Trial Purpose:
Further evaluation of positioning during cleaning
Date Run:
05/16/1995Experiment Procedure:
Testing the how the positions of the tubes will effect the cleaning inside the tubes. Two cleaners will be used, 10% Skyproducts Cleaner #10 and 4% ManGill #0650. For Each Cleaner. three position of the copper rods will be used. First the tubes will be filled with water and pointed hole side up (about a 60 degree angle). Second, the tubes will be filled with water and lie on their side. Finally, the tubes will be filled with water and pointed hole side down.
Samples were cleaned using Crest Ultrasonics in a beaker for 15 minutes at 140 degrees. For all three testing conditions we made sure that the tubes were totally filled with cleaner solution before cleaning. The samples were rinsed in a beaker filled with tap water at 140 degrees and agitated with a stirbar. The tubes were rinsed with the hole side up so that the oil was allowed to escape. After rinsing the water was drained out of the tubes and they were placed in a convection oven set at 160 for an hour and then in a vacuum oven set at for one hour. The tubes were then left out through the night in a desiccator. All samples were weighed before cleaning and after drying. The amount of residual oil on the inside of the tubes was checked by inserting a cotton swab in the hole and noticing the oil buildup on it. The amount of oil buildup will be termed: none, slight, moderate, heavy.
Trial Results:
Gravimetric Analysis
| sample # and positioning | amount of oil inside tubes (swab test) | weight with contamination(g) | weight after cleaning (g) | weight change (g) |
| 73,upward | slight | 15.6945 | 15.6683 | 0.0262 |
| 74, upward | slight | 15.7376 | 15.7181 | 0.0195 |
| 75, upward | slight | 15.562 | 15.5396 | 0.0224 |
| 76,upward | slight | 15.6617 | 15.6134 | 0.0483 |
| 77, upward | slight | 15.5974 | 15.5769 | 0.0205 |
| 78, upward | slight | 15.6204 | 15.6098 | 0.0106 |
| 79, upward | none | 15.6362 | 15.6256 | 0.0106 |
| 80, upward | moderate | 15.5382 | 15.4963 | 0.0419 |
| 81, sideways | moderate | 15.6331 | 15.6114 | 0.0217 |
| 82, sideways | slight | 15.5534 | 15.5463 | 0.0071 |
| 83, sideways | slight | 15.5617 | 15.5293 | 0.0324 |
| 84, sideways | heavy | 15.5791 | 15.5556 | 0.0235 |
| 85, sideways | slight | 15.4786 | 15.4661 | 0.0125 |
| 86, sideways | slight | 15.6695 | 15.6598 | 0.0097 |
| 87, sideways | moderate | 15.5421 | 15.5358 | 0.0063 |
| 88, sideways | slight | 15.6569 | 15.6247 | 0.0322 |
| 89, downward | slight | 15.6124 | 15.5965 | 0.0159 |
| 90, downward | heavy | 15.631 | 15.6305 | 0.0005 |
| 91, downward | moderate | 15.656 | 15.6271 | 0.0289 |
| 92, downward | heavy | 15.6042 | 15.5612 | 0.0430 |
| 93, downward | moderate | 15.6173 | 15.5832 | 0.0341 |
| 94, downward | moderate | 15.5984 | 15.5929 | 0.0055 |
| 95, downward | heavy | 15.6092 | 15.6122 | ‑0.0030 |
| 96, downward | moderate | 15.6375 | 15.6071 | 0.0304 |
Notes and Observations:
Hole side up-Oil removal from the inside of the tubes was very noticeable upon insertion into the ultrasonic bath. Water easily entered the tubes during cleaning and rinsing. Average removal was .025 grams with a standard deviation of .0136.
Hole side down-No noticeable removal during cleaning, but when emptying the cleaner out of the tubes after cleaning, a lot of oil came out. The same observation was made after draining out the tubes after rinsing. Average removal was .0226 grams with a standard deviation of .0157. Sideways-After about ten minutes in the Ultrasonic bath, oil started to come out of the tubes and
continued for the duration of the cleaning. A bunch of oil came out of the tubes when drained after cleaning and rinsing. Probably would achieve better removal with either tubes pointed up slightly or with a longer cleaning time. Tubes were harder to fill up in the cleaner solution, they needed to be tipped up a bit and shaken around. Average removal was .0182 grams with a
standard deviation of .0107
Success Rating:
Results successful using TACT (time, agitation, concentration, and temperature, as well as rinsing and drying) and/or other cleaning chemistries examined.Conclusion:
Tubes looked pretty clean but there seemed to be a slight amount of white, tacky residue left on the tubes. There was also a bit of copper chips noticed on the bottom of the beaker of Mangill cleaner solution. I believe this wasn't caused by the Ultrasonic cleaning but was just the removal of small copper chips that were on the tubes prior to cleaning. Swab tests showed that the upright positioning of the tubes did a better job of removing oil from the inside. The Mangil Gillite 0650 cleaner was not as effective as the Skyproducts cleaner despite removing a larger mass in all three positions.
