Interesting... if the Sonix IV tanks use lower power transducers, would it follow that only 2 records should really be done at once? Or is the ST136 a newer product than from when you worked there (it's listed as Input Power 180 Watts/1.5 Amp)? Proper spacing based on frequency has been discussed a bit, but not as much about transducer power.
Pack, sorry if my shorthand at the unit level, and Louis' interesting insider detail at the part level, has created confusion. The ST-136 has plenty of oomph to clean 3 records. I was providing rules of thumb based on the stats that a consumer sees: Average input power for the unit and number of transducers. The marketing material for Sonix specs "180W input power." Divided by the 3 transducers that's 60 watts input power for the whole unit, per transducer. Louis would have details of the actual part used and he was kind of enough to specify. There's additional power dissipation in the unit besides what the transducers deliver to the tank, which I attempted to mention in passing.
So, when a consumer is searching for options, and looks on the web at the available units for sale, he generally won't be able to see what specific transducer, and it's power rating, is in the unit. He'll generally see total input power, peak power and, usually, number of transducers. That is the frame of reference in which my note was written.
T.M. Associates has a good writeup written along similar lines, with its own set of guidelines based on total input power, rather than specific parts specs:
Questions and answers about Ultrasonic Cleaning
It too should give you comfort around 3 records in the ST-136.
Cheers,
B B
Last edited:
Power Ratings
When I worked for Sonix IV, I measured the output to the transducers themselves. Here were my findings at that time:
Voltage Output to Transducer= approx 600v
Current Output to Transducer=approx 60mA
Total Power Output to Transducer= approx 36 Watts
I say approximate because with a working ultrasonic, the waveforms and voltages jump around quite a bit, so these are averages.
Note: It is unknown if they have changed their design since I left.
-Louis
When I worked for Sonix IV, I measured the output to the transducers themselves. Here were my findings at that time:
Voltage Output to Transducer= approx 600v
Current Output to Transducer=approx 60mA
Total Power Output to Transducer= approx 36 Watts
I say approximate because with a working ultrasonic, the waveforms and voltages jump around quite a bit, so these are averages.
Note: It is unknown if they have changed their design since I left.
-Louis
VPI ultrasonic.
I just bought a new turntable and have been hanging out at the VPI forum. Harry Weisfeld has also been experimenting with ultrasonic cleaners. He believes in US cleaning with Photo-flo and detergent (no alcohol) followed by an ultrasonic distilled water rinse with a final vacuuming. He also prefers the Vinyl Stack style of record rotation.
00
I just bought a new turntable and have been hanging out at the VPI forum. Harry Weisfeld has also been experimenting with ultrasonic cleaners. He believes in US cleaning with Photo-flo and detergent (no alcohol) followed by an ultrasonic distilled water rinse with a final vacuuming. He also prefers the Vinyl Stack style of record rotation.
00
Hi strader61, If you're asking about Harry's set up, he's using the Vinyl Stack which has rubber o-rings protecting the labels. I believe he is also working on a double vacuum adapter.
Hi Strader,
Label protection is prudent. This can be accomplished through a combination of design considerations.
First, slow rotation (as slow as 1 rev per 10 or 12 minutes), allowing most of the cleaning solution to fall off the record surface quickly as it rotates out of the bath. Second, a combination label protector and spacer that covers each label on both sides of the LPs. There are many DIY options for this part using items that have 4-⅛ to 4-½ inch diameter: large cork stoppers, round electrical covers with neoprene gaskets, coasters, rounds cut with a 4.5" hole saw from rubber or neoprene foam, acrylic disks, etc.
Cheers,
B B
Last edited:
I have not really needed label protection, given the slow rotation speed and addition of surficant (PhotoFlo in my case). The fluid rolls off or evaporates before it ever gets high enough to roll onto the label, thanks also in part to the vibration from the bath itself. I only ever notice beads of fluid after removing the records from the bath, and can easily touch those with a paper towel to soak them up away from the playing surface.
It WOULD be nice to have some better spacers, though. The large cork stoppers from the UK are cheap until you factor in the obscene shipping cost.
It WOULD be nice to have some better spacers, though. The large cork stoppers from the UK are cheap until you factor in the obscene shipping cost.
Hi Packgrog, If you're trying to source the cork spacers from the US, they are available at Widgetco with $4.00 shipping on orders under $40.00.
Size 56 Jar Cork Stoppers, Standard
Size 56 Jar Cork Stoppers, Standard
If the label protector doesn't keep ALL moisture away from the labels, then it would seem like it would keep the moisture ON the label instead and make the problem worse. I can't see how cork would provide enough of a seal to keep the labels perfectly dry. FWIW, I've never had a problem with wetness on labels. Even when a little gets on them, a quick gentle wipe with paper towel or the like solves the problem with no noticeable impact. I won't do that on my first pressings of valuable LPs, but for all others there just doesn't seem to be a problem.
Indeed, Carlp, I had a similar issue once when I slightly over-filled the tank, and the Carlon cover got a little little wet where it met the record. Blah.
One advantage that I do see with using spacers as large as possible without covering the grooves would be added stability and rigidity. I imagine that it would help prevent further record flex, and might even improve cleaning slightly as a result. But no, I don't really imagine it protecting labels from anything other than droplets flying up while the tank is running, which I've never seen happen when the records are actually in the fluid. *shrug*
One advantage that I do see with using spacers as large as possible without covering the grooves would be added stability and rigidity. I imagine that it would help prevent further record flex, and might even improve cleaning slightly as a result. But no, I don't really imagine it protecting labels from anything other than droplets flying up while the tank is running, which I've never seen happen when the records are actually in the fluid. *shrug*
So far, I don't like any of label protectors. Here are some ideas.
This is groove master label protector.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41phdR9zhyL.jpg
This Harbor Freight $2.99 suction cup. It can be modified as label protector as well.
http://www.harborfreight.com/media/...b33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/i/m/image_18136.jpg
This is groove master label protector.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41phdR9zhyL.jpg
This Harbor Freight $2.99 suction cup. It can be modified as label protector as well.
http://www.harborfreight.com/media/...b33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/i/m/image_18136.jpg
This might be little bit of the main topic.....noticed guys having a hard time finding Triton X-114.
Here is a link to a company that i've been dealing to get all my supplies and Triton X-114 is one of them,....Excellent service !
http://www.museumservicescorporation.com/scat/de.html
Here is a link to a company that i've been dealing to get all my supplies and Triton X-114 is one of them,....Excellent service !
http://www.museumservicescorporation.com/scat/de.html
Under the abrading products of the link http://www.museumservicescorporation.com/scat/ab.html.
there are products that might be useful for cleaning album covers.
http://www.museumservicescorporation.com/scat/ab.html
there are products that might be useful for cleaning album covers.
http://www.museumservicescorporation.com/scat/ab.html
An interesting video about record cleaning. Person is very hung up about mold release agents and believes Keith Monk cleaning machine is the Rolls Royce of RCMs. He gives a very minimal thought about the ultrasonic cleaning method. He reduces the principles of US cleaning to just an agitation. He believes mold release agent is re-contaminating the record while in the bath. Anyone have thoughts about the mold release agents?
He talks about the USRCM at 37:30 - 38:59 for those of you who want to skip to that part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUbC2ANXRqY
He talks about the USRCM at 37:30 - 38:59 for those of you who want to skip to that part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUbC2ANXRqY
I'm up to 18 or 20 minutes in, and he's talking about all those grody substances that can fall into a record groove.
I see the turntable behind him, and there's been a question in my mind for years about high end turntables - many or most of them are totally exposed, and anything (dust, the other crud he's talking about) circulating in and falling through the air will fall onto the LP while it's playing. If you don't have a "dust cover" that encloses the turntable, it seems that at least putting a plate (whether plastic, glass, metal, wood, whaever) a few inches above the turntable would help keep an LP clean while it's being played. It could be hinged like a regular dust cover to make operating the turntable easier. Does anyone do this?
You make an excellent point. Short of having a truly particle-free atmosphere, there's a lot of stuff depositing during a single play. And covers can have more than merely acoustic effects.
I wiped the dust off the top of one table's cover while a record was playing, and the low-mass arm lifted off the record!