Vacuum Record Cleaner Rreplacement

@richardbrand 

May I just add that, according to the paper I referenced earlier, the size of the bubbles produced is also affected by temperature

I was unable to find your linked paper, but it's common knowledge that higher temperature will improve cleaning Cavitation-dynamics-in-water-at-elevated-temperatures-and-in-liquid.pdf but the peak is about 60C (140F) with little change up to 40C (104F).  As far as record cavitation cleaning is concerned, I do not see temperature as a valid impact.  However, there is testing that also shows that the depth of water in the tank as multiples of 1/2 the wavelength can have a significant difference varying between 20 and 60% - (PDF) Cavitation intensity of water under practical ultrasonic cleaning conditions.

Otherwise, for just basic ultrasonic cleaning, this article is excellent awad-reprint II, written by the VP of Crest Ultrasonics.  

Take care,

Neil

@antinn 

I was unable to find your linked paper

It was hidden in plain sight under Wayback Machine

Cleaning is caused by shock wave from the collapse of cavitation bubbles, see Wayback Machine for a scientific exploration

Thanks for the article you referenced.  Of maximum relevance to this topic, I'd like to quote a sentence from it:

The released energies reach and penetrate deep into crevices, blind holes and areas that are inaccessible to other cleaning methods.

If that includes microgrooves then my thoughts are that ultrasonic should be the primary method for cleaning records, with vacuum used to assist drying as an option.

Do you have a feel about the smallest particle size we should be worried about? Sub-micron?

That last quote, I would like to amend.

"The released energies reach and penetrate deep into crevices, blind holes and areas that are inaccessible to other cleaning methods." and where there is no music signal possible and anyway where no stylus could possibly contact.  I don't think Mozart would fit into a blind hole.

@richardbrand,

I read your referenced article, but all it said was:   There are significant temperature effects on these properties, and cavitation itself will be dramatically affected with increasing temperature.  There are no context or data associated with the statement, and therefore, from my perspective, there is no proof for the statement.  I do not consider the article a credible reference.  

As far as the smallest particle, it’s a complex question.  The basic surface roughness of the record is reported to be between 0.01 and 0.005 microns.  The smallest amplitude the stylus is reported to be able to reproduce is 1-mciron.  So theoretical cleanliness would lie someplace in-between such as 0.1 micron.  However, this is not achievable in a residential environment - you would need a clean room.  So, practicality dictates something more reasonable.  However, you have no method to verify the cleanliness without use of laboratory methods.  Consequently, the cleaning ability of 40-kHz UT tank should be sufficient; preferably filtered to remove small particulate.  Otherwise, you end up cleaning a record in dirty water - even if it looks clear.  But absent a powerful UT tank, low powered UT tanks can benefit from a very small amount of nonionic surfactant to just reduce the surface tension to improve cleaning efficiency.  But there can be a big difference between record general cleanliness and record best achievable cleanliness.  

Take care,

Neil

3 questions I’ve been struggling with: 

1. whether to use surfactants in ultrasonic cleaners
2. if so, which surfactants
3. whether to include post ultrasonic rinsing

Stereophile Lather.Rinse.Repeat April’s 2026  article by Jim Austin AS WE SEE IT put to rest these questions for me.
Using distilled water my cleaning steps will be:

1. Pre-wash if needed - Spin Clean
2. URC - Tergitol 15-S-9 + Degritter 
3. Post rinse - on the hunt for a quality vacuum cleaning machine, but trying to avoid a large one to store