Yes, I addressed some of the issues myself in the text above:
About I noticed that I as operator got better and better in the weighting procedure that the first ones is not that repetition accurate.
Yes, we are not interested in if the piece is weights on that scale 5.02 gram when it actually on ANOTHER weight scale that is tared and calibrated and show that the same piece actually weight 5.15 gram. That is not interesting when nobody cares about what that specific scrap part is weighting.
The interesting part is the repetition accuracy between measurements and as we can see of the 40 measurements the VARIATION between all of them is only 0.02 gram from the heaviest and the lightest measurement result. And those 40 weight data points is spread over 5 sessions and a operator that getting better and better at it, so the first session that resulted in the lowest reading (5.00) maybe would not appear when it were in the first session that I were not as good as in the later sessions. Then we would be down to a variation of 0.01g. (So we could have a operator and a weighting scale that can reproduce weighting with a repetition deviation of ~ ±0.005 gram. if we consider that there were no reduction in mass from the US cleaning sessions..)
So I have seen weight scale with 3 decimals of a gram but I guess that it really doesn't matter if we see deviation of weight in that higher resolution for only a 5g piece, then we are down to reading more of the operator repetition accuracy between measurements. And repetition accuracy between sessions, room temperature and below 0.1% in total weight difference that maybe theoretical 1h of US cleaning might have caused(!)
And no record in any shelf on the planet has undergone that heavy US cleaning in my believe.
In other words higher resolution will more showcase other external factors (some of them accounted for above) than what we are really trying to get a answer to.
Methodology is a problem. Measurements need to be more precise. More sample points to do statistics. And then, have to decide what is gone - dirt or vinyl, and why?
Too many variables to draw a conclusion.
Regarding if it is dirt or not that were removed then read the text again I stated that I used a initial US cleaning before I started the testing, so that ALL dirt were removed when I am only interested what US did with the plastic and if it eroded the material. So the method and variable of regarding dirt were accounted for and removed.
Yes I did note that the piece were hanging lose that were nothing that I had thought about when I started but noted that it might be a issue. I think that maybe the ultrasound is acting on all sides simultaneously (the scrubbing bubbles). And I have previously when testing the efficiency of the US unit that I have tested with a aluminum foil dipped in the bath and the US shredded holes in the metal in less than a minute. As just a example of something else that were not rigidly fastened the US had no problems to work on the aluminum foil.
But of course I believe it is better to maybe use steel wire to hold the piece steady and mimicking how a record is held!
So there is potential methods improvements to be done. But I have not seen someone else trying to do the same thing at all when we have all of the tools and the ability to make this rather easily.
A YouTube friend said that Michel Fremer had US cleaned a red vinyl and tried to see if he got some red residue in the bath afterwards as a method.
I have read somewhere someone that had a "precision" scale and if that it were PVC pipe and not LPs that they treated with US session.
Anyway when seeing what US can do with metal and the power of it then that is raising the question for me what US is doing with LP records.
to in your case, generate junk science….
I hope that this can be considered as a starting point and show case that it is possible to do. Plus that it might inspire someone and giving some ideas. If someone would like to try and test. Let's us be positive and creatively contribute. But thanks for regarding my experiment 🥼 as science.
But the good thing with this first shoot don't reviled that it is a disaster to use US cleaning at this point maybe if we get some process/methodology improvements might change that view, but hopefully not.
Using a non-destructively obtained sample (i.e. an entire vinyl record) would be more representative of any potential real-world implications.
I see that there is a issue with the method that I needed to take. When I don't have any wight scale that has enough precision and repeatability accuracy to weight a whole LP (~120-200 g).
So the scale i used can measure max ~5g. And I still believe if I get the 5g piece to be more rigidly suspended in the bath. Then it is maybe good enough and a step better than other previously mentioned methods above. The positive thing is that 30 minutes in the bath is more than 1 hour if real-world implications is used. And when the theoretical erosion is so small then and hard to detect so we need to run US on the material for a extended duration to be able to detect that small erosion if there's any erosion that is occurring at all to begin with.
First you let it soak and wonder why it's heavier. Vinyl record isn't completely water-proof and able to soak water especially if it's completely submerged into the powerful bath.
Yes, i did let it dry after the "soak". But are you implying that the "vinyl" material is porous? (Remember that the stylus read ridges smaller than one micron then the porosity need to be smaller than that and not detectable by the stylus)
And I need to dry out liquid that is "induced" into the material and not only on the surface of the vinyl. Do you have issues with surface dry records that were soaked cleaned and afterwards put in a plastic bag (Inner sleeve). With some condensation and moisture in the inside the bag should be seen? I have not experienced that anyway? Should be seen if liquid is trapped in a bag!
I don't believe that LP material is soaking up liquid so that is in my eyes only spreading FUD in a sense. And lastly it got lighter (0.1%) after the second US bath so the theory that it holds water fails in that aspect also. But you might have other experience?
On the other hand the drying step is important and I did not weight wet material of course.
This was the another reason I did the experiment to remove any FUD about usage of US cleaning method. Regarding if or if not it erodes material from the grove.