OK, I bought one of those cheapie Ultrasonic Cleaners at HF on sale
for $25.

What's a good "general purpose" cleaning solution to use for small
parts. (example: gears, bearings, small mechanisms, 2 cycle carb.
bodies, etc)

I know you can buy $pecialized fluids mail order but I want to use
something homemade from common ingrediants like acetone, paint
thinner, simple green, kerosene. etc.

Any suggestions for an Ultrasonic newbie??

In article , davefr says...

What's a good "general purpose" cleaning solution to use for small
parts.

If they are very dirty or greasy, WD-40 works well, or kerosene.

I put water in the U/S tank, and put the cleaning solvent and parts
in a plastic beaker, which is suspended off the bottom of the tank.

Acetone is pretty volatile and will evaporate rapidly unless covered,
especially given that the cleaning action works much better if the
solution is warm. I like to dump out the water before each
run and re-fill with hot tap water.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

What's a good "general purpose" cleaning solution to use for small
parts. (example: gears, bearings, small mechanisms, 2 cycle carb.
bodies, etc)


I'm lucky enough to have a high power unit with heater, courtesy of an
auction. I use soapy water, liquid dish detergent, simple green would be
great. Sometimes I toss in ammonia. Haven't had the need, but a small amount
of drain cleaner (strong caustic) might be used on something really tuff if
there's no aluminum. I always degrease the parts before putting in the
cleaning tank. This unit is for removing what doesn't come off in the parts
cleaner, you've already used the solvent.

Its amazing what will come off an already cleaned part. But my biggest use
is my glasses, toss them in for twenty seconds and they look like new.

Karl

Clockies use a mix of ammonia, acetone and oleic acid, diluted with
water. Removing WD40 may take extra work. / mark


jim rozen wrote:

In article , davefr says...


What's a good "general purpose" cleaning solution to use for small
parts.


If they are very dirty or greasy, WD-40 works well, or kerosene.

I put water in the U/S tank, and put the cleaning solvent and parts
in a plastic beaker, which is suspended off the bottom of the tank.

Acetone is pretty volatile and will evaporate rapidly unless covered,
especially given that the cleaning action works much better if the
solution is warm. I like to dump out the water before each
run and re-fill with hot tap water.

Jim

jim rozen wrote:
In article , davefr says...


What's a good "general purpose" cleaning solution to use for small
parts.


If they are very dirty or greasy, WD-40 works well, or kerosene.

I put water in the U/S tank, and put the cleaning solvent and parts
in a plastic beaker, which is suspended off the bottom of the tank.

Acetone is pretty volatile and will evaporate rapidly unless covered,
especially given that the cleaning action works much better if the
solution is warm. I like to dump out the water before each
run and re-fill with hot tap water.

Jim



A good ultrasonic cleaner should generate enough internal friction in
the liqiud to keep it's own bath warm. This might not be true of the
little HF unit, but is genrally true of the larger one quart and up
sizes. My 2-quart unit will bring the water to near boiling in an hour
or so.

Dan Mitchell
============

In article , Daniel A. Mitchell says...

A good ultrasonic cleaner should generate enough internal friction in
the liqiud to keep it's own bath warm.

Yep - but it speeds things up if the bath water starts out
hot.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Daniel A. Mitchell says...


A good ultrasonic cleaner should generate enough internal friction in
the liqiud to keep it's own bath warm.


Yep - but it speeds things up if the bath water starts out
hot.

Jim

My cheapo ultrasonic cleaner uses the SS tub as a heatsink for the
power transistors that agitate it. Heating up the power transistors
will not result in higher reliability.

--Winston

In article , Winston says...

My cheapo ultrasonic cleaner uses the SS tub as a heatsink for the
power transistors that agitate it. Heating up the power transistors
will not result in higher reliability.

If they can't take 80C temperatures they're not that
reliable to begin with.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Karl Townsend" wrote in message news.com...
Its amazing what will come off an already cleaned part. But my biggest use
is my glasses, toss them in for twenty seconds and they look like new.

Karl

Karl:

Be very careful! I've done this for years with my glasses, too -- and
two days ago, I just ruined a two-year old pair of high-index plastic
lenses -- about half the anti-scratch coating came off, and the
plastic turned yellow. The wierd thing is that I have had these same
glasses in the sonic cleaner at least a dozen times, with no problem
whatsoever. Same cleaning fluid too. I tried to get the rest of
the coating off, and eventually did, but the plastic itself has hazed
a bit and is yellow-ish looking around the edges.

The original damage was done with no more than 5 minutes in the
cleaner, and no heat! I haven't a clue what happened, but they are
completely ruined now. The only possible cause I can think of is that
I have been painting for several days, and maybe the coating had been
softened by solvent fumes; the reason they were in the cleaner was to
get off all the pinpoint paint spots from rolling the ceiling. But
it's never happened before, in similar circumstances.

Now I won't sonic-clean anything but glass lenses again. Damn!

Regards,

Bob

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Winston says...


My cheapo ultrasonic cleaner uses the SS tub as a heatsink for the
power transistors that agitate it. Heating up the power transistors
will not result in higher reliability.


If they can't take 80C temperatures they're not that
reliable to begin with.

Must not be. The manufacturer recommends 60 C or below.
http://www.bransoncleaning.com/Manua...200_Manual.pdf

--Winston

In article , Bob Edwards says...

Now I won't sonic-clean anything but glass lenses again. Damn!

Yep. I've dunked my glass lenses in the ultrasonic at work many
times, because it does a great job of de-greasing them. But
I did find that the polycarbonate lenses developed a fine pattern
of crazes, or cracks, on their surface after a few times of
doing that. Now I only use hot water and soap on them.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Winston says...

If they can't take 80C temperatures they're not that
reliable to begin with.

Must not be. The manufacturer recommends 60 C or below.
http://www.bransoncleaning.com/Manua...200_Manual.pdf

Odd. I didn't see any upper limit on temperature
mentioned in that pdf file. Did you post the correct
one?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Daniel A. Mitchell says...


A good ultrasonic cleaner should generate enough internal friction in
the liqiud to keep it's own bath warm.


Yep - but it speeds things up if the bath water starts out
hot.

Jim



No argument there, and a lot of commercial grade ultrasonic cleaners
have a heating element as well as the sonic generator. Hot fluids clean
a LOT better, but real care must be taken with hot flammable solvents.
The ultrasound also greatly increases evaporation, so a cloud of
flammable solvent vapor is a likely occurrence.

Rigorous fire safety precautions and excellent ventilation are a necessity.

Dan Mitchell
============

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Winston says...


If they can't take 80C temperatures they're not that
reliable to begin with.

Must not be. The manufacturer recommends 60 C or below.
http://www.bransoncleaning.com/Manua...200_Manual.pdf


Odd. I didn't see any upper limit on temperature
mentioned in that pdf file. Did you post the correct
one?

Think so. Bottom of page, section titled
"Cleaning Solutions: How to use them:"
Seventh sentence down.

--Winston

In article , Winston says...

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Winston says...


If they can't take 80C temperatures they're not that
reliable to begin with.

Must not be. The manufacturer recommends 60 C or below.
http://www.bransoncleaning.com/Manua...200_Manual.pdf


Odd. I didn't see any upper limit on temperature
mentioned in that pdf file. Did you post the correct
one?

Think so. Bottom of page, section titled
"Cleaning Solutions: How to use them:"
Seventh sentence down.

There is no caveat about running the solution at temperatures
above those listed. And there is no warning about exceeding
any temperature at the drive transistors.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
(Snip)

Think so. Bottom of page, section titled
"Cleaning Solutions: How to use them:"
Seventh sentence down.


There is no caveat about running the solution at temperatures
above those listed. And there is no warning about exceeding
any temperature at the drive transistors.

Jim

IIRC, the info about the transistor temperature was in the original
literature packed with the unit. That document is no longer with me.
I have had the unit for 15 years, so I guess I didn't approach the
limit too closely

In this latest sheet, the Sales department has glossed over the
design 'feature' and merely stated that "This (solution degassing)
process can be accelerated by filling the tank with warm water
(120-140 degrees F) on startup. The cleaner and generally the
solution will perform better at this slightly elevated temperature."

If you were Branson and you had published those sentences, would
you feel *legally obligated* to repair a unit under warranty that
had been used with a solution temperature above 140 F?

Not I, because the consumer has been clearly told the upper limit
of solution temperature in a widely understood, easily interpreted,
useful unit.

The phrase "warm water" is very clear to me.
The phrase does not read "hot water".

140 degrees F as an upper limit is very clear to me.
The sentence does not read "(...) (120-141 degrees F)".

The phrase "(...) this slightly elevated temperature." is very
clear to me, too.
The phrase does not read "(...) any elevated temperature."

The positon of these phrases in relation to each other communicate
that the solution can be moderately warm, but still no hotter than
140 degrees F.

The totality of the message clearly is "a warning enjoining one from
certain acts or practices".

I don't understand why you say that the user is unwarned.


BTW- I don't want to leave the impression that I am disappointed
with the unit in any way. It was inexpensive, it is very easy to use
and maintain, it has proven to be very reliable and it has saved me lots
of time, money and inconvenience.

I like it a lot. I think everyone should have one.

--Winston

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:37:59 -0600, George
wrote:

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Bob Edwards says...

Now I won't sonic-clean anything but glass lenses again. Damn!

Yep. I've dunked my glass lenses in the ultrasonic at work many
times, because it does a great job of de-greasing them. But
I did find that the polycarbonate lenses developed a fine pattern
of crazes, or cracks, on their surface after a few times of
doing that. Now I only use hot water and soap on them.

Jim

Sounds like you have a chlorinated hydrocarbon in the tank. It doesn't
take much to craze polycarbonate. Just the residue from cleaning oily
parts would be enough.

I remember a particularly interesting case of a SCUBA diver who died
as a result of lubricating the O-rings in the air regulator with a
silicone grease. The regulator was made from PC. The regulator was 5X
over designed for its intended application. The grease reduced its
strength to virtually nil.

BTW Jim, if those were safety glasses, they are no longer very safe.
The crazes will propagate under any tensile load.
Since silicone grease is the standard grease for scuba divers and
their gear it makes me wonder how true this story is. You'd think that
a company making life support equipment would try all ways possible to
make the unit fail. I'm assuming that it was the second stage reg.
The first stage regulator, with hoses screwed into it, and supporting
all the tugs on the hoses, and being exposed to 3000,00 psi
potentially would seem to be a bad choice for polycarbonate. Brass
works so much better. And if it was the second stage, a free flowing
hose can be used for breathing. In fact, scuba divers must show the
ability to do this to be certified. Please giuve us some more facts.
ERS

"Eric R Snow" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:37:59 -0600, George
wrote:

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Bob Edwards
says...

Now I won't sonic-clean anything but glass lenses again. Damn!

Yep. I've dunked my glass lenses in the ultrasonic at work many
times, because it does a great job of de-greasing them. But
I did find that the polycarbonate lenses developed a fine pattern
of crazes, or cracks, on their surface after a few times of
doing that. Now I only use hot water and soap on them.

Jim

Sounds like you have a chlorinated hydrocarbon in the tank. It doesn't
take much to craze polycarbonate. Just the residue from cleaning oily
parts would be enough.

I remember a particularly interesting case of a SCUBA diver who died
as a result of lubricating the O-rings in the air regulator with a
silicone grease. The regulator was made from PC. The regulator was 5X
over designed for its intended application. The grease reduced its
strength to virtually nil.

BTW Jim, if those were safety glasses, they are no longer very safe.
The crazes will propagate under any tensile load.
Since silicone grease is the standard grease for scuba divers and
their gear it makes me wonder how true this story is. You'd think that
a company making life support equipment would try all ways possible to
make the unit fail. I'm assuming that it was the second stage reg.
The first stage regulator, with hoses screwed into it, and supporting
all the tugs on the hoses, and being exposed to 3000,00 psi
potentially would seem to be a bad choice for polycarbonate. Brass
works so much better. And if it was the second stage, a free flowing
hose can be used for breathing. In fact, scuba divers must show the
ability to do this to be certified. Please giuve us some more facts.
ERS

I'd like to hear more that also. We were always taught to use silicone
grease on the O-rings.

Garrett Fulton




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article ,
"Garrett Fulton" wrote:


I'd like to hear more that also. We were always taught to use silicone
grease on the O-rings.

Garrett Fulton


Yes, please do. I've seen nothing about such an accident anywhere else
and I'd like to read about the exact cause of the failure. I have this
thing about having a tank at 3000psi on my back and having it fail at
60-70 feet. (Well, I guess depth wouldn't really be an issue.)

John, PADI-certified NE Ohio Mud Diver

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:43:45 GMT, Johan wrote:

In article ,
"Garrett Fulton" wrote:


I'd like to hear more that also. We were always taught to use silicone
grease on the O-rings.

Garrett Fulton


Yes, please do. I've seen nothing about such an accident anywhere else
and I'd like to read about the exact cause of the failure. I have this
thing about having a tank at 3000psi on my back and having it fail at
60-70 feet. (Well, I guess depth wouldn't really be an issue.)

John, PADI-certified NE Ohio Mud Diver

But of course depth is an issue. For example, at 6600 foot depth the
pressure would be about 3000 psi. So you could open the valve and not
get any air at all. if you go up a few feet the air pressure will be
slightly higher than the surrounding water and you can breathe again.
I wonder how many stops you'd need to make to off-gas at that depth.
ERS

In article , George says...

Sounds like you have a chlorinated hydrocarbon in the tank. It doesn't
take much to craze polycarbonate. Just the residue from cleaning oily
parts would be enough.

Probably not - the solution was a water-based one of penesolve, an
alkaline soap degreaser. If there was any residue, it was at a
*very* low level, because the system in question has a sparger
and filtration setup. These weren't official safety glasses, and
even though they had pretty rough service (occasional drops to
asphalt) they never had any of the crazes propogate or get worse.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================