tima's DIY RCM
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
You are most welcome. Both USC tank and solution are key components. What solution are you using?
About 1.25 cups of 95% isopropyl alcohol. All that was local. And about 6 drops of Triton x114 surfactant. I have about 1.5 gallons of water in the system.
I ran 4 batches and my basement is starting to smell like a burning motor. I don't think my tank will be long lived. I run the batch for 30 minutes.
I am vacuuming my records when done. I taped the felt on my vacuum with blue tape. It seems to dry better.
My heat got up to about 31*. I am going to need a radiator.
I am using 1 kuzma puck between records and loading 5. Not sure if that is to tight for my weak machine.
I still see finger prints and have some surface noise.
I will order the lab alcohol and surfactant you call out. As well as a meter. I have a 1 micron filter. I guess I need to get the .35. Boy, I remember some time back when you started with 5 micron.
The Kuzma spinner is the least of my worries now. It adds 0 value for me. I kind of like my current spinner. But I will probably fork out the additional $ to get the last parts.
1.25 cups of IPA in 1.5 gallons is a lot. I had been using 1.3 cups 99% pure IPA in ~3.4 gallons. For now, I've stopped using IPA. But, as long as you don't blow yourself up, it should be effective. No residue from IPA, asfaik.
I have no familiarity with Triton x114. N.Antin* indicates this type of surfactant is an environmental aquatic toxin and is being phased out. He speculates this is the non-ionic surfactant found in Photo-Flo 200. He suggests Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.1% concentration is a safer and more efficient substitute.
Rather than the above, I've been using Ilford Ilfotol which is a wetting agent used in developing photographs and also has surfactant and anti-bacterial properties. I had been using 0.9 tablespoons in the ~3.4 gal tank and since dropping the IPA I increased that to ~1.25 tablespoon. If you get foaming, you've used too much.
Imo you do not need a radiator if temps stay 35° F and below. You can ask David (@dminches) about his use of a radiator.
I run 10 minutes at 37 kHz and 10 minutes at 80 kHz.
If you smell something burning there is potential danger in proximity to the IPA.
Yes the whold filter+pump thing has been an evolution. It's really the filter that drives the pump choice.
I use two pucks between records if cleaning 5, and three pucks with fewer.
* the Neil Antin paper "Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records, 2nd ed." is here. This is 146pp written in a very dense style even for a 'scientific' study, and is difficult reading partly because it has so many forward and backward references. It has a wealth of information and is perhaps the most authoratitve comprehensive treatise on the subject matter ever written. But it may make your head hurt trying to glean hands-on information.
Perhaps more practically helpful - it was for me - is the dialogue I had with Antin after publication of the 1st edition of his paper. If you scroll to the end of that document you can read our exchange. This cashes out information in more real world terms.
Yep.
This one is nearly silent. The real trick is you have to get it flowing before mounting it upside down. For whatever reason despite the natural advantage the pumps cannot deal with air bubbles when upside down.
I spend a longer time for some LP's, btw. I've started doing 15min total just because the ones I've been cleaning need it. I have the tetrigol you linked and it's a million times better than other ones I've used. I think triton might even have a large negative effect by comparison. The reason you want to use any at all is because if you don't big stuff that needs to be filtered sits on top of the water.
I read the whole comments section with Neil. It sunds like I need to start over with pump and filter parts.
Decent looking sharpertek ultrasonic at first blush. Did you see a duel frequency unit that is 12" or larger?
I wonder if I could just rinse with a spin clean. How important is the 80 hertz ultrasonic. My old one could be put to that use. I just want to reduce steps. And I vacuum after rinse.
Decent looking sharpertek ultrasonic at first blush. Did you see a duel frequency unit that is 12" or larger?
I wonder if I could just rinse with a spin clean. How important is the 80 hertz ultrasonic. My old one could be put to that use. I just want to reduce steps. And I vacuum after rinse.
The hz is very debatable.
From a technical perspective the 80hz works faster, not necessarily smaller. The thing about smaller areas is they're harder to get to, so more smaller bubbles will hit them more often. The thing with records is they're a big wide surface so nothing is very hidden - they're about as easy to hit as possible. The water rushes away from the implosion of the bubble, so that rush can hit areas of larger and smaller sized so long as the direction is there - they're just more spaced out at lower frequencies.
From a technical perspective the 80hz works faster, not necessarily smaller. The thing about smaller areas is they're harder to get to, so more smaller bubbles will hit them more often. The thing with records is they're a big wide surface so nothing is very hidden - they're about as easy to hit as possible. The water rushes away from the implosion of the bubble, so that rush can hit areas of larger and smaller sized so long as the direction is there - they're just more spaced out at lower frequencies.
XP-HF-720-20L-80KHz
High Frequency Ultrasonic Cleaner XP-HF-720-20L-80KHz /Out Of Stock
High Frequency Ultrasonic Cleaner XP-HF-720-20L-80KHz /Out Of Stock - 5.3 Gal. High Frequency Ultrasonic Cleaner XP-HF-500-20L-80KHz by SHARPERTEK® High Frequency Ultrasonic Cleaning Machines Used for Specific Applications. Features: Free Parts' Basket Industrial grade model Side Handles for...
www.sharpertek.com
This looks like a good unit. But its going to be $1900. And its only 80 Khz. No duel function. The 40 Khz units are significantly less money. On amazon for say $300 or less. I assume my Kendal is a 40Khz. I will use that to rinse. If I feel the need. I really want to spin clean and call it a day. I don't want the process to take too long.
Folsom, why are you saying nothing is very hidden. The part of a record we want to clean is deep in the groove. I thought that was a very small area. I thought the idea behind smaller bubbles was the ability of the bubble to get deep into the smallest parts of the groove and pull out debris. If this were not the issue, I would continue to use my 1.5" square chunks of home depot micro paint brush and simply scrub the records. FWIW, that seemed to be a very effective method of cleaning. At this point in time, re-cleaning a record I did with a brush provided no sonic benefits I have heard. They are about the same.
The best results I have achieved so far on on the new record I put to the test. The solution I used seemed to have brought out more detail in playback. I only tried my solution on one record I like. So far I have been experimenting on classical records I got used that have nebulous value.
Tima, what is your take on Neil's Ilfotol only. Is he saying, in order to get the higher concentration of cleaner off the record after the wash, you have to apply a different chemical to remove the Ilfotol????? I need to reread all that. One pass was not enough. This stuff is all so intense. I feel I really need to start a word document and start pasting part numbers, specifications on formulations and process to keep it all strait. Its kind of like there needs to be a master page that is locked by you, and edited by you to only contain the most current and best information. The whole is an enlightening read, but its pretty overwhelming. And a process in flux. Changing as it is refined.
Tim and I both have this unit which has 37 and 80 kHz frequencies.
www.justmedicalstore.com
Elmasonic P120H Ultrasonic Cleaner w/ Heat 3.5 Gallon
Elmasonic P120H Ultrasonic Cleaner w/ Heat 3.5 Gallon
www.justmedicalstore.com
If the cavitation formed in the groove there would be no water to for the shockwave that has the pulling action. You're creating implosions next to something for the cleaning action. There isn't enough vacuum power in those bubbles to actually pull something off a record. The shockwave from the implosion can go into the grooves because it isn't a solid object - whatever doesn't make contact will continue. Again, you just have to make implosions next to what it is you want to clean... that's as easy as it gets with a basically flat surface. Also "deep" is a little subjective... consider that vinyl isn't that thick. Grooves are very small. Think of it like this, you're shooting a wall with hoses. These hoses randomly move around. You can either use 20 large hoses that have more gaps at any given time, or 40 slightly smaller hoses that leave less gaps at any given time. That's exactly what is happening.
Don't buy the really cheap cleaners, I had problems with them. However my iSoncic so far has been working good. (same as KirmussAudio) You can buy them for a very reasonable amount off their website or on eBay. You can even get one that has a built in rotisserie action that's different that KirmussAudio. However the KirmussAudio setup probably isn't too bad. I like how mine protects the labels at all times.
I was going to mention that when I saw the advert at Amazon. That particular pump is not self priming - it is designed that way
Heh - yes reading Antin is 'intense', it is overwhelming, and yes it seems to change quickly. Especially when you first dive into it. Try to apply what he says to your specific situation, a hard enough task - all the examples are interesting, but add to the clutter.
Wrt ILFOTOL only ... that is what I'm currently trying. No IPA and increased Ilfotol. See post #284. This gets into having enough Ilfotol for micelle creation and surfactant function. What I have not resolved is my tolerance for foaming at the concentration Antin suggests. Either that or reread his suggestion to check I am understanding correctly. Doing a rinse step is a key to using a higher concentration and I would not have increased concentration if I had not adopted ultrasonic rinsing. So no final conclusion just yet.
Are you seriously going to trash Tim on his thread about a subject he has been researching and writing about for years?
You wrote stuff with absolutely no scientific evidence or proof. If you have it please share it.
I'm not trashing anything on Tim, he's saying that I'm incorrect on something and not posting any contrary information.
Physics don't care about feelings. My point was to offer information so KingRex can conclude what he wants and make the best decision for himself - I'm not offering a right or wrong position on frequency, to me they both work well for this purpose since it's an easy task. In fact the task can be performed by just a high pressure stream of water like Gem Dandy, but you're going to be taking a shower at the same time for only one record at a time...
Last edited:
It kinda sounded like you were saying my words are empty because I did not provide an argument against what you were claiming. Stating that you are incorrect is not 'empty words'. To be honest, there comes a point where going over the same material repeatedly gets tiresome. I was hoping that by saying you are incorrect - which was not a casual remark - that you might give a little pause and do some research on your own. I think you tried to "reason" a statement a priori about transducer frequency. Sometimes that might work, but not in this case. Consider it empiricism. I won't teach you how to do research but neither will I cook you a fish dinner every night.
Not really. There is a lot of information on the topic on transducer operating frequency. LMGTFY Ultrasonics have been used for industrial cleaning for far longer than we've used it for cleaning records.
This chart is associated to cleaning magnetic tape not vinyl records, but the technology is the same and so is the concept, although the percentage of particle removal relative to frequency may be different for different media.
The higher the transducer frequency the smaller the cavitation bubble. The size of the bubble, not its velocity or the speed of the transducer is the relevant factor. The strength of an implosion is a function of the power* provided by the transducer and the size of the vacuum bubble.
The lower the frequency the larger the bubble. Larger bubbles produce more energy when they implode - there is greater disturbance in the area of a large bubble implosion and greater liklihood of dislodging larger dirt particles than a small bubble. A smaller buble can fit into a smaller space but its size limits its impact. The single slot Degritter operates at 120 kHz and advertises itself as less likely to damage a record - which is true, but thus far there is little to no evidence that vinyl records are damaged by lower frequency cavitation.
There is no universal distribution of specific sized particles on dirty records and we want our systems to clean whatever record we present to them. Therefore a machine capable of more than one frequency should be superior to a single frequency machine. The Elmasonic P Series controls the frequency of its transducers to allow both 37kHz and 80 kHz operation. Zenith Ultrasonics makes machines that have different single frequency transducers in the same tank.
A discussion of transducer frequency operation can get into much more depth than the above.
*: Most tanks will (or should) be spec'd with a power rating. You get what you pay for. Better tanks will let you adjust the power. Imo you want a tank with at least 300W. cf. Tovatech
Last edited:
Your chart leave out the time domain. For records or other basically flat things were you to run the devices longer they'd basically even out in percentages. Hence me talking about efficiency.
Bubble size is relative to wattage, as at any frequency you can make smaller or larger bubbles in at least one dimension. They seem to follow some sort of rule about having a similar wattage or their frequencies would mean a lot, and likely some would be more and less effective if the bubbles started to change shape. You can have a transducer move a micrometer or ten inches at any frequency, to stimulate something. Obviously there are practical limits.
I agree that a machine with multiple frequencies is desirable to some degree in theory as it would clean faster than even just a high frequency machine. However I'm not sure that the particle size found on the records is particular to either smaller or larger than a somewhat medium range of they work, based on everyone's cleaning times.
And still my comments are the same, 40khz is still basically just slower at cleaning records. As you see in the graph (that was based on a certain amount of time exposure) there isn't a particle size it doesn't work on, it's just more or less efficient for certain sizes. And the nice thing about records is that for all intensive purposes they are essentially flat walls.
Bubble size is relative to wattage, as at any frequency you can make smaller or larger bubbles in at least one dimension. They seem to follow some sort of rule about having a similar wattage or their frequencies would mean a lot, and likely some would be more and less effective if the bubbles started to change shape. You can have a transducer move a micrometer or ten inches at any frequency, to stimulate something. Obviously there are practical limits.
I agree that a machine with multiple frequencies is desirable to some degree in theory as it would clean faster than even just a high frequency machine. However I'm not sure that the particle size found on the records is particular to either smaller or larger than a somewhat medium range of they work, based on everyone's cleaning times.
And still my comments are the same, 40khz is still basically just slower at cleaning records. As you see in the graph (that was based on a certain amount of time exposure) there isn't a particle size it doesn't work on, it's just more or less efficient for certain sizes. And the nice thing about records is that for all intensive purposes they are essentially flat walls.
I got into this to reduce the amount of time I was taking cleaning records - one record at a time, so I certainly appreciate your goal here. I agree it is rather pricey for what it offers and the build quality discernable in the picture. My guess is that it is made in China. I understand about the money - we each make our own judgements on that. The price that Web page gave me was $2180, maybe you can get it for $1900. For a bit more ($350 ?) you can get an Elma.
Since my name has been bantered about quite a bit, and in the interest of 'adding' to the discussion, I decided to join the forum.
As far as ultrasonics - quoting from my book (and the primary reference is the 500+ page book Particle Adhesion and Removal 2015):
XIV.1.a The basic principle is that ultrasonic sound waves can produce bubbles that will grow until they collapse and the associated event is termed ‘cavitation’ as illustrated Figure 45. The energy associated with cavitation is known by any motor boat owner who has experienced propeller pitting/wear from cavitation, and the same phenomenon can be experienced with centrifugal pumps. For ultrasonics there is a minimum power (wattage) necessary to produce cavitation. The higher the frequency, the more power is required. The minimum power required at 40 kHz is reported between 0.3 and 0.5 W/cm² (per transducer radiating surface). As the UCM tank volume increases, less power, measured as W/gal or W/cm³ is required to maintain cavitation throughout the tank. A very small 0.5-gal/1.9-L 40-kHz tank may require 125 W/gal while a 12.75-L/3.4-gal 40-kHz tank may only require 80 W/gal; noting that as the ultrasonic kHz increases so does the power required. There is a limit to increasing power above which no additional benefit is obtained.
XIV.1.b The lower the ultrasonic frequency, the larger the bubble that is created. A 40 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 75 microns diameter. These are not going to get into the record groove. A 120 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 20 microns and these can get into the groove. But the larger bubble can produce more energy when it collapses/implodes (cavitation) so there is fluid agitation around the collapsing event that can provide cleaning. How violently the bubble collapse is determined by the amount of power provided by the ultrasonic transducers. A low power 40 kHz unit may be safe for soft metal such as jewelry, while a 40 kHz high power unit may not. The smaller bubble by its size is limited to how violent it can collapse. A high powered 120 kHz unit has less potential for damage than a high powered 40 kHz. As the frequency increases well above 250 kHz, cavitation pretty much disappears replaced by ‘acoustic streaming’. The fluid velocity produced by the acoustic streaming is what then does the cleaning; and the target velocities are not much different than those developed for pipe/tube flushing addressed CHAPTER XI. DISCUSSION OF CLEANLINESS CRITERIA:.
XIV.1.c Further complicating the effectiveness of ultrasonics is the fluid boundary layer. The fluid flow at the record (or any) surface develops a static layer that is separate from the bulk fluid that is moving. The boundary layer thickness is dependent on the ultrasonic frequency (high kHz = thinner boundary layer), acoustic energy, and fluid properties (viscosity & density). To get the most effective cleaning, the cleaning process has to penetrate the boundary layer to remove the soil and particles that are contained within it. This concept is also applicable to pipe flushing and was addressed CHAPTER XI. DISCUSSION OF CLEANLINESS CRITERIA:. At 40-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 5 microns, while at 120-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 2 microns.
XIV.1.d So, fundamentally, following the logic, lower frequency units (40 kHz) are good for larger soil surfaces and particles while higher frequency units (80-132 kHz) are better at removing smaller particles as illustrated Figure 46.
Also, add to this (from an exchange I had with Tim) - during what is called the ultrasonic rarefaction phase, the pressure drops below the fluid vapor pressure and essentially the fluid boils creating a bubble and over a period of rarefaction/compression cycles the bubble that is formed grows until the surrounding hydraulic pressure violently collapses it. The cavitation bubble duration is very short - about 4 milliseconds - check this video starting at about time 6:20 https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ul ... %3DHDRSC3; There should be no evidence of bubbles, but there will be a visual disturbance in the fluid unless there is air in the water which will be released and that is the whole concept of degas; air bubbles absorb the UT energy and essentially prevent cavitation.
Yes, its a lot of info and of course there is a lot of debate as to "What's the best". To that I will only say there are different methods/processes that can achieve a 'clean record'; and the devil is in the details.
As far as ultrasonics - quoting from my book (and the primary reference is the 500+ page book Particle Adhesion and Removal 2015):
XIV.1.a The basic principle is that ultrasonic sound waves can produce bubbles that will grow until they collapse and the associated event is termed ‘cavitation’ as illustrated Figure 45. The energy associated with cavitation is known by any motor boat owner who has experienced propeller pitting/wear from cavitation, and the same phenomenon can be experienced with centrifugal pumps. For ultrasonics there is a minimum power (wattage) necessary to produce cavitation. The higher the frequency, the more power is required. The minimum power required at 40 kHz is reported between 0.3 and 0.5 W/cm² (per transducer radiating surface). As the UCM tank volume increases, less power, measured as W/gal or W/cm³ is required to maintain cavitation throughout the tank. A very small 0.5-gal/1.9-L 40-kHz tank may require 125 W/gal while a 12.75-L/3.4-gal 40-kHz tank may only require 80 W/gal; noting that as the ultrasonic kHz increases so does the power required. There is a limit to increasing power above which no additional benefit is obtained.
XIV.1.b The lower the ultrasonic frequency, the larger the bubble that is created. A 40 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 75 microns diameter. These are not going to get into the record groove. A 120 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 20 microns and these can get into the groove. But the larger bubble can produce more energy when it collapses/implodes (cavitation) so there is fluid agitation around the collapsing event that can provide cleaning. How violently the bubble collapse is determined by the amount of power provided by the ultrasonic transducers. A low power 40 kHz unit may be safe for soft metal such as jewelry, while a 40 kHz high power unit may not. The smaller bubble by its size is limited to how violent it can collapse. A high powered 120 kHz unit has less potential for damage than a high powered 40 kHz. As the frequency increases well above 250 kHz, cavitation pretty much disappears replaced by ‘acoustic streaming’. The fluid velocity produced by the acoustic streaming is what then does the cleaning; and the target velocities are not much different than those developed for pipe/tube flushing addressed CHAPTER XI. DISCUSSION OF CLEANLINESS CRITERIA:.
XIV.1.c Further complicating the effectiveness of ultrasonics is the fluid boundary layer. The fluid flow at the record (or any) surface develops a static layer that is separate from the bulk fluid that is moving. The boundary layer thickness is dependent on the ultrasonic frequency (high kHz = thinner boundary layer), acoustic energy, and fluid properties (viscosity & density). To get the most effective cleaning, the cleaning process has to penetrate the boundary layer to remove the soil and particles that are contained within it. This concept is also applicable to pipe flushing and was addressed CHAPTER XI. DISCUSSION OF CLEANLINESS CRITERIA:. At 40-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 5 microns, while at 120-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 2 microns.
XIV.1.d So, fundamentally, following the logic, lower frequency units (40 kHz) are good for larger soil surfaces and particles while higher frequency units (80-132 kHz) are better at removing smaller particles as illustrated Figure 46.
Also, add to this (from an exchange I had with Tim) - during what is called the ultrasonic rarefaction phase, the pressure drops below the fluid vapor pressure and essentially the fluid boils creating a bubble and over a period of rarefaction/compression cycles the bubble that is formed grows until the surrounding hydraulic pressure violently collapses it. The cavitation bubble duration is very short - about 4 milliseconds - check this video starting at about time 6:20 https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ul ... %3DHDRSC3; There should be no evidence of bubbles, but there will be a visual disturbance in the fluid unless there is air in the water which will be released and that is the whole concept of degas; air bubbles absorb the UT energy and essentially prevent cavitation.
Yes, its a lot of info and of course there is a lot of debate as to "What's the best". To that I will only say there are different methods/processes that can achieve a 'clean record'; and the devil is in the details.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |