Ultrasonic Cavitation & Cleaning Explained
- Thread starter Neil.Antin
- Start date
Yes - water temperature will rise due to energy transferred to it through ultrasonic cavitation, thus record temperature will also increase. Water temp rise starts with degassing. I try to avoid water temp above 35° C. I apply no heat and allow the water temp to rise on its own.
I did another batch over the past few days, now using the 10 micron version of the brush and a little higher IPA content and I am impressed with the visual results of cleaning.
A friend of me also reports better results with his Keith Monk clone with this 10 micron brush installed.
I cleaned a few records that looked less than stellar (and I bought them in that condition) and the vast majority came out looking near mint, will audition them this weekend.
A friend of me also reports better results with his Keith Monk clone with this 10 micron brush installed.
I cleaned a few records that looked less than stellar (and I bought them in that condition) and the vast majority came out looking near mint, will audition them this weekend.
I presume you are talking about the revised Stasis Record Brush with tapered bristles - Stasis Groove Cleaner Record Brush V2 (ttvjaudio.com)?
With your increase in alcohol, is that for the final UT clean and if so, what is the concentration of Tergitol 15-S-9 and isopropyl alcohol you are now using?
How are the 'visual results" better than previous using the I presume the 50-micron bristle version of the brush for your manual clean with label-protector and the lower alcohol % for final UT clean?
The 10-micron tapered bristle may be beneficial for vacuum RCM where the ability to aggressively agitate the fluid is limited by the spray that can foul the top of the machine.
yep that is the brush.
I only added like 50 ml of IPA to the 6 liter DIW in the US machine so I'm at 3% or so, sticking with the original 'recipe' of 6 liter distilled water with 0.5 ml Tergitol 15-S-9
I was using the 'final solution' in my US machine as before and earlier I noticed that some fingerprints remained on the vinyl, with this session non were showing after cleaning with slightly more IPA and added use of the 10 micorn brush during the pre-soak. Previously I did not use the brush or any other brush (I now let the record spin and soak for approx 3 minutes before switching on the US).
Nothing highly scientific but it seems to work.
hehehe, caught me ;-)
I'm in a waiting loop until I can build my speakers, next step will be to overhaul the RCA 70-A for mono Vinyl since not everything is available digitally and much of the great performances that are available have been digitized in a crappy way. Started collecting a while ago and have started cleaning what I bought.
@Neil.Antin, I don’t know if this has discussed comparatively, but is there any advantage to using an enzymatic cleaner like an Audio Intelligent No. 15 over a .05% Liquinox, as a pre-clean on a vacuum record cleaner before going to a UCM? Does an enzymatic cleaner have some inherent capabilities not found in a Liquinox approach?
Fixed typo, as caught of course by Neil.
Fixed typo, as caught of course by Neil.
Last edited:
No, unless you are physically unable to manipulate the brush to agitate the Liquinox to get effective cleaning. Note that enzymes need soak time - they work entirely different than surfactants. They are mostly effective with clothing (where they are combined with surfactants) because the fabric makeup and the inherent soak feature of a washing machine and when cleaning biological (medical) waste. The recent use with records has an advantage in that enzymes are used at very low concentrations and do no foam, but they are best when combined with a surfactant to reduce the water surface tension to wet the soil. The following is in the book.
VIII.9 ENZYMES. Enzymes are biological catalysts that are generally some kind of protein. There is the “lock & key” analogy associated with enzymes and cleaning. The particular enzyme must be the right key to unlock (dissolving) the particular soil. There are four (4) basic enzymes used and how each works can be contaminant, time, concentration and surface dependent, and they have to be rinsed.
CAUTION: The enzymes can be irritating to some individuals. Per Guidance for the Risk Assessment of Enzyme-Containing Consumer Products ACIConsumerEnzymeProductRiskAssessmentGuide.pdf (cleaninginstitute.org) , “Almost all enzymes used in consumer products are proteins which are foreign to the human immune system and can act as allergens through a Type 1 hypersensitivity mechanism following exposure, typically by inhalation.”. If while handling or using an enzyme any breathing irritation or difficulty is experienced stop use immediately and seek medical attention if symptoms persist.
VIII.9.1 Proteases break down protein-based soils including blood, urine, food, feces, wine and other beverages. This is the most commonly used type enzyme in cleaners.
VIII.9.2 Amylases break down starch molecules like eggs, sugars, sauces, ice cream, gravy. This is a commonly used enzyme in cleaners.
VIII.9.3 Lipases break down fat molecules like oils and grease. This may work for fingerprints, but mineral-based such as refined/synthetic oils/greases - not so well.
VIII.9.4 Cellulases are used to soften fabric and restore color to fibers made up of cellulose material. They also remove particulate soil and reduce fabric graying and pilling. How well they actually remove particulate is unknown - literature is pretty thin, and likely surface dependent - may work on clothes, but not hard surfaces or very small particles.
Thank Neil. What printed me to ask was, I ran a stack of records through my USM, where I use the Tergitol percentage you’ve recommended to me, plus 2.5% IPA. At the time I did this stack I saw that one record looked pretty grimy, but I figured I’d let it roll. When the stack was done (10 minutes at .5 RPM), that record was “cleaner” but still looked… not like the rest. So I decided to do a “pre-clean” on it, even though it had already gone through the ultrasonic. I have some AI #15 and used it with some wait time, followed by some DIW. Sure enough it came out looking significantly better. So I was curious if having used my Liquinox solution first before going into the USM, whether it would have come out looking as good.
Note that you have typo - that should be 0.5% Liquinox. Do not use Liquinox at 0.05% otherwise, you may get wetting, but you will not get any effective cleaning. All these cleaners have specific concentrations where they work best and its different for every product because the properties of the individual surfactants (and enzymes) of which there are 100's can all be different.
For people who do not want to wade through the book, this handout, although intended for a younger audience, is very effective on the overall science of soap - ScienceofSoap.pdf (cleaninginstitute.org).
The Liquinox pre-clean would have easily done the job and maybe better depending on what was on the surface.
@Neil.Antin or @tima, I’m having a little trouble in the design of the batch cleaning system. My design is a two pump (one to suck out, another to push back in) similar to but not exactly like Figure 59 in the tech paper. As I see it, in Figure 61 to push the fluid back into the UCM, the order of components is
Holding tank -> filter with pressure gauge -> pump -> UCM
If this is correct, then I have a problem I can’t figure out. I’m using a Seaflo 21 series as the pump in this direction. But as this is its first use, all the lines in this direction from the batch tank to the UCM are dry. When I turn on the Seaflo, it doesn’t pull any fluid from the batch tank. Can’t seem to figure out why. The pump model is SFDP1-12-35-21-N. It’s a 24V, 1.2gpm, 40psi job. I picked a 24V motor because the suck-out pump also has a 24V motor.
Holding tank -> filter with pressure gauge -> pump -> UCM
If this is correct, then I have a problem I can’t figure out. I’m using a Seaflo 21 series as the pump in this direction. But as this is its first use, all the lines in this direction from the batch tank to the UCM are dry. When I turn on the Seaflo, it doesn’t pull any fluid from the batch tank. Can’t seem to figure out why. The pump model is SFDP1-12-35-21-N. It’s a 24V, 1.2gpm, 40psi job. I picked a 24V motor because the suck-out pump also has a 24V motor.
Last edited:
I think I figured it out. It appears the total line length from the holding tank to the pump inlet is close to 5 feet, near enough to the limit of the Seaflo to, if I assume even additional “length” through the Pentek and the filter, that it’s probably too much. I switched the order of things so that it goes from the holding tank to the pump first, but isn’t this “not as good”? Shouldn’t the pump be after the filter, so that it can pull all of the liquid out of the filter back into the UCM? It seems that if it’s before the filter, there will be more liquid left in the filter housing, not getting into the UCM tank.
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |