Ultrasonic Cavitation & Cleaning Explained

[Neil.Antin]

Here is the full information, including answers to your questions, and also what I got from listening to the records.
Answers:

Thank-you so much taking the time to provide all the details. Lots of good information. I am not sure that what you were fighting is mold spores or paper (cellulose) that has broken down and essentially glued itself to the record. I have clean old-gray mildew from records with the manual sink process and have good results. However, I have a few records with what I call sleeve-rash were the paper sleeve has broken down (and the paper sleeves are not acid-free) and essentially etched the record surface. I may try a cellulose enzyme soak to see what happens. But cellulose is very difficult to break down, and industry does not use cellulose enzymes for this purpose. They tend to use very concentrated caustic (such as sodium hydroxide). I have thought of trying this, but I really have no interest of dealing with the safety issues.

Otherwise, when you were using the manual sink cleaning process with Liquinox and Citranox (that I have used as strong as 2%), were you getting lots of foam in the brush with the most with the Liquinox? Lots of foam in the brush is the tell-tale that the cleaner(s) are being agitated enough to get maximum cleaning.

I should also add that initially I was using an inexpensive USB that only had a 40 Khz sonication speed, but before I started using the cellulase I bought a better one that supports 40 Khz, 80 Khz, and 120 Khz, and still allows up to 18 discs to be sonicated at once in a 15L bath. With the cellulase, I ran about the first six cycles at 80 Khz and the last four cycles at 120 Khz. I did this because the literature for the USB said 40 Khz is best for particular matter like dust (which I had already cleaned off), 80 Khz was good for smaller particles like mold, and 120 Khz will produce sonication bubbles small enough to fit inside the grooves and help remove even chemical residues. I reasoned the mildew crap was down in the grooves and it might work best to get the force closer to the remaining stuff in the grooves as what was higher up in the grooves was eaten away. But that's purely a guess; it's just what I did.

The problem with the high kHz machines such as https://www.cleanervinyl.com/multi-frequency-cleaners.html is that as I have written https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/ultrasonic-cavitation-cleaning-explained.36690/post-870704 as the kHz increases, the required power increases. There is some offset as the tank volume increases, but 120kHz needs a lot of power and a lot depends on whether the unit actually delivers the advertised power. Also, the 120-kHz is targeting particles below what the stylus can respond to, with 80-kHz being near ideal and at a lower kHz does not place the same power demands as 120-kHz. Also, although the tank can fit many records, it's easy to overload the tank so cleaning less records is better especially if you are trying to remove tenacious detritus. And, as I have written, the rotation speed can have a significant effect on cleaning performance, especially at <60-kHz were the flow generated can significantly reduce the cavitation intensity.

That supports my hypothesis that mold does not destroy vinyl and all you have to do is clean it effectively. But that takes a lot. What I did appears to clean it effectively.

Your observation is consistent with what was determined about 70-years ago - https://csumc.wisc.edu/wp-content/u...ecordings-Lemcoe-M.M.-Picket-A.G.-undated.pdf. The results of Fungi testing starts on page 42 and does discuss the risk of sleeve breakdown from fungi attack, and on page 44, summarizes the following for the standard vinyl record. Other record compounds such as Acetate, and Lacquer/Shellac were attacked.

After six months incubation, the disc specimens were examined by hand lens and microscope for
signs of deterioration and the following results obtained:
(1) Unfilled, unextended microgroove vinylite compound, containing lead stearate, carbon black and a dye. Fungi grew profusely on label and branched out over the disc surface. After cleaning, little, if any, etching caused by fungi could be observed. No embrittlement or loss of flexibility was noted. This material seems
to be resistant to deterioration induced by moisture or fungal activity. (Compound A).
(2) This material is the same as notes in (1) above with the omission of carbon black: It behaved exactly as did the previous specimen. As far as resistance to damage by high humidity and fungi, the unfilled, unextended microgroove vinylite compositions proved superior to the other formulations. (Compound B).

Again, thanks for the details, very informative!

Neil

 

[Holmz]

I believe that borax is not well liked by mould.
So perhaps tt is possible to brush on a borax solution on the label area ??

 

[bibliojim]

Thank you bibliojim for your interesting contribution about cleaning moldy records.

It sounds like your approach was to expose the moldy record to the cellulase enzyme to break down the cellulose (mold) then to 'peel off' the broken down cellulose in succesive layers with the ultrasonic action across multiple cycles. I have a couple questions and a couple suggestions.



If I understand correctly one cycle in your description include 10 minutes of rotation to expose the record to the enzyme without ultrasonic cavitation followed by 2 minutes of ultrasonic cavitation -- so 12 minutes total for a cycle. You ran 10 cycles, so 120 minutes per record. Is that correct ?

Do you know what surfactant is in the Isonic solution?

My suggestions are: to include the url/address to the page at the Carolina Biological Supply Company that offers the cellulase. And to edit your post to include white space between paragraphs for ease of reading.

Fwiw, I found this recipe for making a 0.1 M acetate buffer with pH approximately 5.0.

Thanks again.

PS - another thought. You might consider making your write-up into its own post -- maybe something like 'Cleaning Moldy Records'. It is a specialized topic that deserves a dedicated post which will make it easier to find.

Thank you, Tima.

Yes, 120 minutes as you said, but not necessarily per record. I ran the cycles in the USB with 10 records loaded on the spindle at a time, so per record it was actually 120 minutes / 10 records = 12 minutes/record. The average time depends on how many records you do at once. But 120 minutes for 10 cycles is what I did. It might be possible to shorten the 10-minute time between cavitation somewhat, and that would help a lot, but the enzyme has to have time to act, and we don't have any data on how long that really needs to be. The real limiting factor for me was the time to take each record off the spindle one at a time and run the additional hand-cleaning with liquinox in the sink and then the thorough rinse. The time for that gets added to the end of the 120 minutes so the whole process really takes a long time and you really have to want to get those records back. There is probably a faster way to do the rinsing part. However, it seems important to me to get all the bad solution from the bath with the mold in it that was shaken off the records completely off the records in the rinsing step(s), however they are done.

I do not know what is in the iSonic record cleaning solution. There are no ingredients listed on the bottle. I e-mailed the company asking for a safety data sheet and did not receive a reply, but possibly someone with more time to pursue that could get one. It has a nice scent to it and I don't know what chemical that is. They have significant safety warnings on the bottle. I used it originally and then started trying other commonly used surfactants. Mostly I wanted to be sure I was not using something that would inactivate the enzyme. I used the iSonic, Tergikleen, and Triton X-100 with the enzyme and they all allowed the enzyme I got from Carolina Biomedical to work. There probably is something that is best to use with the enzyme on records but finding out would be quite an experiment.

My USB manufacturer's instructions say not to put acid in the bath and I started to worry about doing some damage to the USB by using the pH 5.0 buffer, and so I only used that for a couple of batches of records. I am sure it is better to use the buffer for sake of enzyme activity, and maybe it wouldn't hurt the bath at all if you just use it for a few batches. It would be great if someone with real knowledge about that could offer an opinion. But after those first couple of batches I decided to use it without any buffering, I suppose around pH 7.0. I thought it might have been slightly less effective, but it's really hard to tell for sure. And you can just add more enzyme or run the cycles longer if it is too slow. Tradeoffs to everything.

Thank you for the link to how to mix the buffer up. I'm sure someone else might like to try it. I didn't have any trouble finding a source for sodium acetate to use for the buffer and it wasn't very expensive.

I'll follow up with starting another thread for it this weekend.

 

[bibliojim]

Thank-you so much taking the time to provide all the details. Lots of good information. I am not sure that what you were fighting is mold spores or paper (cellulose) that has broken down and essentially glued itself to the record. I have clean old-gray mildew from records with the manual sink process and have good results. However, I have a few records with what I call sleeve-rash were the paper sleeve has broken down (and the paper sleeves are not acid-free) and essentially etched the record surface. I may try a cellulose enzyme soak to see what happens. But cellulose is very difficult to break down, and industry does not use cellulose enzymes for this purpose. They tend to use very concentrated caustic (such as sodium hydroxide). I have thought of trying this, but I really have no interest of dealing with the safety issues.

Otherwise, when you were using the manual sink cleaning process with Liquinox and Citranox (that I have used as strong as 2%), were you getting lots of foam in the brush with the most with the Liquinox? Lots of foam in the brush is the tell-tale that the cleaner(s) are being agitated enough to get maximum cleaning.

The problem with the high kHz machines such as https://www.cleanervinyl.com/multi-frequency-cleaners.html is that as I have written https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/ultrasonic-cavitation-cleaning-explained.36690/post-870704 as the kHz increases, the required power increases. There is some offset as the tank volume increases, but 120kHz needs a lot of power and a lot depends on whether the unit actually delivers the advertised power. Also, the 120-kHz is targeting particles below what the stylus can respond to, with 80-kHz being near ideal and at a lower kHz does not place the same power demands as 120-kHz. Also, although the tank can fit many records, it's easy to overload the tank so cleaning less records is better especially if you are trying to remove tenacious detritus. And, as I have written, the rotation speed can have a significant effect on cleaning performance, especially at <60-kHz were the flow generated can significantly reduce the cavitation intensity.


Your observation is consistent with what was determined about 70-years ago - https://csumc.wisc.edu/wp-content/u...ecordings-Lemcoe-M.M.-Picket-A.G.-undated.pdf. The results of Fungi testing starts on page 42 and does discuss the risk of sleeve breakdown from fungi attack, and on page 44, summarizes the following for the standard vinyl record. Other record compounds such as Acetate, and Lacquer/Shellac were attacked.

After six months incubation, the disc specimens were examined by hand lens and microscope for
signs of deterioration and the following results obtained:
(1) Unfilled, unextended microgroove vinylite compound, containing lead stearate, carbon black and a dye. Fungi grew profusely on label and branched out over the disc surface. After cleaning, little, if any, etching caused by fungi could be observed. No embrittlement or loss of flexibility was noted. This material seems
to be resistant to deterioration induced by moisture or fungal activity. (Compound A).
(2) This material is the same as notes in (1) above with the omission of carbon black: It behaved exactly as did the previous specimen. As far as resistance to damage by high humidity and fungi, the unfilled, unextended microgroove vinylite compositions proved superior to the other formulations. (Compound B).

Again, thanks for the details, very informative!

Neil

Neil, you're very welcome and I'm glad you find it informative and interesting.

Perhaps needless to say I started with your document/book 12 or 18 months ago. It read like a white paper and I was and still am incredibly impressed and grateful that somebody would take the time to pull together all the facts like that to come up with a method that is more than flying by the seat of one's pants. I never saw anything else like it. Unbelievably good work and obviously hundreds or thousands of people have benefited!

I agree, it might have been paper that had broken down and essentially glued itself to the record. It isn't possible for me to know for sure at this point in time. Cellulose could theoretically work on both. There's one thing I can still check, though. I have about fifty more of those moldy records to clean, still in the jackets. I can go through them and find the ones that are in plastic sleeves and pull them out, clean them by hand apart from the others, then look at the grooves to see if I still see junk in those grooves. If none of them have it visible in the grooves, it seems like that would be almost a dead giveaway that it is indeed paper residues affixed to the record that I have been fighting, as you suggest, because I would think the plastic would completely protect the records from any kind of paper residue. The converse is also true, that if there are still many of those records with residue in the grooves, it must not be from breakdown of the paper. Among the records I already went through, there were a fairly large percentage that were in paper sleeves with plastic liners on the inside, or in high-quality HDPV (?) sleeves, and they pretty much all had mildew, but I didn't get data on correlation of gunk in the grooves with the kind of sleeve. Unfortunately it's kind of a project to get the information I just mentioned from further cleaning because I can't start doing that right away, so I won't be able to post it in the near future. But I will post it when I get it, just so people know. It might be a couple of months or even longer.

Access to an old paper of research of the effect of fungi on records is amazing! Thanks for that.

Foam on the brush is relative and I can't judge whether I have "a lot" or not. I am using the dilution you recommend, the same brush you recommended in your book, and I doubt one can agitate any more than I am. Not a great answer, but that's all I've got on that.

Thank you,
Jim

 

[tima]

Thank you, Tima.

Yes, 120 minutes as you said, but not necessarily per record. I ran the cycles in the USB with 10 records loaded on the spindle at a time, so per record it was actually 120 minutes / 10 records = 12 minutes/record. The average time depends on how many records you do at once. But 120 minutes for 10 cycles is what I did. It might be possible to shorten the 10-minute time between cavitation somewhat, and that would help a lot, but the enzyme has to have time to act, and we don't have any data on how long that really needs to be. The real limiting factor for me was the time to take each record off the spindle one at a time and run the additional hand-cleaning with liquinox in the sink and then the thorough rinse. The time for that gets added to the end of the 120 minutes so the whole process really takes a long time and you really have to want to get those records back. There is probably a faster way to do the rinsing part. However, it seems important to me to get all the bad solution from the bath with the mold in it that was shaken off the records completely off the records in the rinsing step(s), however they are done.

I do not know what is in the iSonic record cleaning solution. There are no ingredients listed on the bottle. I e-mailed the company asking for a safety data sheet and did not receive a reply, but possibly someone with more time to pursue that could get one. It has a nice scent to it and I don't know what chemical that is. They have significant safety warnings on the bottle. I used it originally and then started trying other commonly used surfactants. Mostly I wanted to be sure I was not using something that would inactivate the enzyme. I used the iSonic, Tergikleen, and Triton X-100 with the enzyme and they all allowed the enzyme I got from Carolina Biomedical to work. There probably is something that is best to use with the enzyme on records but finding out would be quite an experiment.

My USB manufacturer's instructions say not to put acid in the bath and I started to worry about doing some damage to the USB by using the pH 5.0 buffer, and so I only used that for a couple of batches of records. I am sure it is better to use the buffer for sake of enzyme activity, and maybe it wouldn't hurt the bath at all if you just use it for a few batches. It would be great if someone with real knowledge about that could offer an opinion. But after those first couple of batches I decided to use it without any buffering, I suppose around pH 7.0. I thought it might have been slightly less effective, but it's really hard to tell for sure. And you can just add more enzyme or run the cycles longer if it is too slow. Tradeoffs to everything.

Thank you for the link to how to mix the buffer up. I'm sure someone else might like to try it. I didn't have any trouble finding a source for sodium acetate to use for the buffer and it wasn't very expensive.

I'll follow up with starting another thread for it this weekend.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your follow-up.

And thanks for confirming my reading of "12 minutes total for a cycle". Several years back I reviewed Audio Intelligent enymes with a Loricraft PRC-3 vacuum wand machine and understand that enzymes take time to do their job. I found that up to a point the longer the record is exposed to the enzyme fluid the more effective was its work. I had to add fluid as it evaporated while agitating it lightly with a brush to prevent settling of particulate. It was a lengthy manual process having to do each side separately. The amount of time for a side could be as high as 20 minutes which today almost seems excessive. I was not cleaning moldy records.

So 12 minutes for a record does not seem excessive. In my current two-tank ultrasonic system I run the wash for 10 minutes at a varying 38 - 80 kHz cycle then 10 minutes at 80 kHz. In the rinse tank I run a 5-10 minute cycle at 38 kHz. I clean 4-5 records at a time, so that's 15-20 minutes for 4-5 records which to me is reasonable throughput. Yes, the de-sleeving, re-sleeving, spindle mounting and dismounting add to the effort. Again that is 'regular' cleaning; thankfully I don't have a mold problem.

Dealing with moldy records strikes me as a special case where there may be as much one-off manual cleaning for specific records as automated cleaning. Yours seems a labor of love and perhaps time is not an issue when experimenting with different approaches. I sense that you have or are working toward a step-wise procedure that can serve as the basis for cleaning molded records in general and could serve as a starting-point for anyone facing that situation. That would be a great addition to our knowledge base -- I applaud your efforts thus far. You've done a lot of work.

I have one question. Maybe you mentioned this and I did not catch it. Are you using your ultrasonic tank for the cellulase / enzyme treatment, then starting fresh with that for the ultrasonic cleaning? Which machine are you using and how do you assess it?

It will be great if you can create a separate post about cleaning moldy records. Both Neil's thread and my DIY thread and others are lengthy and evolving and it is difficult to locate specific information. Yours could be an easily locatable repository for your work and follow-up questions. Of course you're welcome to post anywhere. We thank you for your contributions thus far.

Btw I see you are in Madison. Are you with the UW? I worked there for several years in IT.

 

[Neil.Antin]

Perhaps needless to say I started with your document/book 12 or 18 months ago.

Jim:

FYI: the book had a small change issued March-2024 - Version 3.1 and can be downloaded here: https://thevinylpress.com/precision-aqueous-cleaning-of-vinyl-records-3rd-edition/ - bottom of page explains and, in the book, the last page (Record of Revisions) list most changes.

Note that there appears to be three different cellulase enzymes, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350585959_Industrial_application_of_cellulases. If we wanted to target one for record cleaning, I would select the one used by the Paper and Pulp Industry - Of the three types of cellulase, endoglucanases are the ones mainly used for paper and pulp processing. Characteristic features required of cellulase used in this industry is the ability to function under alkaline conditions and high temperatures...

The one you selected - https://www.bing.com/search?q=Labor...HJvbWUyBggAEEUYOagCALACAA&FORM=ANCMS9&PC=DCTS indicates maximum activity at pH=5 and 55C but does not indicate the specific cellulase enzyme but implies an endoglucanase.

Dupont REVITALENZ® 2000 – 2020 SERIES, Cellulase for use in powder laundry products, Technical Data Sheet https://dyadni.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/TDS-REVITALENZ-2000-2020-FOR-PRINT.pdf identifies it as endoglucanases and does not show that much difference in their Cellulase activity with neutral pH at 20C and 40C. Note that water when exposed to air will tend to go naturally slightly acidic (close to 6) by the absorption of CO2 (forms carbonic acid). DuPont does not appear to manufacture this product anymore but is still sold - https://www.amazon.com/T-MILES-Alka...&s=hpc&sprefix=celluosce+enyzme,hpc,61&sr=1-9.

For cleaning, enzymes are normally combined with surfactants since the surfactants reduce the surface tension, getting the enzyme closer to the substrate. If you look at Tide Detergent https://www.whatsinproducts.com/typ... Detergent, Original-04/21/2022/p>/16-040-020 you will see where they have many surfactants and three different enzymes. The surfactants help to encapsulate the detritus removed by the enzyme to prevent it from redepositing.

I am probably going to try REVITALENZ® 2000 + Liquinox in a sink soak since for this type cleaning, I can use tap-water which makes it cheap and easy. FYI - Liquinox is formulated to work with tap water, it has an ingredient that prevents interference from salts in tap-water.

Again, thanks for the detailed information.

Take care,

Neil

 

[bibliojim]

The problem with the high kHz machines such as https://www.cleanervinyl.com/multi-frequency-cleaners.html is that as I have written https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/ultrasonic-cavitation-cleaning-explained.36690/post-870704 as the kHz increases, the required power increases. There is some offset as the tank volume increases, but 120kHz needs a lot of power and a lot depends on whether the unit actually delivers the advertised power. Also, the 120-kHz is targeting particles below what the stylus can respond to, with 80-kHz being near ideal and at a lower kHz does not place the same power demands as 120-kHz. Also, although the tank can fit many records, it's easy to overload the tank so cleaning less records is better especially if you are trying to remove tenacious detritus. And, as I have written, the rotation speed can have a significant effect on cleaning performance, especially at <60-kHz were the flow generated can significantly reduce the cavitation intensity.

About the multiple records - I read this URL about ultrasonic cleaning about a year ago:

Ultrasonic Record Cleaning

It includes this: "Why only four records at a time? Why not eight or more? It depends on the size of your ultrasonic tank. With a 10L tank, records can be spaced an optimal 1" apart and not overload the capacity of the tank. Some are trying to fit records more tightly than 1" apart, but my research suggests strongly that they are overloading the cleaning capacity of their ultrasonic tank. If you want to do eight records at a time, get a 15L tank. If three or fewer records at a time works for you, you can get by with a 6L tank"

This is why I got a 15L tank.

It also says this: "The requirements of the US machine are that its tub capacity be a minimum of 9 liters and that it has an integral power limiter. The former is necessary so that LPs will fit comfortably in the tub for proper cleaning, while the latter permits the reduction of the ultimate power operating parameters to a maximum of 60%. Full power operation will cause permanent damage to the vinyl with the attendant sonic degradation. The complaints coming from some quarters about high end roll off after an ultra sonic cleaning are due to full power output during the cleaning process. Furthermore, the records should not be in the cleaning tub for longer than 15 minutes."

I am sure some people would say "nonsense", but I think it's probably better to err on the side of caution. Opinions are easy to come by, facts are much more difficult.

The USC machine I got does not have a power limiter! It comes with record spacers that are 1/2" wide, less than the so-called "optimal 1" apart, and that reduces the power. In addition they sell spacers that are only 1/4" wide if you want them. I have supposed that spacing 1/2" apart actually results in the power being reduced to a level that will not "cause permanent damage to the vinyl with the attendant sonic degradation." The higher the frequency, the less space one needs between. If 0.5" is good for 40 KHz on this system, then I reason that the 1/4" spacers are good for 80 Khz and 120 Khz.

The instructions with my USC mention the same thing Neil brought up, with a nuance: "The more records are inserted into the cleaning fluid, the more ultrasonic energy is absorbed. This means that running fewer records per batch results in a higher power density on their surfaces. We generally recommend using larger spacing if the records are very dirty. Narrow spacing works well for "refreshing" well-kept records before playing them etc... Larger spacing also improves the removal of the dirt from the vicinity of the record surfaces once it has been liberated by the ultrasonic action."

One could get a 1" spacing by using two 1/2" spacers together, so when they say larger or narrow, it's not certain what they mean. I think they would probably answer if I asked them.

Since I am actually hand-cleaning my records before putting them into the USC at this time, they are actually very clean, not very dirty, when they are put in the USC. And so narrow spacing again may be fine, especially at 80 Khz and 120 Khz. But my biggest concern is limiting the power. Neil said it takes a lot more power at high frequencies, and if the additional power is not there maybe the power is self-limiting.

What a lot of loose thinking, ha ha. I don't have the data to be able to determine what is best. For example, when it talks about "full power operation will cause permanent damage" it doesn't say how much power is full power, and it doesn't specify anything about as related to the size of the tank or the number of records in the tank. I suppose there are many reports with various numbers for those statistics. And I don't know how much power at what frequencies is "safe". People say USC is safe, but people also say it is not safe, and I imagine it depends on details of what you do.

The USC I am using now is the UC-3360 from www.CleanerVinyl.com, 15L with 3 frequencies. It has 360 W cleaning power, and it doesn't say it uses different amounts of power at different frequencies, so I guess it is 360W even at 120 Khz.

With the mold-cleaning procedure, I actually have tried cleaning only one or two records at a time without the cellulase included and I saw it still did not get all the crap out of the grooves. Not to say that it wouldn't generally do a better job of cleaning, of course it would. But without a power limiter I make sure not to clean only one or two records at a time. I don't know what's safe.

I prefer to sonicate a number of records at a time so that it doesn't take as long. I will never do much more than 10 at a time. I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts on what spacing is both safe and effective at different frequencies as relates to these comments, in a 15L tank with 360W cleaning power at all frequencies.

 

[Neil.Antin]

: "The requirements of the US machine are that its tub capacity be a minimum of 9 liters and that it has an integral power limiter. The former is necessary so that LPs will fit comfortably in the tub for proper cleaning, while the latter permits the reduction of the ultimate power operating parameters to a maximum of 60%. Full power operation will cause permanent damage to the vinyl with the attendant sonic degradation. The complaints coming from some quarters about high end roll off after an ultra sonic cleaning are due to full power output during the cleaning process. Furthermore, the records should not be in the cleaning tub for longer than 15 minutes."

Jim:

My book Chapter XIV is 36 pages of details on Ultrasonic Tanks, and the details are consistent with this paper written by the VP (with PhD) of Crest Ultrasonics (who has manufactured UT systems for decades) https://crest-ultrasonics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/lit-ultrasonic-cavitations.pdf.

The cavitation intensity is proportional to the diameter of the cavitation bubble (which when it collapses/implodes is what's doing the cleaning) which is inversely proportional to the kHz. Lower kHz = large bubble while higher kHz = smaller bubble.

The KLAudio at 40-kHz, 200W and a volume of only 0.78-L is the most powerful unit you can buy, and the very small tank places the transducers very close to the record; and the Degritter at 120-kHz, 300W and a volume of only 1.4-L is also quite powerful again with the transducers close to the record, and people are not reporting record damage. The one experience I had with damage was with someone using an Elmasonic P60 (6-L) at >45C, a spin-speed of <0.2-rpm and a duration of 20-min. The surface showed evidence of erosion, but the damage did not extend into the groove.

The Elmasonic units are all very powerful units with advertised power being real-power and this evident by how quickly the tank heats with just ultrasonics. It's simply conservation of energy, the UT power heats the tank. For people who want to do serial cleaning with the Elmasonic units we add a pump/filter/radiator to filter and cool the tank. The Degritter also heats quickly during the sequential heavy-mode cleaning which is why it has a cool-down mode if the tank reaches 35C. KLAudio now separates the fluid reservoir to an external tank that provides inherent cooling.

So, let's just say I take exception to the 9-L min tank volume, and as far as maximum power, if there was to be maximum power guidance it should be based on variables of kHz-tank watts/liter and record spin speed. If you have a high power, multi-frequency tank, you may want to limit power at 40-kHz, but not at 80-kHz and higher. As far as 15-min max, I also take exception because it depends on the process. The 3-step UT process that @tima use is addressed in the book as follows where the record is exposed for a total period of 30-min at spin speed of about 0.5-rpm (Kuzma spinner)

XIV.6.7 For information, the cleaning process shown in Figure 57 and Figure 56 operates the Elmasonic P120H (and Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.015%) for 10-min auto-cycling between 37-kHz and 80-kHz; then 10-min at 80-kHz; and then 10-min in the Elmasonic™ S120H 37-kHz for the final rinse.

As far as spacing, this is what I say in the book:

XIV.4 Record Spacing: When cleaning a stack of records that uses a UCM with bottom firing transducers, there is discussion on the internet that records should be spaced not closer than the UCM wavelength (see Table XXII). The details and derivations are inconclusive. The wave-length which is dependent on the transducer frequency would be measured parallel to the record surface. But the amplitude which is a function of power would be measured perpendicular to the record surface; and this is illustrated Figure 52. Will spacing records too close impede the maximum amplitude – unknown. Industry commonly uses 25 kHz (wavelength 61.2 mm in 40°C/104°F DIW) for gross-metal cleaning; and does not space parts 2.5” apart; noting that ultrasonic waves will pass through metal. However, spacing records too close could affect the amplitude of the ultrasonic wave since the associated acoustic energy/pressure could be lost to the record (as heating). Additionally, for lower kHz UCM, cleaning too many records at a time can result in significant reduction in cavitation intensity because of flow rate affect (see paragraph XIV.6). So, spacing the records about equal to the wavelength should help to maximize cavitation intensity while prevent over-loading the UCM (from record mass, surface area and flow rate) and therefore is probably good practice. This is especially true for the lower kHz UCM (such as 35-40 kHz) that are more susceptible to flow rate interference.
But after all is said and done, you need to do what you are comfortable with.

Take care,

Neil

 

[bibliojim]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your follow-up.

And thanks for confirming my reading of "12 minutes total for a cycle". Several years back I reviewed Audio Intelligent enymes with a Loricraft PRC-3 vacuum wand machine and understand that enzymes take time to do their job. I found that up to a point the longer the record is exposed to the enzyme fluid the more effective was its work. I had to add fluid as it evaporated while agitating it lightly with a brush to prevent settling of particulate. It was a lengthy manual process having to do each side separately. The amount of time for a side could be as high as 20 minutes which today almost seems excessive. I was not cleaning moldy records.

So 12 minutes for a record does not seem excessive. In my current two-tank ultrasonic system I run the wash for 5 minutes at a varying 38 - 80 kHz cycle then 5 minutes at 80 kHz. In the rinse tank I run a 5-10 minute cycle at 38 kHz. I clean 4-5 records at a time, so that's 15-20 minutes for 4-5 records which to me is reasonable throughput. Yes, the de-sleeving, re-sleeving, spindle mounting and dismounting add to the effort. Again that is 'regular' cleaning; thankfully I don't have a mold problem.

Dealing with moldy records strikes me as a special case where there may be as much one-off manual cleaning for specific records as automated cleaning. Yours seems a labor of love and perhaps time is not an issue when experimenting with different approaches. I sense that you have or are working toward a step-wise procedure that can serve as the basis for cleaning molded records in general and could serve as a starting-point for anyone facing that situation. That would be a great addition to our knowledge base -- I applaud your efforts thus far. You've done a lot of work.

I have one question. Maybe you mentioned this and I did not catch it. Are you using your ultrasonic tank for the cellulase / enzyme treatment, then starting fresh with that for the ultrasonic cleaning? Which machine are you using and how do you assess it?

It will be great if you can create a separate post about cleaning moldy records. Both Neil's thread and my DIY thread and others are lengthy and evolving and it is difficult to locate specific information. Yours could be an easily locatable repository for your work and follow-up questions. Of course you're welcome to post anywhere. We thank you for your contributions thus far.

Btw I see you are in Madison. Are you with the UW? I worked there for several years in IT.

Hi Tima,

I went to UW for grad school and never moved away. In computer science and bacteriology, in the 80s. Might have seen you!

With the cellulase treatment, I have been using Neil Antin's full hand-wash method he laid out in his document/book first. After I have ten washed that way, I put them in the USC for the 120-minute cellulase treatment. Then if I have time, I let them just spin in the same fluid with cellulase for another two hours without sonication, which seems to help remove old fingerprints, probably just because of the anionic surfactant - it doesn't seem like cellulase would do anything for that. That last two hours seems optional, I only do it if i have time. Then I wash one more time by hand with liquinox, turning the record faster than usual. Then under running tap water I run the brush over each side of the record 30 times. That might be overkill for most records but judging by the friction under the brush that seems to be long enough to get rid of anything left on the record from the cellulase bath. Then I rinse with distilled water and let it dry. I'm not using a second USC cleaning step in the process. It might be a great timesaver to use the second USC as a rinse step. I'll have to think about that. I do have my original USC that I could use for that.

I should probably change the cellulase bath after every use, but I haven't been, in order to save some effort. Since the records are already clean when they go in (except for the crap in the grooves I can see with a loupe) there isn't much that gets shaken off the records, and I figure with a subsequent wash with liquinox by hand it isn't critical to change the water. But the enzyme only lasts so long, so I do need to add new enzyme to it before every use, just before beginning the 12-minute cycles of sonication. If I wasn't doing the hand wash with liquinox afterwards I would probably change the entire cellulase bath before each use to help what comes out of that step be cleaner. I don't claim to be doing the best thing. I am probably changing the cellulase bath water after every three cleanings. If I look in it and see much stuff floating in the water on the bottom, I change it, thinking it may well be mold growth considering what was on the records I have mostly used it for so far.

I mentioned the machine in a different post earlier today as well, but it is the UC-3360 from www.CleanerVinyl.com, with their motorized spindle attachment. I think it could be better. There is no real protection for the labels. The sonication does bring some kind of light spray onto the labels, and it seems like for something that costs that much money they could have had something that would protect the labels better. I mentioned it to them, but they said they tested it and saw that the bath liquid won't go up onto the labels. Well... it's a little annoying, but it probably isn't as big an issue as I originally thought because it doesn't seem to damage the labels - if they get moisture on them, they dry out and seem fine. The motor that turns the spindle has a good range of speeds, but it's kind of a small knob with only a white line on it to show you the position it is at, with no gradations marked for reference. There isn't any kind of setting for how many revolutions a minute. At the slowest it seems to move, it's about 1 revolution every 2 mintues, which is slower than I want, but the speed is touchy and getting it just right so it isn't too fast or too slow takes too long because I have to use a timer and watch how far it turns in 15 seconds to get the time for a revolution. Also annoying, but usable. With no records in the bath the water bubbles are not distributed evenly across the bath, but tend not to be near the ends of the spindle, so if there are records all the way across the bath the ones on the ends might not get as clean as the ones closer to the center. But on the plus side it really does have three speeds, you can program how long to run on each speed and even run X minutes at one speed followed by Y minutes at another speed without having to restart it, the cover fits well, the motor and spindle mechanism seem pretty sturdy, the spindle part is easily removable to take to another table and load the records up there, and the sonication is not loud and definitely not piercing. It cleans records, up to about 20 at a time if you wanted to load that many - though it would lose a lot of cleaning power if one did that. You can load fewer than the maximum number of records and then the area of the bubbles does surround the vinyl on all sides.

 

[bibliojim]

Jim:

My book Chapter XIV is 36 pages of details on Ultrasonic Tanks, and the details are consistent with this paper written by the VP (with PhD) of Crest Ultrasonics (who has manufactured UT systems for decades) https://crest-ultrasonics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/lit-ultrasonic-cavitations.pdf.

The cavitation intensity is proportional to the diameter of the cavitation bubble (which when it collapses/implodes is what's doing the cleaning) which is inversely proportional to the kHz. Lower kHz = large bubble while higher kHz = smaller bubble.

The KLAudio at 40-kHz, 200W and a volume of only 0.78-L is the most powerful unit you can buy, and the very small tank places the transducers very close to the record; and the Degritter at 120-kHz, 300W and a volume of only 1.4-L is also quite powerful again with the transducers close to the record, and people are not reporting record damage. The one experience I had with damage was with someone using an Elmasonic P60 (6-L) at >45C, a spin-speed of <0.2-rpm and a duration of 20-min. The surface showed evidence of erosion, but the damage did not extend into the groove.

The Elmasonic units are all very powerful units with advertised power being real-power and this evident by how quickly the tank heats with just ultrasonics. It's simply conservation of energy, the UT power heats the tank. For people who want to do serial cleaning with the Elmasonic units we add a pump/filter/radiator to filter and cool the tank. The Degritter also heats quickly during the sequential heavy-mode cleaning which is why it has a cool-down mode if the tank reaches 35C. KLAudio now separates the fluid reservoir to an external tank that provides inherent cooling.

So, let's just say I take exception to the 9-L min tank volume, and as far as maximum power, if there was to be maximum power guidance it should be based on variables of kHz-tank watts/liter and record spin speed. If you have a high power, multi-frequency tank, you may want to limit power at 40-kHz, but not at 80-kHz and higher. As far as 15-min max, I also take exception because it depends on the process. The 3-step UT process that @tima use is addressed in the book as follows where the record is exposed for a total period of 30-min at spin speed of about 0.5-rpm (Kuzma spinner)

XIV.6.7 For information, the cleaning process shown in Figure 57 and Figure 56 operates the Elmasonic P120H (and Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.015%) for 10-min auto-cycling between 37-kHz and 80-kHz; then 10-min at 80-kHz; and then 10-min in the Elmasonic™ S120H 37-kHz for the final rinse.

As far as spacing, this is what I say in the book:

XIV.4 Record Spacing: When cleaning a stack of records that uses a UCM with bottom firing transducers, there is discussion on the internet that records should be spaced not closer than the UCM wavelength (see Table XXII). The details and derivations are inconclusive. The wave-length which is dependent on the transducer frequency would be measured parallel to the record surface. But the amplitude which is a function of power would be measured perpendicular to the record surface; and this is illustrated Figure 52. Will spacing records too close impede the maximum amplitude – unknown. Industry commonly uses 25 kHz (wavelength 61.2 mm in 40°C/104°F DIW) for gross-metal cleaning; and does not space parts 2.5” apart; noting that ultrasonic waves will pass through metal. However, spacing records too close could affect the amplitude of the ultrasonic wave since the associated acoustic energy/pressure could be lost to the record (as heating). Additionally, for lower kHz UCM, cleaning too many records at a time can result in significant reduction in cavitation intensity because of flow rate affect (see paragraph XIV.6). So, spacing the records about equal to the wavelength should help to maximize cavitation intensity while prevent over-loading the UCM (from record mass, surface area and flow rate) and therefore is probably good practice. This is especially true for the lower kHz UCM (such as 35-40 kHz) that are more susceptible to flow rate interference.
But after all is said and done, you need to do what you are comfortable with.

Take care,

Neil

Thanks Neil - If 300W and 1.4L volume does not bring reports of damage, then it seems like 360W and 15L volume would certainly not cause damage. That's very good to know, I can space the records further apart then without worrying about it. But, hmm --- does the degritter have a power-limiting feature? Do people generally run it at that full power?

Jim

 

[Neil.Antin]

Thanks Neil - If 300W and 1.4L volume does not bring reports of damage, then it seems like 360W and 15L volume would certainly not cause damage. That's very good to know, I can space the records further apart then without worrying about it. But, hmm --- does the degritter have a power-limiting feature? Do people generally run it at that full power?

Jim

Jim:

The Degritter has no variable power feature. Also, although your machine is 'rated' at 360W, I suspect that the actual power into the machine is less. The 40-80-120-kHz transducer that the Chinese are selling if you review the specs, you will see where there is some variance into how they are rated anywhere from 35W to 60W:

Aluminum 60w Multi Frequency Ultrasonic Transducer For Cleaning Tank

High quality Aluminum 60w Multi Frequency Ultrasonic Transducer For Cleaning Tank from China, China's leading aluminum multi frequency ultrasonic transducer product, with strict quality control 60w multi frequency ultrasonic transducer factories, producing high quality multi frequency tank...

www.ultrasoniccleaning-transducer.com

50w 40k And 80k And 120k Triple Frequency Waterproof Ultrasonic Transducer For Cleaner

High quality 50w 40k And 80k And 120k Triple Frequency Waterproof Ultrasonic Transducer For Cleaner from China, China's leading 50w 40k Waterproof Ultrasonic Transducer product, with strict quality control 50w 80k Waterproof Ultrasonic Transducer factories, producing high quality 50w 120k Ut...

www.ultrasoniccleaning-transducer.com

China 35W 40k 80k 120k Triple Frequency Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer - China Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer

China 35W 40k 80k 120k Triple Frequency Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer, Find details about China Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer from 35W 40k 80k 120k Triple Frequency Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer - Beijing Cheng-cheng Weiye Ultrasonic Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.

www.chinax.com

Your UT tank should use 6-transducers, and you would need to use a watt meter to see what the actual power draw is - https://www.amazon.com/s?k=watt+met...onics,76&ref=nb_sb_ss_pltr-data-refreshed_2_9.

Take care,

Neil

 

[bibliojim]

Jim:

The Degritter has no variable power feature. Also, although your machine is 'rated' at 360W, I suspect that the actual power into the machine is less. The 40-80-120-kHz transducer that the Chinese are selling if you review the specs, you will see where there is some variance into how they are rated anywhere from 35W to 60W:

Aluminum 60w Multi Frequency Ultrasonic Transducer For Cleaning Tank

High quality Aluminum 60w Multi Frequency Ultrasonic Transducer For Cleaning Tank from China, China's leading aluminum multi frequency ultrasonic transducer product, with strict quality control 60w multi frequency ultrasonic transducer factories, producing high quality multi frequency tank...

www.ultrasoniccleaning-transducer.com

50w 40k And 80k And 120k Triple Frequency Waterproof Ultrasonic Transducer For Cleaner

High quality 50w 40k And 80k And 120k Triple Frequency Waterproof Ultrasonic Transducer For Cleaner from China, China's leading 50w 40k Waterproof Ultrasonic Transducer product, with strict quality control 50w 80k Waterproof Ultrasonic Transducer factories, producing high quality 50w 120k Ut...

www.ultrasoniccleaning-transducer.com

China 35W 40k 80k 120k Triple Frequency Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer - China Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer

China 35W 40k 80k 120k Triple Frequency Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer, Find details about China Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer from 35W 40k 80k 120k Triple Frequency Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer - Beijing Cheng-cheng Weiye Ultrasonic Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.

www.chinax.com

Your UT tank should use 6-transducers, and you would need to use a watt meter to see what the actual power draw is - https://www.amazon.com/s?k=watt+meter&i=electronics&crid=27LMRP1S7AGSW&sprefix=watt+chec,electronics,76&ref=nb_sb_ss_pltr-data-refreshed_2_9.

Take care,

Neil

Neil,

I am not an electronics kind of guy. I am not sure what to make of URLs that don't specifically apply to the product I bought. I am looking at the "Operation manual" for the UC-3000 Series of Ultrasonic Cleaners, which I received with the product. This manual doesn't say who the manufacturer is. I bought the product from www.cleanervinyl.com. In the operation manual, there is a section IV: Technical Parameters. There are 5 rows, one for each model in the series. The models are;
UC-3240L
UC-3360
UC-3360L
UC-3480
UC-3600
There are several columns in the table. I will not mention them all, but aside from model number, there are "Volume", "Ultrasonic Power (W)", "Heating Power (W)", and "Frequency". All five models are multifrequency according to this table, 40/80/120 kHz.
The volume goes from 11 Liters at the low end (UC-3240L) to 30 Liters at the high end (UC-3600). I purchased the UC-3360 which has a 15-Liter tank. The Ultrasonic Power and Heating Power for these models varies:

UC-3240L - 11 Liters - US Power 240W - Heating Power 300W
UC-3360 - 15 Liters - US Power 360W - Heating Power 400W
UC-3360L - 20 Liters - US Power 360W - Heating Power 400W
UC-3480 - 22 Liters - US Power 480W - Heating Power 500W
UC-3500 - 30 Liters - US Power 600W - Heating Power 600W

I don't quite know what to make of the various information about power. You mention rated from 35W to 60W, but that sounds totally different from the information in this table. I don't know if it applies to the same thing. Maybe 360W / 6 transducers = 60W / transducer, and that's what "35 to 65W" referred to? The manual I am looking at doesn't say how many transducers there are. Unfortunately it is not one of the columns in this table.

Feathures listed in the manual include these two I note here, which don't mean anything to me:
- Proprietary MCU-sweep ultrasonic wave generator driver circuit to present uniforn and strong cleaning performance
- Proprietary industrial ultrasonic wave energy converter with high Q value and multiple frequency to operate stable at each frequency and to present higher energy conversion efficiency

Thanks for taking the time to dig those links up though. I probably won't get a watt meter to see what the actual power draw is. I don't have competence in that area.

Thanks again,
Jim

 

[Neil.Antin]

Maybe 360W / 6 transducers = 60W / transducer, and that's what "35 to 65W" referred to? The manual I am looking at doesn't say how many transducers there are. Unfortunately it is not one of the columns in this table.

Jim:

If you look at the rated power for all tanks, they are all multiples of 60W. For equal power distribution in the tank, they will use a number of transducers spaced through the tank (bottom). You have the 15L with 360W; ergo six 60-W transducers. The 35W to 60W is the range of power that I found reported for the 40/80/120-kHz transducers.

Beyond that are far as sweep frequency I will just refer you to the book paragraphs XIV.1.7 and XIV.1.8 that discusses this in some detail; and whether that has a benefit for a record spinning in the bath is debatable.

Take care,

Neil

 

[Lee]

Jim:

If you look at the rated power for all tanks, they are all multiples of 60W. For equal power distribution in the tank, they will use a number of transducers spaced through the tank (bottom). You have the 15L with 360W; ergo six 60-W transducers. The 35W to 60W is the range of power that I found reported for the 40/80/120-kHz transducers.

Beyond that are far as sweep frequency I will just refer you to the book paragraphs XIV.1.7 and XIV.1.8 that discusses this in some detail; and whether that has a benefit for a record spinning in the bath is debatable.

Take care,

Neil

Neil,

What's your verdict on the Degritter 2? Good/bad/neutral?

Is 120 hz a good frequency for cavitation?

 

[Neil.Antin]

Neil,

What's your verdict on the Degritter 2? Good/bad/neutral?

Is 120 hz a good frequency for cavitation?

Lee,

The easiest way to answer your question is by this comparison I did with KLAudio - https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thre...rds-3rd-edition.1129250/page-13#post-33143757.

Otherwise, many people are very satisfied with the Degritter and understand that they do have a transducer/replacement/refresh program where they will take you unit and rebuild, refresh or offer you a nice discount on a brand-new unit. If you interested in the Degritter take some time to read the operating manual - https://degritter.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/degritter_manual_2023_mark-II_3.3_ENG_web.pdf. Keep in mind as you read the manual that there is periodic maintenance to keep the unit functioning properly and to get the best results.

Take care,
Neil

 

[Lee]

Lee,

The easiest way to answer your question is by this comparison I did with KLAudio - https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thre...rds-3rd-edition.1129250/page-13#post-33143757.

Otherwise, many people are very satisfied with the Degritter and understand that they do have a transducer/replacement/refresh program where they will take you unit and rebuild, refresh or offer you a nice discount on a brand-new unit. If you interested in the Degritter take some time to read the operating manual - https://degritter.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/degritter_manual_2023_mark-II_3.3_ENG_web.pdf. Keep in mind as you read the manual that there is periodic maintenance to keep the unit functioning properly and to get the best results.

Take care,
Neil

Thanks Neil.