AXPONA 2019

While this is not a forum to have such discussions, you predicated my reply due to the incorrect statements made on our patented technology that required a response. Added: To see one copy a design made by others and just change frequency and not solving known issues of the faulty designs and to copy it also is not proactive, and the crust of the matter to not know our technology that solves these issues and thus required our response.

To your most recent response:
In the world of "i" you need to be very careful as to what you seem to like to refer to on the medical reference web site that deal with bacteria and your prior mention of the cleaning of submicroscopic particles by sonics. Also to the preferred use of higher frequency of 125 KHz with reference to semiconductors, assumedly silicon wafers, contaminants sub microscopic in size...and implied hard surfaces. We agree fully with the description of the matter of 125 KHz, but if you review the matter, it is NOT RECOMMENDED FOR A SOFT RECORD WITH MICROSCOPIC AND NOT SUB MICROSCOPIC CONTAMINANTS.

We stick by the use of 35 KHz which sees the cavitation occur further from the object being cleaned with less intensity due to distance. (pI).

We also disagree as any sonic manufacturer would as to purportedly using just water in a sonic tank.

...Indeed, the references on sonic generics taken from the web are of course very valuable as a base line, but one cannot omit nor neglect, nor manufacture a product for record cleaning (in our case a product for record's groove restoration) without the understanding of other elements especially thus resulting in a proportionately positioned plasma wave to remove soft, microscopic (and not submicroscopic) coatings and contaminants from a soft material, a record.

Yes the "internet world of things..."

The matter at hand is where we also have a record made of PVC with plasticizers that need to remain. These are submicroscopic.
Hmmmm…
125 KHz, sub-microscopic removal…

Let us study the matter needing "cleaning", and walk away from the semantics of frequency, which is just one part of the solution.
4 years of study on our part with a $80,000 3D digital microscope to prove our findings with 600 frame per second underwater cameras to view the action.

Ah, the record:

One needs thus to appreciate and understand where many of the pops and crackles heard are mostly found IN THE GROOVES. They are heard as a result of the needle and its dyne making first contact with the groove, and generating heat. In playing the record we create inadvertently more of these pops, clicks etc. by way of micro-welding of surface dirt and dust into the record's release agent which is present. (Has one wondered why playing a new record twice on the same side hears added pops? This is the reason…) More revolutions, more of these "burnt in contaminants" hit. Knowing this: now added with accumulation of a coating over time due to fungal activity or films left over from prior surface cleanings by way of air or vacuum drying ultimately see less travel of the needle, conical or elliptical, reducing the audition quality...the sound, as we have coatings that preclude the needle from properly making contact with the groove detail, now hidden. SO: How to regain the breath... we call it groove restoration, not record cleaning.

We wish to remove the original release agent present which has trapped these contaminants and also serves as a ground for dust dirt to accumulate and promote fungal growth in more humid environments. Also to remove films left from prior cleaning processes.
All microscopic..
Not submicroscopic in nature.

This the world of "internet" and reference to sonics alone is blind and means nothing without referencing the above, as well as other parameters as I shall discuss.

A medical ultrasonic salesman's approach is not needed, rather the study of conservancy and how to eliminate the cause of the problem at hand and covering more than just frequency.

...The statement I made prior is very clear as for one to first understand the material we are dealing (a record, vinyl or shellacked/lacquer), and where simply making statements as to using a sonic destined for medical and semiconductor use due to a frequency of 125 KHz alone and removal of microbacteria which is favored at 125 Khz is not what is the task at hand for any process to improve a record's audition, sorry to say.

The science of developing an ultrasonic was clearly reflected on in my prior review from an engineering perspective, taking into consideration the item that requires the use of sonic action, in this case the grooves of a record, and a record being soft so not to also affect the brilliance of the original pressing. So, in our case with the half a dozen design principles reviewed one of which being stated as low power with 35 KHz a frequency in our case as described before is our recipe;

..The proof is in the pudding… a 1.5 dB gain in a new pressing removing the original release agent, 4-5 dB gain over noise floor level in a record that was cleaned by other processes using forced air or vacuum further coating the record.

...did I mention before where we measure before and after: signal, groove depth and width, contaminant thickness, contaminant size, bandwidth?... as well as listen to the results?

The references to sonic frequency statements and descriptions and the like is moot. As I eluded to, the design of whatever system using a sonic to clean a record's grooves as well as remove the contaminants that are perhaps micro- welded into the record's grooves by the heat generated by the needle's dyne making contact with the release agent, a successful sonic design needs to be first validated by way of the use of test equipment and the like.

1) We first used high speed underwater caneras in the tank using video validation to the sonic's safe action on the record and in the record's grooves.

2) Further: the entire record's surface needs to attract plasma wave activity. This visual inspection now validating the effectiveness and safety of the cavitation and plasma wave hitting the record and the agent used to promote the attraction to see the ionization of the record for this was further proven. The view of results and underwater action using 600 fps cameras irrespective and of the [proper sized wave irrespective of the web site links presented by my peer means nothing to the end result: ...Visual validation allows us to select the safe frequency, proper power, transducer and or record placement, placement etc.. all for the cavitation so as to NOT damage a soft item such as a record but remove contaminants that in most cases are soft or softer than the record.

3) In the many illustrations presented by my peer: the size of the micro-bubble created is not important as is the size and speed of the plasma wave upon the cavitation/implosion and ESPECIALLY as made mention to the proximity/distance from this event to the record's surface. I agree with his presentation of this, and thus well pointed out where 125 KHz is very close (too close) to the surface of the record in the rebuttal! I agree of this fact, indeed the fact where the higher the frequency, the closer the cavitation effect to the surface, dangerous for records in our study! That is why we measured and reviewed the results of our 35 KHz topology as the base engine, records are fragile. We have the right bubble size and plasma speed.
Seen by camera!

4) This held in mind: Reference to discussions on sonics without validation and understanding of the materials being cleaned (flexibility, durability, strength, surface detail) or how it in fact got contaminated in the first place is very important to make note of.
.. I made mention to the 5 or six key elements that one needs to relate to in a design of a sonic platform as well as the material being cleaned, the latter cannot be underestimated. This is critical.

5) My contemporary validated my point where the 125 KHz cavitations occur very close to the surface being cleaned, (too close for a soft vinyl record or the more brittle shellacked or lacquered records), but indeed important for sub microbial bacteria on semiconductor wafers and the like that are hard.. the latter needing precise hits and definition. ...Thus 125 Khz NOT RECOMMENDED for soft records with 30-35 microns of contaminants found inside the groove trail. More on this later.

6) I cannot stress where we have seen inefficient application and sometimes dangerous use of some sonics as peers forget what the mission statement should be where we are looking at restoring SOUND which is located in the GROOVES, picked up by a vibrating cantilever then moving a magnetic coil. Focus on semantics of sonics without due consideration to this and the nature of the material is non productive and wastes time. A design to accomplish this task must be realized first and foremost, and not based on articles as they are only part of the recipe needed.

7) Further, not mentioned or reflected on where forced air drying as well as vacuum drying defeats the purpose of sonic technology if applied properly, and creates other issues to a purportedly cleaned record. They are part of the films that a system should also remove and not create.

7) Moving forward for our audience as how it relates to a record with a groove width of 30-35 microns and like depth, give or take, that varies with the type of sound/music recorded as seen in the 3-D pictures on our web site with measurements. We are also additionally looking at records coated with 5-10 microns of release agent, or a film from air drying or vacuum drying, and where we have 1-5 micron sized fungus, dirt and larger elements in the release agent and grooves, including fungal colonies that alone or in groups that are 45-100-150-250 microns in size on the record surface itself, or lodged in its grooves, all to be removed, and to do so gently.
That is the task at hand!
Safe removal.

8) To dangers: If you take a piece of foil in a 45 Khz ultrasonic, (we use 35KHz) , and where many web sites show videos of this, the close proximity of higher frequencies such as 45, 65, 125 to the object's surface needing cleaning, and implosions, (in this case aluminum foil), the higher in frequency, the closer the proximity of the wave affecting this soft piece of foil (or record). The problem multiplied as we increase the frequency. So my peer and I agree with this as directed to the various web sites as to 125 Khz. In now referencing a soft vinyl or fragile lacquered or shellacked record, this can be, and is, detrimental. Lower the frequency, less intensity and less proximity to the surface of the cavitation. We have all to deal with fragile records, and records are soft, and where the dust, dirt etc. embedded within the original and existing release agent of the record or caught in the grooves by way of fungal growth on top of the release agent is also relatively soft. Our contaminants are large when compared to microbials in semiconductors and wafers and the like, as well as where our elements are also are soft, just like the host, the record.

9) So while I mentioned in my previous note as a design engineer where I made remarks as to power, frequency, transducer angle, etc.,. water volume, and the like, as well as the visualization of the plasma wave created and the attraction of this wave and proximity it has have relevance to the material amplified by the ionizing agent required on the record to change its charge to benefit the sonic action: we need to calculate safe distances away from the surface we are dealing with as a damper.

As water is repelled by vinyl, it is not just a simple task of choosing a frequency without understanding the materials that needs to be cleaned and distances as I expressed previously relatively to speed of the plasma wave hitting the ionized record.

Further: simply stating a sonic with a bath of distilled water to be used with a record alone is very misleading. To mention better cleaning occurs with one adding more time to the process is erroneous if you appreciate the like charges of both the materials and solution.

...An analysis using our 3-D microscope after evaluating the high speed camera action underwater in a sonic's tank sees issues with water only; water with a soap (making a solvent); this as their relative charge as to the record being cleaned and the resulting repulsion of the record (vinyl or otherwise against the liquid of whatever type in the tank is evident as both have a like charge. Thus the use of an ionizing agent is required. Added this camera also in our case validated our selection of 35Khz over 5, 40, and 65.. and up.

Professionals in the field are familiar where the deionization of the material being subject under the ultrasonic process need to see the ionizing materials be kept intact for the contaminants to be removed and not to just rely on what is in the sonic system's tank. So more study over and above the sonic generics itself needs to be reflected upon as well, ore than just frequency.

I also mentioned the affect of standing waves on horizontally placed transducers in a tank and the effect thereof. This is also a design parameter, not just frequency selection: The bubble reflections on the vertical record cause a serious standing wave if we see a horizontal transducer used. We use base mounted transducers in our design and not horizontal ones to avoid this, which with proper record spacing allows us to manage the restoration of 4 vertically placed records simultaneously.

..The horizontal placement of transducers negates firstly multiple records being cleaned that are vertically inserted in a bath. With just one record , one sees an increased reflected standing wave being reflected back from the record thus resulting in the need for higher power hitting just a single record. This to circumvent the high SWR. The unfortunate by product in all this sees now more kinetic energy being released in the tank of such a sonic design and thus limits safe cleaning times due to the more rapid temperature rise in the water with my peer.

So enough beating of the subject of frequency as the elements presented by my peer have substantiated our use of 35 KHz… Irrespective, a product design must first and foremost guarantee to an audiophile when there are no more contaminants left in the record's grooves including the successful removal of a release agent. A timer with 3 steps and a sonic using just water cannot do this.

..I believe we have accomplished the mission at hand in a now very validated and safe way to restore both vinyl and lacquered records.
As a summation: While there is agreement in the illustrations in what was quoted, the facts on high frequency and distance of cavitations have thus validated our process of lower frequency, lower power, adjusted SWR of the emitters, in combination where we also consdier the softness of the record as well as the softer contaminants that we are dealing with without removing submicrobial plasticizers. This all then dictates the ultimate product design. As we are dealing with a plurality of record types: the resulting plasma wave to touch the glass/shellacked/lacquered/foil or vinyl of a record needs more than a discussion on frequency generics, but also include power, volume, textures, hardness, reflections, and the like. In my peers review I believe we both have to agree where 125 KHz is not to be used and we in witnessing the underwater action using high speed 600 frame per second caneras and observing the effect in the tank and of the sonic action on the contaminants primarily caught in the release agent in the grooves, the ultimate test and validation is the measurement not only of cartridge output, but of course dynamic range of sound, and also where we measure and inspect the before and after restoration of the physical grooves by views all proven by our 3D images. These tools validate the design discussion as well determines whether a process is working or not.

Sincerely
Charles