hearing about your experiments,
Cheers,
B B
 
Hey Nidzo
You seem to have overlooked an important factor for loading a UC. I'll repeat my statements from message #44 in this thread:

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.


Looking forward to hearing about your experiments,
Cheers,
B B

Yes, I have to admit that i have not read all 135 pages :). just made a search for "wavelength" "spacing" and "number".
Anyway, thanks for your reply. I'll think about your point: but.... where does this limit surface=volume come from? (besides, it seems to be quite dependent on measure units.... inches or cm....)
......
as far as i can understand, "overload" here means that if i put something in the water (heavier than water) then that's going to be more difficult to make it vibrate.... so part of the energy will be "lost". so, it's not really a point of overload, but of intesity of the wave, and of effectiveness. so, the rule of thumb schould take into consideration also the power of the UV sources....
I don't see why energy "loss" should be proportional to surface and not to volume..... but.... i'll think about it.
and, i'll make some experiments....

thanks
nidzo
 
......
as far as i can understand, "overload" here means that if i put something in the water (heavier than water) then that's going to be more difficult to make it vibrate.... so part of the energy will be "lost".
thanks
nidzo

No No No, you are not vibrating the dirt off or vibrating the item. The microscopic bubbles are imploding (cavitatation) causing a micro explosion adjacent to the dirty item hence knocking the dirt off.

From Sonix IV site: Ultrasonic cleaners vibrate debris off of parts.

This statement is false. The mechanism responsible for cleaning within an ultrasonic cleaner is cavitation. Cavitation occurs when conducting ultrasonic waves through a liquid medium to generate extreme pressures and temperatures that naturally breakdown cohesion and adhesion forces. As a result, debris is removed and microorganism membranes are destroyed, killing bacteria and other harmful protozoa.
 
Last edited:
I did not say that vibration is responsible of cleaning. I've got the cavitation explanation.
But US sound waves will pass through immersed objects (=LP) too.... and they'll behave something like putting a heavy knot on a vibrating string, it's going to make it more difficult to vibrate, and will adsorb energy.

I'm just trying to give sense to the "rule of thumb" superior bound of the machine...., even though i don't get why it should be a "surface" limit, and not a "volume" limit.

anyway, as the "rule of thumb" vaguely say "should not be much grater", i guess that 5 LP could be OK: it's not 10, as i hoped, but it's not 3 :).
this is important for me, as i have right now about 1500 old LP that really need to be cleaned.:hypno2:
 
There are a number of guidelines, rules of thumb and recommendations that come into play, not just the surface area recommendation.
You also need extra spacing away from the walls of the tank. Generally, manufacturers recommend 1.5" to 2" minimum clearance.
You might also save yourself some effort if you make use of the experience of people who have already assembled and used a system. I think 3 gives better results than 4 in my 6L setup. Some have reported they prefer results of a single record in the tank over 3 LPs at a time! Therefore, anecdotal evidence would indicate 5 is probably over the limit for the best results in a 6L tank.

If you want to clean more records per cycle, perhaps you should consider a much larger tank with more transducers.
B B
 
I think 3 gives better results than 4 in my 6L setup. Some have reported they prefer results of a single record in the tank over 3 LPs at a time! Therefore, anecdotal evidence would indicate 5 is probably over the limit for the best results in a 6L tank.
B B

Yeah, i know.... but:
-opinions are opinions.... and people usually do not agree (not in HIFI:), not even in real life:()
-i try, as far as i can, to understand "why". so, the "ipse dixit" (of the manufacturer, or the audiophile guru) is not that satisfying.
-let's consider that manufactures suggestions are not (i guess) for an audiophile LP cleaner.... so maybe they are not "general".

by the way, i am really considering other experiences, and in this forum i have really found a lot of ideas and answers :D

i'll try to setup my cleaner, and report impressions with more LPs.
nidzo
 
If I remember correctly from my university hydrodynamics lectures cavitation is a boundary effect. Cavitation bubbles are formed as the rarefaction wave reflects off a surface creating an area of very low pressure. The compression wave then causes these bubbles to violently implode. As the bubbles implode they form into a torus and fire a jet of fluid, through the centre of the torus, at very high velocity into the surface. It is these jets that are responsible for the cleaning action. At lower frequencies the bubbles have longer to form and thus grow larger and collapse with greater energy. Cavitation bubbles only form adjacent to a surface and do not form in the bulk volume of the cleaning solution. This is why it is surface area and not volume that limit cleaning efficiency. Louis can probably correct me if I have remembered incorrectly, the lectures were twenty years ago.

I'm going to follow bb's advice and keep my records more than 1 wavelength apart, it just seems to make sense to me.

Niffy
 
Last edited:
diyAudio Member RIP
Joined 2005
Here is a link to one of the best sources of information on the functionality of Ultrasonic Cleaning.
http://www.tmasc.com/qa process.htm

Many of the questions in this forum is explained on this link!

Happy Learning!
Louis Steele
Vibrato, LLC.
Thanks. That's helpful. It could profit from some editing, but what else is new?

I would suppose, reading this and reflecting, that the best way to tune to a given transducer and tank would be to servo the frequency to coincide with a zero phase angle between applied voltage and current. It sounds as if the strategy of sweeping the frequency is an approximation (you hit the resonance somewhere in the sweep) and would not be as effective as the phase servo.

And there's no mention of sonoluminescence! :) See for example the wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence, and the controversial bubble fusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion
 
Just wanted to give a shout out to Louis and Vibrato. I ordered last week and it arrived yesterday. I cleaned about 40 records today and I couldn't be happier. There were a few records that simply couldn't be listened to that are now very playable and the records that were good are now great. So thanks to Lewis and everyone on this thread for posting their thoughts and experiences.
 
Uc degassing

Im in the process of setting up a uc machine all the parts are coming except for my shaft couplers. I have to wait till i get the motor for its size prob 1/4 inch and i have a 9/32nd spindle but i dont think ill be able to get a 9/32 coupler is a 8mm one ok its close to 9/32nds. My next question is how do you degass the cleaning solution. I figure my sol will be distilled water, 100ml of ipa and 4 to 5 drops of photo flow. Thanx brad
 
Hey Brad,
7mm is closer to 9/32 than 8mm is. I think uxcell has some 7mm adapters that may or may not work for you.

To degas cleaning solution, all you do is turn on the UC minutes and let it run for about 10 minutes before you put any LPs in the bath. If you plan on heating your solution for cleaning, this should be done during the degassing process, as higher temp bath assists the degassing process.
Cheers,
B B
 
Is it safe to use water from Domestic ACU

Hi
Ive just purchased a UCM and are waiting for it to be delivered.

The machine is a 15 litre tank 330mm x 300 x 150, and is rated at 360 watts US and 400 watts Heating. all digitally controlled. and with the option of switching to half power if required, The tank will use 6 transducers. is 304 stainless and comes with external drain tap.

runs at 42khz

The reason for depth is so I can use the machine for other purposes such as cleaning grandfather clock movements etc when the need arises.

So I will follow a design that will not permantely attach the record turning unit to the tank.

I will post pictures when I get under way,

What I was wondering is would it be a bad Idea to use water collected say from an Air condition unit. or condenser tumble dry unit. I may be missing something but as the water is condensed from the air into the plastic collection tank. in theory it contains no minerals and whilst I would not drink it without further processing, I wondered could this be used as an alternative to distilled water. or would am I completely of course here.

My ACU collects into a plastic tank as does my tumble dryer.

Thanks in advance, and thanks everyone for inspiring me to take the plunge.
 
Hi Mark,
Sounds like a nice big tank!

In theory, air conditioner water makes sense, but in practice, lots of AC units are breeding grounds for bacteria. It's hard to eliminate all the places where water can accumulate and sit on some type of horizontal surface or in a condensate drain. Bacteria can grow pretty easily.

In the US, we have a category of water called "Purified" water. It has TDS of 10ppm or less (compared to 1ppm for distilled, and 200ppm or more for typical tap water). I'm of the opinion that Purified water is more than clean enough for use in a URC and is cheaper than distilled, but others might want to go all-in on distilled.
Cheers,
B B
 
Hi Mark,
Sounds like a nice big tank!

In theory, air conditioner water makes sense, but in practice, lots of AC units are breeding grounds for bacteria. It's hard to eliminate all the places where water can accumulate and sit on some type of horizontal surface or in a condensate drain. Bacteria can grow pretty easily.

In the US, we have a category of water called "Purified" water. It has TDS of 10ppm or less (compared to 1ppm for distilled, and 200ppm or more for typical tap water). I'm of the opinion that Purified water is more than clean enough for use in a URC and is cheaper than distilled, but others might want to go all-in on distilled.
Cheers,
B B
Hi thank you, I agree with your comments:

I think it will be good to try using this water, as it is a free bi product, and once treated should be pure and free from minerals.

I imagine that one simply needs to bring the crystal clear water up to boiling point and boil for a few minutes, then leave to cool, this will kill off any bacteria that you so rightly pointed out, that will naturally occurs on the inside of ACUs and Condensers. Then store it in a dedicated plastic can till required.

PS My door bell has just gone and its my US tank has just arrived so can move forward with checking my design dimensions but looking very good album fits nicely with a nice gap at each end.

Design now completed but now sourcing materials will post when pro type ready with some pics. very exciting ;-)
 
Mark,
If you don't have one, you may want to get a TDS meter to measure your "home-brew" water. They're cheap, about $15. I have this one and it works well:
HM Digital TDS-3 Handheld TDS Meter With Carrying Case, 0 - 9990 ppm TDS Measurement Range, 1 ppm Resolution, +/- 2% Readout Accuracy - Moisture Meters - Amazon.com

It would be interesting to know the TDS content of your AC byproduct water. Even if you kill the bacteria, their remains will still be in the water. TDS meter would give you an indication whether total TDS from that or from other potential contaminants from your AC unit are an issue or not.
Good luck with your build,
B B
 
Hi guys, I bought a cheapish 40kHz ultra sonic cleaner. I've been thinking about removing the transducers and installing 4x 60w 80kHz transducers/generators. I was just wondering if it would be a straight swap though and if the current circuit board driving the transducers would be fine for the 80kHz.

Here is what is currently in my tank


http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg315/robbbbyn/1C47E8E4-123F-436A-B368-47157356F15B.jpg


http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg315/robbbbyn/511903F0-244E-4362-93A1-628BEF216EAB.jpg


http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg315/robbbbyn/F6EE4EA0-7A37-4E74-8B18-806C4599B4DE.jpg


And these were the transducers I was thinking of putting in


https://www.bjultrasonic.com/80khz-60w-ultrasonic-cleaning-transducer/


Will these work? Any potential problems? Recommendations for a better source for the transducers?
 
What I was wondering is would it be a bad Idea to use water collected say from an Air condition unit. or condenser tumble dry unit. I may be missing something but as the water is condensed from the air into the plastic collection tank. in theory it contains no minerals and whilst I would not drink it without further processing, I wondered could this be used as an alternative to distilled water.

I had the same thought re. the 'waste' water from my condensor clothes dryer. :)

The only thing wrong with the idea (because it certainly won't have any bacterial residue!) is that there will be fibres in the water, from the clothes. So you would need to strain this water through a 5 micron or 10 micron filter, before using it in your US cleaner.

I bought a couple of filters on-line (they look like white, elephant condoms! ;) ) but haven't yet got round to experimenting, yet.


Andy
 
I had the same thought re. the 'waste' water from my condensor clothes dryer. :)

The only thing wrong with the idea (because it certainly won't have any bacterial residue!) is that there will be fibres in the water, from the clothes. So you would need to strain this water through a 5 micron or 10 micron filter, before using it in your US cleaner.

I bought a couple of filters on-line (they look like white, elephant condoms! ;) ) but haven't yet got round to experimenting, yet.


Andy
Yes I have seen someone using large coffee filters into a clean bucket, should work trap any lint that has some how got into the water. I would have thought that the temp of the tumble dry would minimize the bacteria growth.


Im waiting for parts to come now to build my record turning system but tank is here and working great. I may well purchase a test meter for water out of curiosity as they seem cheap enough.