A more Gentle Cavitation ?

  • Thread starter Christopher A. Steele
  • Start date
C

Christopher A. Steele

Guest
I'm looking to build my own Ultrasonic tank. But due to the nature of
the things I'd like to try cleaning (baseball hats, maybe some of my
dirtier LPs [vinyl records for those of you who are of the CD
generation]), I'm concerned with the VIOLENCE of the cavitation.

So I'm looking to construct a more gentle ultrasonic tank, if there
can be such a thing, and the physics allow.

IS THERE a relationship between the wattage of such a unit and the
violence of the cavitation; or between the amount of liquid acted on
by 'x' wattage and the resultant cavitation, or ... what?
HOW can I "tone things down" in the tank?

(For the record, The Swiss National Sound Archives selectively uses
ultrasonics to clean some of their records, but I've yet to get a
response from them on what they use and how they use it. I've also
seen units designed to clean contact lenses which would seem fairly
fragile. And I'm aware (barrrrrely) of Sameer Madanshetty's efforts to
use lower frequencies to ameliorate the violence of cavitation, but
have no idea of the frequencies used, and fear the science is WAYYYY
beyond my humble abilities anyway.)
Please Note: I'm not a scientist. Nor do I have a degree in, or
significant knowledge of, physics. I'm just reading and learning bit
by bit: So, layman's terminology would be Greatly appreciated in any
response anyone cares to take the time to make.

You all have a wunderbar day. From San Diego, California, I am

Christopher A. Steele
Son of Col. M.J. Steele, USASA/AGC, Fts: Devens, Rucker, Lawton,
OATerm, +
casteele95thbgheavy
 
"Christopher A. Steele" wrote:
I'm looking to build my own Ultrasonic tank. But due to the nature of
the things I'd like to try cleaning (baseball hats, maybe some of my
dirtier LPs [vinyl records for those of you who are of the CD
generation]), I'm concerned with the VIOLENCE of the cavitation.

So I'm looking to construct a more gentle ultrasonic tank, if there
can be such a thing, and the physics allow.

IS THERE a relationship between the wattage of such a unit and the
violence of the cavitation; or between the amount of liquid acted on
by 'x' wattage and the resultant cavitation, or ... what?
HOW can I "tone things down" in the tank?

(For the record, The Swiss National Sound Archives selectively uses
ultrasonics to clean some of their records, but I've yet to get a
response from them on what they use and how they use it. I've also
seen units designed to clean contact lenses which would seem fairly
fragile. And I'm aware (barrrrrely) of Sameer Madanshetty's efforts to
use lower frequencies to ameliorate the violence of cavitation, but
have no idea of the frequencies used, and fear the science is WAYYYY
beyond my humble abilities anyway.)
Please Note: I'm not a scientist. Nor do I have a degree in, or
significant knowledge of, physics. I'm just reading and learning bit
by bit: So, layman's terminology would be Greatly appreciated in any
response anyone cares to take the time to make.

You all have a wunderbar day. From San Diego, California, I am

Christopher A. Steele
Son of Col. M.J. Steele, USASA/AGC, Fts: Devens, Rucker, Lawton,
OATerm, +
casteele95thbgheavy
Click to expand...
Seems the physics is as follows..
Sound travels thru a medium as a sequence of compressed and
rarification of that medium; most especially in the case of a liquid or
a gas.
So, it seems the energy needs to be large enough to break the
inter-molecular bonding of (in this case) the fluid.
I cannot say that this is frequency dependent or not, but would hazard
a guess that, to some point, the higher the frequency, the lower the
"critical point" energy would be for cavitation.
So, the solution would seem to use a liquid with low inter-molecular
bonding.
One clue to that would seem to be surface tension; so try alcohol, and
if there is a surfactant ("soap") that is good for alcohol, add that.
With this combination, i think you could lower the power requirements
(at same frequency, if dependent on frequency) by at least a factor of
two or more (maybe four??).
 
Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<411DC4E1.4CAAE74F@earthlink.net>...
"Christopher A. Steele" wrote:

I'm looking to build my own Ultrasonic tank. But due to the nature of
the things I'd like to try cleaning (baseball hats, maybe some of my
dirtier LPs [vinyl records for those of you who are of the CD
generation]), I'm concerned with the VIOLENCE of the cavitation.

So I'm looking to construct a more gentle ultrasonic tank, if there
can be such a thing, and the physics allow.

IS THERE a relationship between the wattage of such a unit and the
violence of the cavitation; or between the amount of liquid acted on
by 'x' wattage and the resultant cavitation, or ... what?
HOW can I "tone things down" in the tank?

(For the record, The Swiss National Sound Archives selectively uses
ultrasonics to clean some of their records, but I've yet to get a
response from them on what they use and how they use it. I've also
seen units designed to clean contact lenses which would seem fairly
fragile. And I'm aware (barrrrrely) of Sameer Madanshetty's efforts to
use lower frequencies to ameliorate the violence of cavitation, but
have no idea of the frequencies used, and fear the science is WAYYYY
beyond my humble abilities anyway.)
Please Note: I'm not a scientist. Nor do I have a degree in, or
significant knowledge of, physics. I'm just reading and learning bit
by bit: So, layman's terminology would be Greatly appreciated in any
response anyone cares to take the time to make.

You all have a wunderbar day. From San Diego, California, I am

Christopher A. Steele
Son of Col. M.J. Steele, USASA/AGC, Fts: Devens, Rucker, Lawton,
OATerm, +
casteele95thbgheavy

Seems the physics is as follows..
Sound travels thru a medium as a sequence of compressed and
rarification of that medium; most especially in the case of a liquid or
a gas.
So, it seems the energy needs to be large enough to break the
inter-molecular bonding of (in this case) the fluid.
I cannot say that this is frequency dependent or not, but would hazard
a guess that, to some point, the higher the frequency, the lower the
"critical point" energy would be for cavitation.
So, the solution would seem to use a liquid with low inter-molecular
bonding.
One clue to that would seem to be surface tension; so try alcohol, and
if there is a surfactant ("soap") that is good for alcohol, add that.
With this combination, i think you could lower the power requirements
(at same frequency, if dependent on frequency) by at least a factor of
two or more (maybe four??).
Click to expand...

Robert:

Good suggestion. And I wanted to use a surfactant anyway (need to,
actually), so I'll play around with your suggestions. THANK you for
taking the time to respond to my query, Sir. //Christopher
 
Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<411DC4E1.4CAAE74F@earthlink.net>...
"Christopher A. Steele" wrote:

I'm looking to build my own Ultrasonic tank. But due to the nature of
the things I'd like to try cleaning (baseball hats, maybe some of my
dirtier LPs [vinyl records for those of you who are of the CD
generation]), I'm concerned with the VIOLENCE of the cavitation.

So I'm looking to construct a more gentle ultrasonic tank, if there
can be such a thing, and the physics allow.

IS THERE a relationship between the wattage of such a unit and the
violence of the cavitation; or between the amount of liquid acted on
by 'x' wattage and the resultant cavitation, or ... what?
HOW can I "tone things down" in the tank?

(For the record, The Swiss National Sound Archives selectively uses
ultrasonics to clean some of their records, but I've yet to get a
response from them on what they use and how they use it. I've also
seen units designed to clean contact lenses which would seem fairly
fragile. And I'm aware (barrrrrely) of Sameer Madanshetty's efforts to
use lower frequencies to ameliorate the violence of cavitation, but
have no idea of the frequencies used, and fear the science is WAYYYY
beyond my humble abilities anyway.)
Please Note: I'm not a scientist. Nor do I have a degree in, or
significant knowledge of, physics. I'm just reading and learning bit
by bit: So, layman's terminology would be Greatly appreciated in any
response anyone cares to take the time to make.

You all have a wunderbar day. From San Diego, California, I am

Christopher A. Steele
Son of Col. M.J. Steele, USASA/AGC, Fts: Devens, Rucker, Lawton,
OATerm, +
casteele95thbgheavy

Seems the physics is as follows..
Sound travels thru a medium as a sequence of compressed and
rarification of that medium; most especially in the case of a liquid or
a gas.
So, it seems the energy needs to be large enough to break the
inter-molecular bonding of (in this case) the fluid.
I cannot say that this is frequency dependent or not, but would hazard
a guess that, to some point, the higher the frequency, the lower the
"critical point" energy would be for cavitation.
So, the solution would seem to use a liquid with low inter-molecular
bonding.
One clue to that would seem to be surface tension; so try alcohol, and
if there is a surfactant ("soap") that is good for alcohol, add that.
With this combination, i think you could lower the power requirements
(at same frequency, if dependent on frequency) by at least a factor of
two or more (maybe four??).
Click to expand...

Robert:

Good suggestion. And I wanted to use a surfactant anyway (need to,
actually), so I'll play around with your suggestions. THANK you for
taking the time to respond to my query, Sir. //Christopher
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top