Ultrasonic cleaning filter test

[Cadmium]

S8612 before and after ultrasonic cleaning.

There are many inexpensive ultrasonic cleaners on eBay.

This test uses plain water.

The cleaner I have has a maximum time of 480s (8 minutes).

According to direction, you can run it for 30 minutes, but then it needs to rest for 5 minutes.

This cleaning is the result of 80 minutes total (8 minutes x 10).

 

It might be easier to use the hydrogen peroxide soak method because the cleaner has to be restarted...

Just water, I didn't try it with hydrogen peroxide because I didn't have enough HP on hand.

I will try it sometimes with 3% HP to see the difference.

This is what you can do with plain water and an inexpensive ultrasonic cleaner. No scrubbing, no HP, no cerium, all I did was dried it off.

 

[JMC]

That looks really good Steve. I used to use IPA, water and detergent in an ultrasonic bath when cleaning glass slide for Ultra High Vacuum work. Should be great for these types of uncoated filters - wouldn't recommend it for coated ones though.

[Cadmium]

I just tried a second test using the standard household 3% hydrogen peroxide in the ultrasonic cleaner.

WAY better, mostly because it is very fast, only two 8 minute runs, very clean!

So far I have only tried S8612.

I will test this using some UG11 that has some kind of oxidation, because oxidation on UG11 (U-340) and UG5 (U-330) tent to look different, not so 'greasy or waxy' looking.

However, so far this is very promising.

 

By the way, I am using a 35W, 600ml ultrasonic cleaner, $25.

 

Back later with more pics and tests.

 

UPDATE: OK, maybe I am more excited than I should be. After closer examination of this last one (using the hydrogen peroxide in the ultrasonic cleaner), I can find some very small spots with a magnifying glass.

So this one needs to be cleaned longer.

[Andy Perrin]

Very interesting test. Mine don't get oxidized fast enough for me to want to spend any money yet on a cleaning technology but I imagine if I dealt with lots of filters in bulk like you, it would make more sense.

[Cadmium]

You can do the same by soaking long enough in hydrogen peroxide and scrubbing.

The $25 seems minimal given the investment in good quality filters, and so useful for cleaning so many other things.

[ulf]

That sounds like a very nice solution for cleaning filters.

Especially as 3% hydrogen peroxide is rather mild.

I would risk cleaning filters in their rings.

I do not think it will affect any labels or their glue.

 

Steve, do you think that is OK?

 

If you have a bigger ultrasonic cleaner you can place the filters in a plastic bag with the hydrogen peroxide and submerge that into normal water.

The plastic bag transmit the ultrasonic waves between the liquids.

 

That is how I once had to do cleaning something with a very expensive cleaning-fluid, using ziplock bags.

The water can also be heated a bit if needed, to speed up the process further.

Professional ultrasonic cleaners often have the ability to heat the cleaning fluid and if it is volatile the plastic bag stops evaporation.

 

Naturally the bag must be able to handle the cleaning fluid.

3% hydrogen peroxide is AFAIK no problem for any plastic used for plastic bags.

[Cadmium]

First of all, 3% hydrogen peroxide is the standard or common over the counter strength (dilution) found in most grocery and drug stores in the US.

I know in some countries hydrogen peroxide is harder to find, but I 'think' it can be found via most pharmacies if asked for, they may have it behind the counter or such.

The 3% is what we are usually always talking about here for cleaning, soaking, manually scrubbing, or in the case in conjunction with ultrasonic cleaning.

 

I have not tried any filters in rings in the ultrasonic cleaner so far, only glass filter circles.

I have tried soaking a filter that was in a labeled ring in hydrogen peroxide for two days, before loosening the retaining ring,

and the label seemed just the same as before. I was a little surprised it didn't seem to have any change to the label.

I don't know how a label would do in the ultrasonic cleaner.

 

I have read about the bag idea, but I have not tried it.

Someone said that the plastic can soften the energy, but I have no idea if that is true.

However, after buying two 32 FL OZ (1 QT) 946 mL bottles of 3% HP at the grocery store last night for $1.29 each.... I wasn't too concerned about it.

 

I have not found any UG11 or such yet, so I am out of filters that have oxidation to test.

The U-360 and UG1 are not too prone to oxidation like the UG11, U-340, UG5, U-330 are, and of course S8612 and BG39 (no reason to use BG39 really, none I can think of, when you have S8612).

 

My use of the ultrasonic cleaner is only experimental at this point. I am not recommending it, except just to test. I have been wondering about it for quite sometimes, so it was worth the $25 just to try out.

I can't make a conclusion.

At this point I think just soaking a filter in hydrogen peroxide for a few days in a dark sealed container, and then scrubbing with the same and a PEC pad (or what you want) is probably the way to go.

It works for me.

 

Yes, some ultrasonic cleaners have a built in heater. I may have forgot to mention that with my first test using only plain water, I started with warm water, which stayed warm.

What I have noticed is that after multiple 'runs', given the extended time, the fluid tends to warm up, I guess from the agitation? I am not sure, don't quote me on that, but for example,

I started with cold (room temperature) hydrogen peroxide, and it got noticeably warmer after a few runs... A "run" being whatever time you set it for, I use the 480 second setting for each run.

This also has a 'degas' feature, which runs for 9 second, then stops for 6 seconds, this is suppose to improved cleaning efficiency, I think, although I tried it a few times, I ran the cleaner mostly using the constant setting.

 

I should point out that this is my first experience with an ultrasonic cleaner. I know very little about them.

They come in various watts, usually the higher the fluid capacity the higher the watts. Makes sense, but I wonder if the high watts will clean better.

I have not found a small fluid capacity unit that has higher watts.

Like you say, some have built in heaters.

And I need to test the degas mode more to see if there is a noticeable difference.

Some will run a lot longer than 480 seconds, such as these Cole-Parmer units that will go up to 99 minutes.

These are a little more expensive than they garden variety you find on eBay or the like, but look similar to some you see on eBay.

(unfortunately, the Cole-Parmer units don't mention watts in their specifications)

https://www.coleparm...-cleaners/68321

[Cadmium]

Ulf, I am trying the zip-lock bag filled with hydrogen peroxide in the larger volume of water.

Works for sure, this time using another S8612, and also using 'degas' mode.

Cleaned it on first run, but still left a couple tiny little spots, which seem to be suborn, and not yet removed after three runs.

Definitely the fluid warms up from the process.

Interesting stuff. Fun to experiment with. May even use it on my eye glasses at some point, they could use it.

[Andy Perrin]

Unless your glasses are coated? If you got the AR coating, I wouldn't!

[Cadmium]

Andy, Seriously? You know this topic is NOT about coated filter glass, right?

Maybe you are just trying to interject a warning to people who have AR coated glass filters or dichroic filters not to clean their filters with hydrogen peroxide or clean them with an ultrasonic cleaner?

Is that your point?

Because I am not so sure about all that idea, Andy.

I would agree that we should not use cerium oxide on coated or dichroic filters, but cleaning them with HP or ultrasonic...?

I really don't see or know if that would be bad for such filters, do you?

Personally, I would have no hesitation to clean my Baader U (a dichroic filter) with hydrogen peroxide, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Ultrasonic? I really don't know much about ultrasonic, pertaining to dichroic filters, or in general for that matter, do you?

Frankly, I would have no hesitation to go out there in the shop right now and drop my Badder U into the ultrasonic cleaner either.

Maybe you have more info than I do?

Andy, we are not talking about AR coated or dichroic filters here... You know?

However, if we were, which I guess we are now, how would hydrogen peroxide or ultrasonic be bad for those?

I don't see either being bad for those. On the other hand I don't see much need for either of those for those kinds of filters, but I don't think they would be hurt by such cleaning.

Have you tested this idea?

OK

[Cadmium]

You would not put your Baader U into an ultrasonic cleaner or use hydrogen peroxide on it, or on an AR coated filter?

Very very interesting...

How come?

[ulf]

Ulf, I am trying the zip-lock bag filled with hydrogen peroxide in the larger volume of water.

Works for sure, this time using another S8612, and also using 'degas' mode.

Cleaned it on first run, but still left a couple tiny little spots, which seem to be suborn, and not yet removed after three runs.

Definitely the fluid warms up from the process.

Interesting stuff. Fun to experiment with. May even use it on my eye glasses at some point, they could use it.

 

The cleaning with a ziplock bag works because the thin plastic couples the ultrasonic energy very well.

It is sound waves and they pass thin flexible materials easily without being affected.

It is like sound going through a thin paper wall, Japanese style.

 

The heating up is because ultrasonic power is added and eventually converted to heat.

Eye glasses will be OK.

I had problems eventually when cleaning the metal band of my wristwatch, (keeping the watch above the surface, during the process.)

The tiny springs inside the pins keeping the band together was not stainless and finally disintegrated.

 

I stopped using my ultrasonic cleaner at home (smal home style) when I got kittens fifteen years ago.

The sound is very strong and painful for them and as indoor cats they had nowhere to escape.

[Andy Perrin]

Cadmium, my response was to your comment about using it on EYEGLASSES not filters!

 

Ulf why do you think eyeglasses would be ok? Dichroic coatings are pretty easy to scratch and if you remove a few microns you change the coating?

 

I suspect my glasses AR coating is damaged just from the five years of normal cleaning.

 

I don’t have any direct experience with these cleaners but was under the impression they were rather harsh and powerful. I’m sure everyone will correct me if I’m wrong, never any worries about that here!

[ulf]

I believe that the coatings on eyeglasses is rather tough and that normal cleaning wears them as some dust can be very hard and scratchy.

I might be wrong and I have no actual proof it is safe for them.

 

If I locate the cleaner after 15 years, I have some old Hoya HMC coated Skylight filters I can test, if the coating survives ultrasonic cleaning.

Those surfaces are much more sensitive than normal eyeglass coatings.

[Cadmium]

Cleaning eyeglasses is one of the most common uses for ultrasonic cleaners, and often those do have AR coatings.

Let's take a look at my little instruction booklet, why don't we? OK.

Well, here we go:

Glasses, sunglasses, watch chains, waterproof watches, etc..

Necklaces, rings, ear rings, bracelets, etc..

Electric shaver heads, razor blades, dentures, combs, tooth brushes, etc..

Watch parts, ancient coins, badges, machine nozzles, etc..

Forks, knives, spoons, etc..

Pen-heads, printer-heads, seals, etc..

 

And now, let's watch some handy videos...

 

 

https://www.youtube....aner+eyeglasses

 

 

 

 

 

 

the list is endless...

[Cadmium]

This last test was the best yet, most encouraging so far.

Tank full of water, S8612 in zip-lock bag full of usual 3% hydrogen peroxide, run 4 x 480 seconds, this time I used 'degas' for all 4 runs.

Totally clean, examined with magnifying glass.

I would like to thy this with some dirty UG11 or the like once I find any to see what difference there might be.

I didn't have to do any manual scrubbing to this at all. Given enough time, it was all cleaned off with the cleaner.

Sorry, no pics, getting tired of before/after shots for the time being.

I need to read up on the 'degas' method to find out more about it.

 

I think for cats and the like, probably if you put it out in the garage, or some place that is separate, isolated, and enclosed, then it should not be a problem.

That is probably Google-able also.

[Stefano]

High frequency sounds do not travel far. They can hardly pass through a wall. I don't know how sensitive a cat is.

[dabateman]

Cadmium,

These things are fun. Used to use them in the lab all the time to help break up amyloid protein deposits. I have used both the metal needle type (to break open cells) and the water bath type (for proteins).

 

For the water bath type there will be a spot of best vibration. If you have your stuff in a baggy, move it around slowly until the liquid in the bag starts to really get active. You will see it pulse or vibrate more. Thats the best point in your bath and most of the energy will be transferred at that point.

 

Some come with a wire basket that you put your stuff in and can move around to find the best spot.

I wouldn't just drop it to the bottom of the unit. But if that works, why not.

 

On to sunglasses. Some expensive Oakley sunglasses shouldn't be used in these baths. It will strip them. I don't know of others. I just saw that happen to a persons pair. They were quite upset to say the least.

 

Stefano,

These units produce an high pitch sound wave that can really irritate animal or people. Depends on your age if you can still hear some of the really high pitched pulses. I can still feel the sound just thinking about it. Best to wear ear plugs or shooting range ear protection.

[ulf]

High frequency sounds do not travel far. They can hardly pass through a wall. I don't know how sensitive a cat is.

Very sensitive and my flat is rather small. It did not work so I stopped.

[Stefano]

Thank you both for the answers. I actually have two cats, but I never used ultrasound devices near them (or in general).

[Cadmium]

My little booklet says the ultrasonic frequency is 42mHz.

I couldn't find much formal info about the danger to cats, etc., but they and other animals do hear higher than we do.

I would guess that if the unit is used in a separate close room that the frequency will not permeate to other rooms.

I would also wonder if these are bad for human hearing even though we can't hear that high.

I have been using mine unattended, for the most part, I start it in the shop, and then leave it there, and return later. It's not really too exciting to hang around an watch anyway... ;-)

I am now starting to wear the shooting headphone protectors that I use in the shop for loud equipment (if/when I am around the unit while it is running), just in case, even though the unit only emits a very soft audible buzz.

I have read somewhere, DO NOT put your hands/fingers in the solution when the unit is running, it can cause problems.

Play it safe for sure.

Meow.

[Cadmium]

OK, now I'm scared...

https://www.wikilectures.eu/w/Effects_of_Ultrasound

[Stefano]

Just like UV, that damages your eyes even though you can not see it, ultrasounds can damage your ears even though you can not hear them. Makes sense.

[ulf]

But the efficiency of transferring the sound from the transducer to air with an ultrasonic cleaner is normally not very efficient.

Small units for home usage have a rather limited power.

However you should not put your hands in the liquid when the cleaner is on.

 

The site Steve linked to above might be true in general, but the information is not indicating anything about typical exposure levels and have very few linked references.

 

Ultrasonic technology has been used for many years without any significant problems.

 

Compare

Using a microwave oven to standing directly in front of a high power radar.

Being in the sunshine for a reasonable time period to being exposed to high power UV-C illumination.

 

Both second alternatives are definitely harmful for the health, but the first are OK.

[dabateman]

Wait! I am not supposed to stand directly in front of a high powered radar while illuminating it with a germicidal UVc bulb? I will need new plans for tonight.

 

Humor Alert. I will sometimes say things injest, when thinking they sound overly silly.

 

Also don't be standing on a crocodile while standing in front of a high powered radar while illuminating it with a germicidal UVc bulb. Its just not nice for the crocodile.