ultrasonic cleaning - MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum (2024)

I would have to question any system that states that if you leave it too long, it could damage the objective. What is too long and how does one determine if the objective is damageable? Could is a word that should be considered a problem. I know the discreet implications of should, better than could.

Objectives are easily cleaned if they are dirty on the exterior surfaces and should never need to be cleaned if there has not been invasion of oils or water. This product seems similar to offering a method of cleaning the interior of an apple , prior to consumption.

They're selling bags for heaven's sake.

I've never heard of someone using an ultrasonic cleaner on an objective, and personally would NEVER do it with any of my objectives. Well, maybe a trashed one for sport. Traditional methods are too easy. Mechanical parts after disassembly, yes sometimes. Optics, no way.

Those bags don't interest me. Can't see any advantage of them for normal beings.

What damage exactly is to be expected? The blog hints at coatings and cements. How would you test it? I probably have a few oldies that could be sacrified for science, but they have hardly any optical quality to start with, so unless the cleaning is really destructive, I wouldn't be able to see any detoriation.

Also I own a couple of objectives that sofar have defied all my attempts to clean them. I think they are accreted with dead burned magnesia (DBM), which is chemically almost inert and heat resistant to well over a thousand degrees. Exploding the cristals by sonic cavitation starts to look appealing as a last resort, doesn't it?

I'd be worried about about the vibrations driving liquid past the seals around and between the lens elements themselves, and even removing the objective labels.

I've used an ultrasonic cleaner on lots of microscope parts in the last 15 years or so trying to restore old beat up scopes for school use. Those things will sometimes clean the paint right off! Old green grease can be harder to remove than paint. Never had the nerve to try it with optics.

I'd say this calles for an experiment. I've got this quartet of MPlans with (presumably) DBM deposits on the front lens. The 20x even is completely opaque, it looks like an ice-floor after a couple of days intensive skating... I don't know whether it's all due to crystals or someone has tried to wipe it causing hu8ndreds of scratches. But nothing lost there if the sonic cleaning fails. The magic that it could do is that it migt remove the stone-hard deposits without causing friction and therewith, scratches.

Tom Jones wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 02, 2024 8:18 pm

I'd be worried about about the vibrations driving liquid past the seals around and between the lens elements themselves, and even removing the objective labels.

I've used an ultrasonic cleaner on lots of microscope parts in the last 15 years or so trying to restore old beat up scopes for school use. Those things will sometimes clean the paint right off! Old green grease can be harder to remove than paint. Never had the nerve to try it with optics.

Good points, thank you. I will remove the outer barrel to be safe. As for the internal seals - would it be possible to do the cleaning without submerging the objective. So hanging it with just the front lens dipped in? Or are the fluid motions too hefty for that?

It's not just the seals, it's the glue holding the elements together. But hey, if they're already otherwise trash...

The liquid is what carries the ultrasound to the objects to be cleaned. Without the liquid I doubt the ultrasonic treatment will have any more effect than yelling at them would!