Ultrasonic record cleaners

@drbond,

If you were to download the book the answers would be in Chapter VIII, IX and XIV but I suspect you did not download the book.  So, accommodating this:

1.  First - Dawn may be a great dish detergent and safe for your hands and cleaning oil from birds, but for UT cleaning it's not appropriate.  There are some 20 ingredients CPID (whatsinproducts.com) of which only 3 do any cleaning.  Salt is added to thicken the product. 

2.  My recommendation for surfactant as previously stated is nonionic surfactant Tergitol 15-S-9  Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com) used 0.005 to 0.0075% (~0.5ml/6l tank) for a no-rinse concentration (wetting only) or 0.0135 to 0.0150% (~1-ml/6L) for a concentration (wetting & detergency) where the record will be post-rinsed.  If you want to stay with Triton X100, you need to increase the concentrations 3.5X.  Has to do with the difference in critical micelle concentration (CMC) discussed Chapter VIII with CMC details in Chapter IX.

3.  Because of liability issues I will only recommend 2.5% IPA which is not flammable and if using 91% IPA is 2.5/0.91 = 2.75%.  This small amount can have benefit by a process call soiled roll-up that is addressed Chapter VIII of the book. IPA at low concentrations 2.5% can assist cleaning by combining with low surface tension surfactants to improve the solubility at water-oil interfaces causing some organic soils to swell thereby allowing surfactants (in the cleaner) to lift the soil from the surface.  A solution of 2.5% IPA has shown to be complementary with very low concentrations of non-ionic surfactant added only for wetting (i.e., no-rinse).  HOWEVER:

VIII.8.8 Alcohol Evaporative Losses: Ethanol and IPA at low concentrations (<50%) are not azeotropes and can evaporate separately from water; and this is quite evident when reviewing the applicable vapor-liquid equilibrium diagram that when boiling shows the vapor vs the liquid concentration. At low concentrations, the alcohol vapor concentration is much higher than the liquid concentration. At higher concentrations when an azeotrope forms, the alcohol concentration in the liquid and vapor are the same. For those that may use Ethanol or IPA at low concentrations in an ultrasonic tank (use only at concentrations that are not flammable); over a period of time, the alcohol will evaporate from the water faster than the water evaporating. Unless the alcohol concentration is monitored (alcohol hydrometers are available), the concentration will drop if the tank bath life is extended.

4.  For length of time you want an equal number of rotations (i.e., no fractions) but at an accumulated time of starting at 5-10 minutes. Calculate the time = (number of rotations)/(rpm) so for example (20 rotations)/(2.5-rpm) = 8 min.  You can increase to an accumulated time of 15-min but much beyond generally provides no benefit.

Good Luck,

@antinn 

Thank you for the detailed response.  It looks like even on initial review that I could use 5+ oz of 91% IPA to get an approximate 2.5% solution in 6L. .. I am aware of alcohol's antibacterial properties, but I wasn't aware exactly what it did in the water bath:  your explanation explains it quite well.

Thanks!

@antinn 

I downloaded your book on an old ipad that is no longer used for anything with passwords, etc.  It looks to be a great resource.  Thanks to you and Bill for sharing that with the audiophile community!

Are you aware of any real world experience comparing the LP cleaning capabilities of an appropriately powered 40 kHz ultrasonic cleaning machine as compared to an appropriately powered higher frequency (120-200 kHz) ultrasonic cleaning machine?  And, along the same lines do you think that there would there be any real world difference in LP cleaning capabilities between a 40 kHz cleaner and an 80 kHz cleaner?  
Thanks. 

A cleaning comparison is one that I had attempted to encourage in the Past, as the methods used across a Group of Friends has variations.

After pondering the method that seemed most suitable for the comparison purposes only. It seemed the best practice would be to use Three New Albums, as the deterioration and contamination would have the most potential to be a shared condition.

The Albums would have been demarcated on the Cover or Label to identify the cleaning procedure. 

There is not any real-world method commonly used, that would enable a method of measuring the outcome. This is one that is assessed as an audible experience and receives merit, if an increased attraction for the changed condition has occurred.

The final analysis was to be carried out in front of a group of attendees, on a System to see which of the Albums seemingly was being perceived as the one that benefitted the most from a given cleaning procedure. The Trio of Albums were to be made available for others to assess within their own systems.

Interestingly within the Group there were Three Identical New Jazz Albums purchased, but the cleaning comparison never materialised.

As for Album Cleaning now, using the manual method from the @antinn Textbook, I can't foresee how an Album is able to be perceived as being any cleaner, so I am not needing to attempt to have an experience of comparisons. 

In a similar method to make a discovery about a reduction in noise from a LP.

A long time before the above idea developed. I had success in having been offered the support from a Selection of Bearing Producers to supply their Alternative Bearings for a Comparison of Idler Drive Turntable Bearings.

It took a period of time to Win the Producers over, and maybe it was their own curiosity in the end that won through to allow my requests to be met. 

From recollection there were Seven Bearings to be used, which was inclusive of an owned Original Bearing without any service history known and my owned PTP Bearing.  

It was to be a simple affair; a Bearing was to undergo a Pre-use/ Warm Up on a Standard Model of the Idler TT and then be swapped to a 'PTP Version' of the TT. 

It was estimated that time of 5-8 minutes would be the downtime between demonstrations.

From recollection, one Bearing producer was putting a condition on their supply of a Donor Model and requesting that all the Bearings used should have a Lazer Temp' taken and the Demo's should be carried out at a given temperature. I thought this a little anal, but the same person uses a Stethoscope to assess the noise produced from their Bearing Work, and what do I know about an optimised operating temperature, apart from that there is most likely one. 

Again, the assessment made, would be to see where a group in attendance was to make it known which of the Bearings in use was seemingly being perceived as having the most impressive performance as a result of the materials used and work undertaken on the Bearing.   

This one got tricky as there were Bearing Producers that wanted to attend, and that was to prove very difficult.

As an individual who has a long-time interest in Bearing Modifications, this one slipped through the net, and was a much-wanted experience. 

I have seen quite a few Artisan Producers of Ancillary Parts for other TT's today, that are using quite similar materials and designs as used in some the bearings I was to use for a comparison.

The Artisan Producers have adopted the methods used and are creating parts offered as a commercially available product.   

Second the Humminguru.  Awesome product and so easy to use. 

Excellent value and so convenient.  I clean every new LP.