Trial #1
To compare the current cleaner to other aqueous cleaner.
Parts were immersed into a beaker containing the oil. Observations were made under black light conditions to determine a baseline level of fluorescence. Five cleaners were selected from the laboratories database of previous trials and from vendor information. Chemistries were made into 15% solutions using DI water in 600 mL beakers. The beakers were placed into a 40 kHz Crest ultrasonic unit model 4Ht 1014-6 and heated to 150 F. One part was placed into each beaker and cleaned for three minutes with the ultrasonic unit working. Parts were inverted and cleaned for another 3 minutes. Each part was removed and rinsed with tap water at 120 F for 20 seconds and allowed to air dry. Black light observations were made and recorded.
CONTAMINANTS: Oil--Zyglo Penetrant ZL-27A
CONTAMINATING PROCESS USED: Parts were immersed into a beaker containing the oil
Two of the six chemistries tested proved to have excellent removal of the oil. The amount of fluorescence on the parts was similar to the current cleaner. Table 1 ranks the six cleaners tested in this experiment.
Table 1. Comparison of Chemistries
| CHEMISTRY
|
RANKING (1 = Best, 6 = Worst)
|
| Blue Gold
|
3
|
| Daraclean
|
5
|
| Inproclean
|
4
|
| Valtech
|
1
|
| Aquasonic
|
6
|
| SWR One
|
2
|
Very little of the oil remained on the Valtech cleaned part as evidenced under black light. SWR One part was almost as clean as the Valtech part. The Blue Gold, Inproclean and Daraclean parts all had dark spots on them. Under the black light these spots fluoresced. Amounts of the oil remaining on the Aquasonic cleaned part were visible without the use of black light.
Two cleaners, Valtech and SWR One, were determined to clean as well as the client’s current cleaner, Zyglo Emulsifier. The next experiment will compare these two cleaners to Blue Gold in the removal of the EDM oil.
No relation