2. analog
  3. 152714-1640

A Worthwhile Untrasonic Cleaner

I just purchased these two items from Amazon (PRIME)...

An Album Rotation device - holds 5 albums...
https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B07PNCVMZ3/ref=pe_3034960_236394800_TE_dp_1

An Utransonic Cleaning Tub
https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B07HNQ26WT/ref=pe_3034960_236394800_TE_dp_f1

The rotation device is extremely well built and fits the tub perfectly. The tub also looks well made, but is a bit noisy, but that is normal from what I have read..

I have just finished cleaning some 30+ albums and found the complete unit is extremely good at getting rid of those crackles and pops - even finger prints and other grunge - with minimal effort

The tub defaults to a wash time of 5 minute (I used 10 minutes) and I reduced default temperature to 20 Celsius, but the ultrasonic process warms the water up, so by the time I had finished some 35+ albums it was 30 Celsius.

Even had a friend come over with 3 of his dirtiest albums - grunge + finger prints - just plain grubby. Ten minutes of cleaning and voila - shiney like new (apart from the scratches) playing the album was almost noise free - probably needed a second wash.

So the total cost for both units was around $450 from Amazon.ca ($370 from Amazon.com)) for the two pieces - which from what I have been seeing is perhaps the lowest price for an Ultrasonic cleaner out there.

Eager to try the unit that arrived yesterday, I only used distilled water - without any additive

What additive does the absolute best job ?
What difference does it make?
Or should I just stick with distilled water?

Thanks for any feedback.

One of the best analogue related value for money products I have ever purchased

At this rate I’ll clean my entire vinyl library pretty quickly AND do some of the wife’s jewellery :-)

If you are looking for something that actually cleans you vinyl well - consider these products.

Regards - Steve



.
williewonka
anovak
60 posts
 
Antinn, thank you immensely and you sound a lot like that Phantomrebel guy, who has a slightly different take on it but I will give it a shot.  For one, makes it a whole lot easier, no need to mix up a solution, just add it to the distilled water and you're done.  If it works as well as what I'm doing now, all the better and that would certainly be a great place for anyone to start in terms of getting their US cleaning system going.  I am going to ask the question of Phantomrebel to see what he thinks about it and will post back here.  This is kind of an adventure we are all on for what's most effective and simple at the same time.....I'm all for that.  Very kind of you to chime in here with your knowledge, much appreciated indeed.
antinn
395 posts
 
Anovak,
I did a little more research and there are a number of  theads that talk to the 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 mixture, some referencing that this is what the Canadian Archivists use, and some saying that the mixture equals 15-S-7.  Surfactants are classified by the HLB Scale: Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balance.  The 15-S-9 is rated 13.3 which classifies it as a detergent, and with its low surface tension, and not excessive foam height, and high cloud point should make it an excellent UT cleaning agent.  15-S-7 HLB is 12.1, and 15-S-3 is 8.  When you blend 15-S-3 and 15-S-9, you get an emulsion with a HLB of 10.6, so this is not 15-S-7, so that rationale makes no sense.   Otherwise, for the life of me, it makes no sense to clean a vinyl record with a blend of 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 that is an emulsion and can result in a cloudy solution, that decreases the effectiveness of the 15-S-9, and may inhibit rinsing.  The only reason that you would add 15-S-3 to 15-S-9 would be as a defoaming agent.  But UT cleaning should not cause a stable foam to develop, unlike if using a pumped parts washer.  If you compare Triton X100 to 15-S-19, you will see similar HLB and surface tension 30 vs 33, but X100 can create a higher foam, and it is really intended for the metal cleaning industry where you are dealing with a lot of mineral based cutting oils and need the better oil emulsion properties, not some animal-fat based finger prints.
antinn
395 posts
 
Anovak,
I need to make a correction here.  Essentially, Tergitol 15-S-9 is a more environmentally friendly (and by DOW data should be more effective) alternative to Triton X100 which because of having components that can mimic estrogen, are toxic to fish, and there is 'some' associated human risk.  DOW for now is continuing manufacture of Triton X100, but do not be suprised if they discontinue manufacture in the future as global environmental regulations increase.  Conservationist (those conserving painting) use surfactants when cleaning/conserving paintings, and are very sensitive to using products that do no harm, or as little as possible.  Some are using a non-ionic surfactant that appears  very similar to the performance of Triton X100 and Tergitol 15-S-9: SURFONIC® JL-80X.  
anovak
60 posts
 
Thank you antinn.  I appreciate your efforts and this will likely lead to a way to improve upon the solution.  I am concerned about the Triton as well regarding environmental issues so the Tergitol seem like a better choice.  I'm going to order some and try it out.  I'll be back....
antinn
395 posts
 
Anovak,
One last item, the concentration to use for the Tergitol 15-S-9 is 0.1% to max of 0.5%.  This product requires about 3 times less concentration than Triton X100.  The technical detail is something called the Critical Miscelle Concentration (CMC), and this specifies the ppm concentration in solute (water) when the non-ionic surfactant-water solution reaches its lowest surface tension.  Beyound this any additional surfactant will not drop the surface tension any lower. However, to achieve best detergency, you want more than the CMC, general guidance is 5 to 10 times more. For the Triton X100 the CMC is 189 ppm, the Tergitol CMC is only 53 ppm.  Yeah, I know, way more than ever wanted to know, but there is method to this madness.
More to discover