Vacuum Record Cleaner Rreplacement

@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

@antinn 

Thanks Neil

I am not trying to write a PhD thesis here, but the article did contain the "well-known Rayleigh-Plesset" equation for bubble dynamics in an acoustic field, with references.  The article is probably not peer reviewed and it covers ultrasonic and "megasonic" cleaning of both metallic and non-metallic surfaces.  So general background stuff in this context.

Your comments on significant particles sizes are very useful and a little smaller than I expected.  But the average groove depth is reported as about 28 microns so it makes sense.

Occasionally I accidentally touch the surface of my tank when it is working and am amazed at the tiny cloud of stuff coming from my fingertips.

There are very few clean rooms in Canberra - one is used to diagnose issues with diesel injectors and pumps.  It is a centre of excellence for Toyota Australia and often hosts delegations from Japan.