My version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner

Updates -
Before sending the machine off, I bought a few junk vinyls at the shop to test and see what I might have been doing wrong. First concern was not allowing the vinyl to cool long enough, possibly causing the warp rinsing, so I did a 25 min wash, heater off with standard bath mix, 2 LPs at a time.

The first round did fine after 20 min degassing, but the 2nd set had one thicker record and one thinner - Colombia pressing, but of the thickness of those 'Dynavinyl" that were pressed, and it made the same type of warp. I tested temps, and with the heater never turned on, I was getting overall bath mix of 109.6... I couldn't find a particular 'hot spot' but the tip of the thermometer couldn't reach the bottom of the tank either, too short... this machine is going back The shipping cost is going to kill me, so I'm wondering if I should put that money towards a different brand...

Also bought the vinyl-flat to try and rescue those records. I figured if it works, then it will have paid for itself after 4 or 5 of them easy.

Thanks again to everyone for their info and help...
 
@Zg925 - hmm... any more suggestions for units? This was the one that bbtx had suggested a long time ago - granted, the supplier for these Chinese units, hardware, etc. is always changing, so quality control seems impossible... I know Vibratto is popular, but soooo expensive out of the gate. Do they still even do anything under 600?


@Packgrog - Thank you, I did get the groovy pouch, and the timer. Did some reading here and elsewhere, and have gotten the scale to weigh the vinyl too. Am very curious how it handles that raised rounded rim so many records have on the lead in groove though - does it flatten that as well? Have you used one before?
 
This thread is invaluable for anyone interested in ultrasonic cleaning of records, and I would like to enthusiastically thank the key contributors. I have read many of the posts (I can't claim I have read all 203 pages) and have gained a far better understanding of how ultrasonic cleaning of records works. Many thanks to bbftx for starting this thread 6 years ago, and for the many outstanding contributions from all of you. This thread really is a great service for anyone seriously interested in cleaning LPs.


I'm cleaning records using a Trusonik 10 liter unit. I'm using approximately 3 gallons of distilled water, and spacing the records 1.5 inches apart as per the recommendations in this thread.


My question concerns the cleaning formula. I'm not mixing in advance, but adding the ingredients directly to the distilled water each time. I'm not rinsing the records due to lack of time. So, for better or worse, the cleaning formula needs to be aimed at one-step cleaning and drying.


I first used 6 oz (177 ml) of isopropyl alcohol, with 1 teaspoon (5 ml) of Ilford Ifotol, as per the recommendation of Tima on the Vinyl Press site. That resulted in a few bubbles during the cleaning cycle.

I next tried 6 oz of alcohol along with 0.5 oz (15 ml) of Triton-X in 3 gallons of distilled water, as I understand that is the recommended amount as per Rushton Paul. I mixed the Triton-X and alcohol together first before adding to the water. I tried Triton-X since that type of surfactant is recommended by the Library of Congress and the National Library of Canada. Triton-X appeared to work better for the drying of the records than did the Ilford Ilfotol.


The Triton-X resulted in a fair amount of foam. I have attached three photos, first showing the minimal amount of bubbles while cleaning is underway. Second, the greater amount of foam when running a pump and filter. But maybe that is understandable due to the agitation caused by the pump and water circulation (I believe at least one gallon per minute, which is not during cleaning and therefore might not a reason to be concerned? Finally, a photo of the remaining bubbles after I turned off the pump and waited about 15 minutes.


My question is whether the small amount of bubbles/foam next to the records is a cause for concern while cleaning? Or the greater amount while the pump is working and cleaning the water?


Should I reduce the amount of Triton-X? Or use Ilford Ilfotol instead?


Many thanks in advance for any responses; for your assistance; and for the excellent information provided in this thread!
 

Attachments

  • While_cleaning_records.jpg
    While_cleaning_records.jpg
    59.2 KB · Views: 391
  • While_pumping.jpg
    While_pumping.jpg
    103.4 KB · Views: 385
  • Pump_off.jpg
    Pump_off.jpg
    77 KB · Views: 387
Emosewa,
Try using just distilled plus isopropyl, particularly if you don't want to rinse. Pure water and isopropyl contribute zero residue. Any contaminants removed from your LP will be in solution in the bath and become very, very dilute. Most can be filtered out of the bath with a filter setup.

You've been using too much Triton-X and the Ilford. You definitely don't want any foaming. If I use anything like that now (i.e. Photoflo) it's a couple of drops --- certainly not 0.5 oz. Start from the other direction (i.e. no other ingredients) and see if you get satisfactory cleaning. I find that I get great results that way.
Cheers
B B
 
I should have explained that I’m also using a drier boxthat utilizes a 300 cfm fan and a 15 minute timer, built by the same person whosells the V-8 unit. My utility room,where the ultrasonic RCM resides, is a bit dusty. Therefore I’m trying to largely complete thedrying process using the box. A record that dries in a box in 15 minutes is less likely to accumulate dust as compared with a record drying out in the open.

I already discovered that records won't dry in 15 minutes, even with a 300 cfm fan, using 3 or 4 drops of Photoflo. Thesurfactant plays a critical function in causing water to sheet off the vinyl andfor records to dry. (Exactly the same aswith photographic film which was the original purpose of the Ilford and Kodak products.) But only a few drops of Photoflo is not enough. I then tried Tima's recommendation of 5 ml of Ilfotol, which is 1/3 of the dilution of 1:200 recommended by Ilford.


Your point to use much less is well taken. I will cut way back, and see what the minimum amount is to encourage water to sheet off the vinyl and encourage drying.


One key question - of the three -- Ilfotol, Photoflo or Triton-X -- which do the experts on this thread utilize?


I'm assuming that Triton-X is preferred, since Tergitol is recommended by the Library of Congress. But Triton-X is rather thick -- it has the visual appearance of a surfactant -- and apparently does not mix well with water. (Thus the recommendation to mix it with the alcohol first, and add both simultaneously to water.) So I'm wondering if Triton-X might be more likely to leave a residue behind?


It would be helpful to settle on one of the chemicals, and then by trial and error discover the minimum amount that is necessary to encourage the drying of records.
 
Hi Emosewa,
You're new here, so let me be bold enough to offer an observation made over the course of this thread:
There will never be total consensus on the "best" chemical formulation for an ultrasonic bath.

Throughout this thread, you will find a myriad of different cleaning procedures being used by people that live in very different environmental conditions when it comes to temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, HVAC systems, etc., and variation in those parameters during the course of the year. These conditions affect cleaning and drying, plain and simple. Along with individuals' personal biases, you'll get a whole host of different opinions (which is the norm on just about any audio-related topic!).
So, as not to have everybody simply repeat what they've posted before, start by searching this thread using the keywords for your different formulation components, and you'll see the range of opinions that you could then factor into your own trial and error.
Good luck,
B B
 
Regarding temperature and heating up of the water, I've been following this thread since its start, and I've always been wary of the idea of heating up the water (and thus the LPs) from running the heater in these ultrasonic cleaners, though I thought from early posts that these cleaners had no way to switch off the heater and just run the ultrasonic part.

The only "advantage" or reason I've seen for this heating up the water is IIRC from a recent post that it "cleans faster." I'd rather have it run longer, as opposed to adding heat. Whenever I've cleaned LPs (wet washing and vacuum-rinse, as with vacuum RCMs - I've get to get an ultrasonic cleaner), I've always used room-temperature water, as I didn't want to 'shock' the LP with a big temperature change, nor have the water too warm. The idea of raising the temperature (above something like 90 degrees F) is a bit scary to me, and it seems less risky to just run the ultrasonic on an LP for a longer time.

Updates -
Before sending the machine off, I bought a few junk vinyls at the shop to test and see what I might have been doing wrong. First concern was not allowing the vinyl to cool long enough, possibly causing the warp rinsing, so I did a 25 min wash, heater off with standard bath mix, 2 LPs at a time.

The first round did fine after 20 min degassing, but the 2nd set had one thicker record and one thinner - Colombia pressing, but of the thickness of those 'Dynavinyl" that were pressed, and it made the same type of warp. I tested temps, and with the heater never turned on, I was getting overall bath mix of 109.6...
So the water was heated solely by the ultrasonic circuitry/transducers?

If the ultrasonics heats up the water that much, I'd want to circulate it not just through a filter (as discussed earlier), but also through a radiator-and-fan system like an automotive engine radiator to keep the water nearer to room temperature.
 
Higher temperature helps improve solubility of contaminants. It's not simply that it cleans faster, but that it cleans more effectively. It's part of why you generally use warm-to-hot water when washing dishes in the sink. Sure, you have to be careful with the heat when cleaning vinyl, but higher than room temperature definitely helps (and is ultimately unavoidable with ultrasonic tanks anyway, given that the transducers themselves heat up with use, which in turn heats the fluid).
 
I agree with Packgrog here, heating helps cleaning effectiveness.

Before air conditioning was so prevalent, ambient temps in Texas would routinely result in records being stored and used in temps above 100° F. Even today, vinyl is stored and shipped in warehouses and trucks that easily get to 120° F in the summer. PVC is stable up to 140° F or higher. I have had zero problems with my heated bath.
 
Creating record separators with a router

I am on the home stretch in finally completing my ultrasonic record cleaner. I hope to have it completed in the next few days. One of the things that always vexed me was the separator devices. I wanted to use UHMW plastic and an o ring. I don't have a lathe but I do have a router.

Most routers have a protractor accessory that will allow you to rout circles. Problem is that the circles you can rout with the standard accessory are far too large of a diameter for this application. The pivot point has to be within the base of the router to create circles that are less than 5 inches or so. I created a base plate that has an adjustable pivot that will allow me to easily reset the tool for the different diameter cuts that are required. Hopefully the pictures will provide enough detail should someone want to try this with their router. The pivot is an "L" shaped 1/4-20 bolt that I had in my junk box. A square cornered "U" bolt could be cut and would be much easier to source. The base needs to be thick enough to keep any play in the pivot to a minimum.

The process is to drill a 1/4" diameter hole in the UHMW and a plywood backing board. The pilot must extend through the UHMW and into the plywood backing board. Clamp the UHMW and the board to a sturdy table. The groove to receive the o ring is done first. I used a 1/8 inch round router bit for this. I found that two passes with slightly different settings would give a groove that would hold the o ring snugly. The final cut is with a straight sided bit that will create the final shape. It is best to do all of the similar cuts in a way that the tool has to be adjusted the least number of times. Be sure that you are happy with the groove cut before cutting the final diameter. There is no going back.

Part of the reason for this post is to see if I can get the Google images to show as attachments

John

Sign in - Google Accounts
 
Grrrr. I guess that Google photo albums is not a good method to share photos on a forum. The pictures I see on my computer are great but I guess some sort of google account is needed to view them.

What is a good free photo sharing host? I would still like to post the pictures of the tool I created and of the ultrasonic cleaner I am building.

On to your other question. I was planning to use a 100 mm plastic lid that is commonly used on 2 gallon refrigerator water bottles. They are perfectly sized, will put the pressure on the o ring and weigh virtually nothing.

John
 
Hi Emosewa,
You're new here, so let me be bold enough to offer an observation made over the course of this thread:
There will never be total consensus on the "best" chemical formulation for an ultrasonic bath.

Throughout this thread, you will find a myriad of different cleaning procedures being used by people that live in very different environmental conditions when it comes to temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, HVAC systems, etc., and variation in those parameters during the course of the year. These conditions affect cleaning and drying, plain and simple. Along with individuals' personal biases, you'll get a whole host of different opinions (which is the norm on just about any audio-related topic!).
So, as not to have everybody simply repeat what they've posted before, start by searching this thread using the keywords for your different formulation components, and you'll see the range of opinions that you could then factor into your own trial and error.
Good luck,
B B

Many thanks for the response and guidance. I did search through the thread and read the many opinions.

But if I may pose one additional question, which is a subject of chemistry versus just an opinion, what is the chemical difference between Ilfotol/Photoflo versus Tergitol/Triton-X?

Are Ilfotol/Photoflo primarily wetting agents rather than cleaning agents or detergents?

The National Library of Canada refers to Triton-X as a "detergent," and says that rinsing is necessary after using it. So is Triton-X more of a detergent? (It certainly is thicker in appearance, more like dish detergent liquid.) That would suggests that for one-step cleaning and drying, a combination of alcohol and Ilfotol might be more appropriate than using Triton-X?

Or, strictly as a matter of chemistry, is the above incorrect, and Ilfotol, Photoflo and Triton-X are chemically the same?
 
Another try for a picture

I resized one of the images and am posting it as an attachment. Let me see if this works. The thumbnail photo is of the router fixture and one of the disks I have created. I will keep the full size images in a Google folder for future reference.

John
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6718__1539995255_50.54.140.127.jpg
    IMG_6718__1539995255_50.54.140.127.jpg
    56.7 KB · Views: 424