Trial #2
To compare the current cleaner to other aqueous cleaner.
Oil was applied using a plastic pipette. Observations were made under black light conditions to determine the level of fluorescence. The two successful chemistries from the previous trial and the client supplied cleaner were made into 5% 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 without the ultrasonic unit working. Parts were inverted and cleaned for another 3 minutes using the ultrasonic energy. Each part was removed and rinsed with tap water at 120 F for 20 seconds and dried with a Master Appliance Heat Gun model HG-301A. Black light observations were made and recorded.
SUBSTRATE MATERIAL: Nickel Alloy-Inconel
CONTAMINANTS: Oil--EDM Fluid
CONTAMINATING PROCESS USED: Oil was applied using a plastic pipette. Oil was made to fluoresce using Spectronics Corporation’s AR-GLO® 1.
All three chemistries removed almost all of the oil from the parts. Table 1 lists the cleaner, observations and ranking.
Table 1. Comparison of Chemistries
| CHEMISTRY
|
OBSERVATIONS
|
RANKING (1 = Best, 3 = Worst)
|
| Blue Gold
|
Some spots near the fine holes
|
3
|
| Valtech
|
Very little oil spots
|
1
|
| SWR One
|
Some spots near the edge holes
|
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.
Two cleaners, Valtech and SWR One, were determined to clean as well as the client’s current cleaner.
No relation