This is a fine point. Anyone got an answer?
CLEANING VINYL - The AK compendium of fact, fiction and collective wisdom
- Thread starter onwardjames
- Start date
This is a fine point. Anyone got an answer?
Indy33
Member
My best guess would be ......
Like an explosion sends off pressure waves, when the bubble collapses also sends a pressure wave that could reach into the groove.
Compared to a 40 MHz bubble, a higher frequency bubble would be smaller, but less powerful. So it's a compromise between size and power.
.
Yes, that's what the document also says. I quote:
"The lower the ultrasonic frequency, the larger the bubble that is created. A 25 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 125 microns diameter while 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 more of them) 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."
If I read that correctly, whether the bubble is inside the groove or not is not important, as long as the waves caused by its implosion are strong enough to reach the bottom of the groove. Because, after all, it's not the implosion itself that provides the cleaning effect, but the waves caused by it. And if those waves can reach into the groove with sufficient force, then it may not matter whether they happen to have originated inside or outside of the groove.
So yeah, on second thought, provided my understanding is correct, I may have worried for nothing. 40 kHz may be fine after all.
"The lower the ultrasonic frequency, the larger the bubble that is created. A 25 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 125 microns diameter while 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 more of them) 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."
If I read that correctly, whether the bubble is inside the groove or not is not important, as long as the waves caused by its implosion are strong enough to reach the bottom of the groove. Because, after all, it's not the implosion itself that provides the cleaning effect, but the waves caused by it. And if those waves can reach into the groove with sufficient force, then it may not matter whether they happen to have originated inside or outside of the groove.
So yeah, on second thought, provided my understanding is correct, I may have worried for nothing. 40 kHz may be fine after all.
Last edited:
Indy33
Member
I know at least one person is using the Elma P120 US cleaner. The "P" series has dual frequencies of 37KHz and 80 KHz Also has variable power settings. But the price is way beyond my budget at $4423.
iultrasonic.com
This digital microscope made by Tomlov would seem to be able to see the bottom of a record groove and therefore any dirt particles. Good for verifying how clean one is getting their vinyl records.
.
Elma P120H Ultrasonic Cleaner
A Sonicator Bath with Unprecedented Power and Versatility. Dual-Frequency 37 or 80 kHz for tough or gentle mixing or cleaning. Learn more.
iultrasonic.com
This digital microscope made by Tomlov would seem to be able to see the bottom of a record groove and therefore any dirt particles. Good for verifying how clean one is getting their vinyl records.
.
Thunderbox
Super Member
I built a machine that uses a small portable pressure washer. It is on site here. Works absolutely great. Uses only distilled water.
Pictures, or it doesn't exist.
drjohnnyfeva
Well-Known Member
I went and looked for it... I was interested too.Pictures, or it doesn't exist.
Somewhere on this thread I mentioned doing touch up cleanings on pops that wouldn't go away with a ultrasonic toothbrush. Anyway, pretty ingenious. Good job, @Thunderbox https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/record-cleaning-fluids.1093246/page-2 post #37.
The problem is, online posts of ultrasonic cleaning of records have almost become this arcane, witchcraft art.
I use a Kirmuss. It was bought in 2018, new. No problems. I follow the instructions — six liters of distilled water plus 40ml of 70% Isopropanol. De-gas (pulse) once, use in 5-minute cleaning cycles. I change the wash, prolly around every 15-25 LPs, depending on how much old surfactant is on them.
Really dirty LPs get hand-washed first.
How is a pulse defined? I didn’t see anything about a rinsing step. Does that mean you don’t do one? I’m really lazy and having to do a rinse after the cleaning is too much for me. So I’m looking for all the ammo I can get to shoot that idea down man.
drjohnnyfeva
Well-Known Member
There was no Science to Dawn and Dishwater back in the day, but if it was a dirty, poppy record it probably benefited from a cleaning in that or any manner. The same, likely, still hods holds true today. A dirty record needs a cleaning and even the least scientific of those methods will yield an improvement.
I have an US cleaner that I use when I accumulate a couple dozen to clean. I use almost the same solution that I used when I was using a lazy susan and a paint pad. Everything I've ever cleaned sounds better after a cleaning.
And some of the harsh cleaners I've tried have done wonders over even the US.Clean and enjoy in whatever your desired manner!
No rinse. The bath has only water and a small amount of isopropanol. Both dry off.
"Pulse" is Kirmuss's word for degassing the solution before use. It removes excess air from the water, which can impede ultrasound cavitation. I only do it once for each bath change.
elvi
Super Member
Great conversation.
My US has a pot to vary the frequency, and I think most are based on a similar design. I communicated this requirement when contacting the vendor. In my job, I dealt with many Asia based vendors, so this was not a difficult lift.
On your units the pot might not be populated, or space on the PWB, but check your scat.. it might be listed.
My US has a pot to vary the frequency, and I think most are based on a similar design. I communicated this requirement when contacting the vendor. In my job, I dealt with many Asia based vendors, so this was not a difficult lift.
On your units the pot might not be populated, or space on the PWB, but check your scat.. it might be listed.
I wanted to share this with the group. Since starting this thread, I've been gathering methods. I have found it very difficult, separating good methods from okay methods.
Well, someone in this thread mentioned a tablespoon of Jet-Dri, and BLASPHEMY, heated tap water. I had a bunch of 1 dollar finds, all quite filthy, most slightly warped (Record Pi will fix that, later) and so, why not?
I am here to tell you a Dave Brubeck at Pacific College, having been glued twice, sanded very lightly once and multiple washes, came out listenable. That thing was a disaster. The rest came out without pops or clicks of any kind. I went 30 minutes at 35 degrees Celsius, and that's IT!!!!
Astounding. I've been enjoying vinyl all week, and admittedly, had a love/hate affair with it now adjusted to LOVE/annoyed with it.
Try it, fellas. Total eye-opener. I been using far too much detergent, and worrying about distilled water for the wash. I DID do a final rinse with distilled in my old Spin Clean, and tellingly, that water was filthy, while the Jet-Dri water in the ultrasonic wasn't that bad. So, be sure to rinse, heavily.
Happy vinyl cleaning, everyone.
Well, someone in this thread mentioned a tablespoon of Jet-Dri, and BLASPHEMY, heated tap water. I had a bunch of 1 dollar finds, all quite filthy, most slightly warped (Record Pi will fix that, later) and so, why not?
I am here to tell you a Dave Brubeck at Pacific College, having been glued twice, sanded very lightly once and multiple washes, came out listenable. That thing was a disaster. The rest came out without pops or clicks of any kind. I went 30 minutes at 35 degrees Celsius, and that's IT!!!!
Astounding. I've been enjoying vinyl all week, and admittedly, had a love/hate affair with it now adjusted to LOVE/annoyed with it.
Try it, fellas. Total eye-opener. I been using far too much detergent, and worrying about distilled water for the wash. I DID do a final rinse with distilled in my old Spin Clean, and tellingly, that water was filthy, while the Jet-Dri water in the ultrasonic wasn't that bad. So, be sure to rinse, heavily.
Happy vinyl cleaning, everyone.
Send a PM to @ETLS and see if he has any of his record rotisseries left. I have the prototype, I think, and I cannot see a better design being made.
Best of luck.
drjohnnyfeva
Well-Known Member
elvi
Super Member
My cleaner is handmade, with the exception of the tank, transducers and PWB.
I think there are a few home spun designs for a holding and rotating assembly put there
Perhaps, and mind you, this is merely a suggestion, could you make this intelligible for us non-chemists?
I'm sure folks other than myself would truly appreciate it.
Edit - Wait, you did say it was private. Sorry, never mind.
I'm currently out of the office, thankfully I was given the opportunity to ride my baby home under the conditions I return for admittance. I was looking good for the San Antonio trip, and take a cold weather road trip to end this year but it may not happen now.
Yes to your thinking and a thank you for your reaching out with the positive reviews. Got my charger and phone to update y'all later.
