I just ordered a Gem Dandy to try. Maybe I'll prefer it. I need to order an apron or something though, so I'm told. I'll report, maybe it'll be useful to you.
tima's DIY RCM
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
Hmmm ... that is interesting. I speculate what bio-inhibitor there is to maintain product shelf life. Does Tergitol 15-S-9 posess any anti-biologic property sufficient to be useful at its dilution in a tank?
I watched that video. I have no comment on the product. The demonstrator's manual handling of the record struck me as somewhat risky
Tim,
No. No nonionic or anionic surfactant has bio-inhibiting function. Cationic surfactants do (such as those in Hepastat) have disinfection properties. If you want more detail, my book Chapter VIII does go into some detail. Also, there is no report that shows that ethanol or IPA at very low concentrations have any bio-inhibiting function.
However, at this point, for the length you are using your bath you are not seeing any mold or other growth; so by experience its not something you need to worry about. Otherwise, as I said prior, your 0.2 micron absolute filter will remove bacteria, and the surfactant (organic load) in your rinse tank which does not have a 0.2 micron filter will be very low which does not promote bacteria growth.
Note that I poured off about half of my Tergitol 15-S-9 and placed into a clean HDPE bottle and stored in the frig. At <~40 deg the Tergitol 15-S-9 comes solid. I took it out after a year of storage and once it warmed it returned to liquid consistency and was fine - its back in the frig. The now 1/3 filled original container is approaching 2-yrs and its fine. I suspect it will last for many many years; and lets be honest, the Tergitol is not expensive.
Neil
Last edited:
That's an interesting experiment and result. Thanks.
Hepstat increased the TDS count in my wash tank when I tried it a while back. To my knowledge Ihave nothing resembling mold or growth in the tank or on cleaned records.
Hello Neil and Tim.
Tim, I hope your not upset if I ask a few more hand wash questions.
Neil, I read your book. I have a few remaining questions.
Can a micro fiber paint brush like you purchase at Home Depot be used as a cleaning brush. I have used as such for years. I cut chunks about 2" x 2" off the block and use one for dirty and one for rinse clean. I could always purchase the Clean Sweep, but I wonder if a large flat surface might not provide more agitation (in a good way) than a thin tip brush style.
A spin clean as is makes me question how often to change the fluid and how often to clean the brushes. I would be highly dependent on the contamination levels of the records.
I was thinking of taking the plumbing equipment I have from my ultrasonic attempt and using it to make a flow of filtered water in a spin clean. FWIW, I have never held a spin clean to know if what I want to do is possible. But I'm very creative. The Vinyl Stack for sink washing you have looks fine too. Just a spin clean seems to offer a bit of standardization and less splashed water. Less time standing over a sink brushing. My concern is, if I were to plumb a spin clean for the wash phase, would the brushes become contaminated with debris, even with a constant clean water flow in the unit?
If they were to be contaminated, would lightly brushing them in place with the filter pump running, utilizing a small nylon something that fit in the brush space work.
I have not handled a spin clean, but if the brushes removed easy, I assume running them under water in a sink and lightly agitating them against one another would work.
I will probably initial rinse over the sink with filtered tap water. My whole house has a carbon and bone char filter. The final rinse will be in another spin clean full of distilled water that I will change every 10 records or so.
If I use a sponge and lint free cloth for drying as recommended, how many uses should I consider before residual contaminants or general breakdown necessitate replacement. I saw near the end of the book XII.12 where it said they experience very little wear. But what is actually reasonable. And how much missed contaminants on the record surface will be pulled off onto the sponge. I fear the sponge becoming contaminated the most. Is there a recommended 100, 200, 500 record limit before replacing? Did I miss anywhere in the book where you recommend taking Liquinox or tergitol to wash the sponge out with?
As far as air drying, as a recommendation, I have found a short piece of 1/4" aluminum round stock, mounted in piece of wood that is screwed to a wall makes a great drying rack. Leave some space between records and the only contact point is the inside of the spindle hole. Of course, sanding the end of the spindle smooth makes usage much safer and easier.
Rex
Tim, I hope your not upset if I ask a few more hand wash questions.
Neil, I read your book. I have a few remaining questions.
Can a micro fiber paint brush like you purchase at Home Depot be used as a cleaning brush. I have used as such for years. I cut chunks about 2" x 2" off the block and use one for dirty and one for rinse clean. I could always purchase the Clean Sweep, but I wonder if a large flat surface might not provide more agitation (in a good way) than a thin tip brush style.
A spin clean as is makes me question how often to change the fluid and how often to clean the brushes. I would be highly dependent on the contamination levels of the records.
I was thinking of taking the plumbing equipment I have from my ultrasonic attempt and using it to make a flow of filtered water in a spin clean. FWIW, I have never held a spin clean to know if what I want to do is possible. But I'm very creative. The Vinyl Stack for sink washing you have looks fine too. Just a spin clean seems to offer a bit of standardization and less splashed water. Less time standing over a sink brushing. My concern is, if I were to plumb a spin clean for the wash phase, would the brushes become contaminated with debris, even with a constant clean water flow in the unit?
If they were to be contaminated, would lightly brushing them in place with the filter pump running, utilizing a small nylon something that fit in the brush space work.
I have not handled a spin clean, but if the brushes removed easy, I assume running them under water in a sink and lightly agitating them against one another would work.
I will probably initial rinse over the sink with filtered tap water. My whole house has a carbon and bone char filter. The final rinse will be in another spin clean full of distilled water that I will change every 10 records or so.
If I use a sponge and lint free cloth for drying as recommended, how many uses should I consider before residual contaminants or general breakdown necessitate replacement. I saw near the end of the book XII.12 where it said they experience very little wear. But what is actually reasonable. And how much missed contaminants on the record surface will be pulled off onto the sponge. I fear the sponge becoming contaminated the most. Is there a recommended 100, 200, 500 record limit before replacing? Did I miss anywhere in the book where you recommend taking Liquinox or tergitol to wash the sponge out with?
As far as air drying, as a recommendation, I have found a short piece of 1/4" aluminum round stock, mounted in piece of wood that is screwed to a wall makes a great drying rack. Leave some space between records and the only contact point is the inside of the spindle hole. Of course, sanding the end of the spindle smooth makes usage much safer and easier.
Rex
Rex:
Let me do my best to answer your questions - and I will need to do this in two posts: So Part I:
1. First - do you still have your UT Tank? The bear-bones 40KHz units will work for cleaning one or maybe two records at time; but not the 6 at a time that Tim does with the powerful Elmasonic. If you let me know what you have, I may be able to guide you into an acceptable UT record cleaning process.
2. Second - you can use any brush you want - but this is all the detail I can find on the 'paint pads' - 7" Non-Rip Paint Pad Refill | Shur-Line (shurline.com). The inherent problem is the nylon fiber is designed to hold fluid and paint which is suspended pigment - and there is no reason why it will not hold particulate. So after some indeterminate time cleaning records it stands to reason that it will saturate with particulate and begin giving it back. Would 'cleaning' the paint-pad brushes work as you describe - unable to say. Will the flat paint brush develop more agitation than the Record Dr brush - no. The agitation I can develop with the Record Dr is based on its narrow-width, flexible bristles and the speed/velocity I can move the brush. When I use the Record Dr for pre-clean with the Alconox Liquinox, the brush will fill with foam. Foam is very important when working with limited volumes of cleaners - it floats/lifts debris from the record so you do not grind it into the record.
3. But the Spin Clean does hold ~650 mL so it all comes down to how well the paint-pad releases the debris to the basin fluid. Do you have a Spin Clean? If not, an alternate is Knosti AntiStat Record Cleaning System - Generation 2 (turntableneedles.com) that uses longer bristle brushes versus the Spin Clean paint-pad style. I have been using the same Record Dr brush for over 500 records. But, it is very easy to clean/rinse and when dry easy to inspect with UV light to verify it is clean - free of particulate. I do not know if the same procedure will work with a paint pad.
4. The problem with the Spin Clean (or Knosti) is bath management. As I said above, the Spin-Clean holds ~650 mL of fluid. That is not a lot of fluid. If you are pumping at 1-gpm (3785 ml/min) that will over-load the basin so you would need to throttle down the pump flow to make it work - you could do this by placing a valve such asAmazon.com: Midline Valve 837Q034 Lead Free Pex Full Port Ball Valve with Tee Handle, 1/2 in.: Home Improvement at the filter outlet in the return hose to the Spin Clean. I would think that the Knosti style long bristle brush will flush clean similar to the Record Dr brush I use and much easier than a paint-pad with very small (length) bristles.
Neil
Rex
Part II:
5. The processes I recommend pretty much are based on Alconox Liquinox for pre-clean and Tergitol 15-S-9 for final clean (or substitutes for EU/UK), and then I adjust the concentration to match the process. If you are trying to develop a convenient process, and you have Spin Clean/Knosti and a filtered Ultrasonic tank, I discuss a basic process in Chapter XIV:
a. For dirty records - Pre-Clean with Alconox 0.25-0.5% or if not dirty - Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.05 to 0.1% in the Spin-Clean/Knosti. "XIV.9.2.b Many people pre-clean with the Spin-Clean® record washer Spin-Clean Record Washers (or equivalent). These manual spin type bath units have the benefit of not using a large bath so its economical to frequently replace the bath. Using a second unit for rinsing only is an option."
b. If no 2nd Spin-Clean for rinsing, rinse the record just little with DIW spray - it can drip into the Spin-Clean/Knosti (drain off as fluid level increases). Without a rinse - there will be some carryover of the Alconox or the Tergitol to the UT clean step.
c. Final clean 'filtered' UT tank: "XIV.10 Step 2 - Final Clean: Assuming no rinse after final clean with a DIY UCM, similar chemistry discussed for the Degritter™ can be used, but since there should be less risk of foam, slightly higher concentrations can be used. Exposure time should be similar to the pre-clean-UCM so that no part of the vinyl record is in contact with the final-cleaner for greater than 5 minutes. Assuming an exposure time of 2-3 minutes, with only 33% of the record exposed at any time, a total rotation time of about 6-9 minutes would be recommended subject to record rotation previously discussed paragraph XIV.5 . Your UT tank probably does not have the power that Tim's Elamsonic has, so you want some chemistry to assist the UT. Here are 2 no-rinse cleaning fluids.
-Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.01 to 0.015%
-Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.01 to 0.015% + 2.5% IPA
d. If you can rinse - just a simple DIW spray will work - it can drip into the UT tank.
6. You can air dry such as Tim does. Otherwise, as I state at the end of a cleaning session - Chapter V:
"Minimize handling the PVA sponge and microfiber cloths with bare-hands to keep the sponge and cloths clean. Dry hands shed dead skin cells constantly. The PVA sponge and the microfiber cloth with gloved hands can be cleaned/rinsed with DIW. If the PVA sponge or drying cloths become so dirty to require detergent laundering, they should be replaced."
"V.Step.16 Using the DIW spray or wash/rinse bottle, flush the Record Doctor™ Clean Sweep Record Brush, let dry and recommend storing in clean plastic bag or container to maintain cleanliness. Squeeze excess water from PVA sponge and store moist in a plastic bag or container. Hang microfiber cloth(s) to dry and once dry shake to remove any particulate, then recommend storing in clean plastic bag or container to maintain cloth cleanliness.
a. I have been using the same Anti-Static Tiger Cloth | kinetronics for over 500 records. It only sees a clean record that has some DIW on it, and the only time it sees an ungloved hand is when I shake it out after drying and store in plastic bag. The fabric being anti-static does not hold particulate - once dry, a good shake jettisons any particulate - and I can inspect/verify with the UV light. How much longer is it going last - TBD; ask me next year.
b. The 1st PVA sponge only lasted about 150 records. I contaminated the sponge with cotton fibers (that are organic) and other junk from a cotton cloth. I was using a cotton cloth to dry my gloved hands in-between cleaning steps. So my gloved hands got contaminated with cotton fibers that got on the sponge and then the record. I inspected a cleaned record with UV and its was full of particulate and I was WTF? I should have know better, cotton does not stay lint-free very long, and once its cleaned with liquid detergents - its contaminated; the cotton cloth(s) were contaminating the entire work area. And a sponge because of its pores once contaminated with fibers like that, will not come clean. So out go all the cotton cloths and I now use only lint free microfiber to dry my gloved hands (and my kitchen) - which are not exactly lint-free but way better than cotton. But, the sponges are cheap - The Super PVA Sponge Products (super-cool-products.com); I buy "335-0090 - The Super PVA White PVA Sponge Block in plastic storage case (no label but includes instructions): 5" x 3.25" x 1.38" - $9.95 each.". The storage case is convenient. How long is the 'new' sponge going to last now that I got rid of the cotton cloths - TBD; ask me next year.
c. BUT, if you are not going to wear gloves - you are probably better off not using the sponge to speed up the drying process - just air dry. Then inspect UV light and use the Anti-Static Tiger Cloth | kinetronics to dust-away any fibers/lint that drop-out of the air then sleeve.
I think I have addressed most if not all your questions. If I missed any - just let me know. Ad I said above, if you can give me the details of your UT tank - all may not be lost.
Take care,
Neil
Thanks Neil. You have done a very good job answering my questions.
Part of wanting to avoid a ultrasonic is the noise. I'm just kind of done with that thing for a while. I also want to be done with my vacuum. Its noisy and not of the best quality.
I get what Tima is doing and its great. Its streamlined, methodical and far less variation in performance. Its going to make a very clean record, repeatably. With a good ultrasonic and a point nozzle vacuum, you are going to have spotless records every time.
I personally want things done right. And Tima's process with good equipment is right. I don't want to half way it with my ultrasonic that starts to smell like some sort of smoke after running for a while. I being an electrician by trade know I am good with my hands. I could perform a very fast and effective hand washing process. Something I could jump in the basement and knock out 10 or so records at a time with.
Wanting to continue with the thought of some hand washing, I have a couple final questions.
V.Step.5 brushing motion. If I were to be using a Knosti washer, would I be spinning the wheel through a few revolution in one direction, then backwards, then forward. And at what speed? 1 revolution per second? Or would I want to use a more rapid forward-back-forwar-back motion (trying to mimic brushing) while slowly advancing the record through a minimum of 3 rotations.
Am I nuts to think about 3 x Knosti machines and a bucket for clean rinse between. First Knosti for pre wash. Remove and rinse with sink water from a spray bottle into bucket. Into second Knosti for second wash. Again remove and rinse with sink water. Into final Knosti filled with Distilled water. Remove and perform the drying process.
Got it on the gloves to handle the sponge and drying cloth. It sounds like my hands are the biggest offenders.
I also get the cleaning location needs to be very clean and free of all debris. Including cotton cloths. Only have lint free micro fiber cloths in the wash station.
Thanks for all the help to everyone.
Rex
Part of wanting to avoid a ultrasonic is the noise. I'm just kind of done with that thing for a while. I also want to be done with my vacuum. Its noisy and not of the best quality.
I get what Tima is doing and its great. Its streamlined, methodical and far less variation in performance. Its going to make a very clean record, repeatably. With a good ultrasonic and a point nozzle vacuum, you are going to have spotless records every time.
I personally want things done right. And Tima's process with good equipment is right. I don't want to half way it with my ultrasonic that starts to smell like some sort of smoke after running for a while. I being an electrician by trade know I am good with my hands. I could perform a very fast and effective hand washing process. Something I could jump in the basement and knock out 10 or so records at a time with.
Wanting to continue with the thought of some hand washing, I have a couple final questions.
V.Step.5 brushing motion. If I were to be using a Knosti washer, would I be spinning the wheel through a few revolution in one direction, then backwards, then forward. And at what speed? 1 revolution per second? Or would I want to use a more rapid forward-back-forwar-back motion (trying to mimic brushing) while slowly advancing the record through a minimum of 3 rotations.
Am I nuts to think about 3 x Knosti machines and a bucket for clean rinse between. First Knosti for pre wash. Remove and rinse with sink water from a spray bottle into bucket. Into second Knosti for second wash. Again remove and rinse with sink water. Into final Knosti filled with Distilled water. Remove and perform the drying process.
Got it on the gloves to handle the sponge and drying cloth. It sounds like my hands are the biggest offenders.
I also get the cleaning location needs to be very clean and free of all debris. Including cotton cloths. Only have lint free micro fiber cloths in the wash station.
Thanks for all the help to everyone.
Rex
Rex:
Again two parts, Part I:
If you use the Spin Clean or the Knosti or the Vinyl Styl VNST10060261 Vinyl Styl™ Deep Groove Record Washer System – Vinyl Styl, yes you want to spin in both directions. How fast, as fast as you can without slinging water all over the place. The best process to do this in small increments - say 30-60 deg to simulate the motion of a brush.
The Knosti or Vinyl-Style have a label protector and once installed if you have multiple units should easily move basin to basin. If you go down this path, you may wish to inquire if you can buy just the basin. With the label protector installed which has the tabs on either side, you should be able to easily fashion a bracket for it slot into to rinse in any basin of water - the UT tank can be repurposed for this purpose - just do not use the UT.
But, keep in mind that the carbon filters your house has are good for organic impurities. However, they will not remove total dissolved solids which if allowed to dry will form scale. You can install your own demineralizer (see Chapter VII) to get a readily available source of purified (spot free) water.
How many records can you clean with say a 650 mL basin before it needs to be refreshed:
-The pre-clean basin is doing most of the cleaning - say 80%. It needs to be replaced frequently. How frequently - I cannot say - its record(s) dependent but waiting until the bath is visibly dirty is too long.
-The final clean basin should not load up as fast, so you should be able to do about 3X the life (# of record) of the pre-clean basin
Final rinse with DIW - you could use the UT tank which will have a large volume and refresh when TDS measures 5-10 ppm. OR, just fashion a stand to support the label protector in the UT tank (or sink) and just use a spray bottle to do the final DIW rinse.
Neil
Rex,
Part II
If you are handy you could fashion a bracket plexiglass, HDPE or aluminum that could accept say the Groovemaster label protector - install in your UT tank. Fashion two sliding brackets - each holding a Record Dr brush that bolt/clamp to the top of the UT tanks - one on either side. Position the UT tank so it drains to a sink (or bucket). Install the Label protector, set into the bracket - brushes pre-positioned to contact record, spray both sides of the record with pre-cleaner - rotate back/forth as addressed above - apply additional pre-cleaner as necessary - just keep record wet,. Then use tap water (simple hose/nozzle) to rinse records and brushes, apply final cleaner, rotate back/forth, rinse with tap water and then use spray bottle for final rinse with DIW. This process mimics the manual procedure but is less labor intensive. It has the benefit that you do not need to worry about bath management, and every record see fresh cleaning agent.
Overall, there is any number of ways to do this. But you want to piece together a process that is Pre-Clean, Rinse, Final, Rinse, DIW Rinse, Dry.
Good Luck
Neil
Thanks Neil and Kingrex, that was an interesting discussion on manual or partly manual record cleaning. Neil is very thorough with many good suggestions and references.
So many people opted for CDs because they were tired of scratchy noisey records. I'm an advocate for cleaning records and it promotes the viability of the medium, so any approach or technique that actually results in clean records is a good thing. I've tried many of them over the years, from total manual cleaning to a Nitty Gritty vacuum, to a Loricraft machince, to an Audio Desk, and to the system that David and I have now.
From those experiences let me share a couple thoughts:
1. The LP is a difficult object physically to manipulate. Taking a record out of its jacket or sleeve to put it on a platter requires care. Imagine what you will do to clean a single record from removing it from its sleeve to returning it to its sleeve. Think about the various objects you will use or contact. Where do you keep them, pick them up, put them down, sometimes with a record in your hand. Write down each step. The risk of damage is the same for each record and the chance for any of us being perfect 100% of the time diminishes each time we handle that object, experienced as we may be. The lesser the time spent touching, holding, handling a record the better - consider this when choosing a cleaning method.
2. Part of the reason I went from a totally manual process through various stages of automation was seeking improved cleaning with convenience. But a large motivation was my desire to minimize the drudgery associated with record cleaning. Even with my Loricraft PRC-3 point-nozzle vacuum there were many steps involving various fluids for a single LP side, not to mention avoiding the carry-over of dirty fluid to the side just cleaned. I always had a stack of clean towels nearby. I speculate that the more work involved in cleaning a record and the more time it takes, the less likely one is to do it. When choosing a cleaning method consider the likelihood of that method encouraging you to use it and how often you will do that.
So many people opted for CDs because they were tired of scratchy noisey records. I'm an advocate for cleaning records and it promotes the viability of the medium, so any approach or technique that actually results in clean records is a good thing. I've tried many of them over the years, from total manual cleaning to a Nitty Gritty vacuum, to a Loricraft machince, to an Audio Desk, and to the system that David and I have now.
From those experiences let me share a couple thoughts:
1. The LP is a difficult object physically to manipulate. Taking a record out of its jacket or sleeve to put it on a platter requires care. Imagine what you will do to clean a single record from removing it from its sleeve to returning it to its sleeve. Think about the various objects you will use or contact. Where do you keep them, pick them up, put them down, sometimes with a record in your hand. Write down each step. The risk of damage is the same for each record and the chance for any of us being perfect 100% of the time diminishes each time we handle that object, experienced as we may be. The lesser the time spent touching, holding, handling a record the better - consider this when choosing a cleaning method.
2. Part of the reason I went from a totally manual process through various stages of automation was seeking improved cleaning with convenience. But a large motivation was my desire to minimize the drudgery associated with record cleaning. Even with my Loricraft PRC-3 point-nozzle vacuum there were many steps involving various fluids for a single LP side, not to mention avoiding the carry-over of dirty fluid to the side just cleaned. I always had a stack of clean towels nearby. I speculate that the more work involved in cleaning a record and the more time it takes, the less likely one is to do it. When choosing a cleaning method consider the likelihood of that method encouraging you to use it and how often you will do that.
Tim,
Great points.
I re-sleeve almost every record I buy with a new MoFi inner sleeve. I have found that to work well.
Second, with my setup (wash tank, rinse tank, air dry), the process is physically simple. Once I put the 5 records on the Kuzma spindle they stay there for the wash, rinse, and dry steps and until I remove them and put them away. All I am doing is moving the spindle. It really couldn't be easier. I start a cleaning process once I have at least 3-4 "new" records to clean. I can always fill the spindle with a 1-2 more records that I may not have cleaned using this setup. The cost of this setup was pretty high ($8k? for 2 tanks and 2 Kuzma stands plus the other parts) but I am done until something needs to be replaced.
P.S. Tim @tima is responsible for the majority of the setup and Neil @Neil.Antin has been an unbelievable resource for the solution part as well as all the filtering. All I did was follow directions and put it all together.
I would still be stalled out not doing anything and playing few of my records if it were not for Tima. I have suffered over how to clean a record for years. I have destroyed 2 cartridge playing dirty records. And who knows what I did to my vinyl.
Even buying a machine and using their detergent is nebulous. Heck, the guy selling the Knosti says use dish soap. I at least feel confident with the process and cleanimg solutions from what is in this thread. I'm not wrecking my vinyl.
I'm all over on business for a few weeks. When I get back I will put something together and report how it works. Is it a good process or a mess.
If I have to sit over a sink and wash records, Im not going to do it. I totally get the mechanical assistance. If I can't make a couple few brush tanks work, then I'm going to have to reassess.
Even buying a machine and using their detergent is nebulous. Heck, the guy selling the Knosti says use dish soap. I at least feel confident with the process and cleanimg solutions from what is in this thread. I'm not wrecking my vinyl.
I'm all over on business for a few weeks. When I get back I will put something together and report how it works. Is it a good process or a mess.
If I have to sit over a sink and wash records, Im not going to do it. I totally get the mechanical assistance. If I can't make a couple few brush tanks work, then I'm going to have to reassess.
Rex,
The people selling the 'hardware' have very little understanding of the chemistry; and there are many people who will swear by Blue Dawn dishwashing soap - here are the 18 ingredients - CPID (whatsinproducts.com). This does not rinse easily.
My concern is that you maybe painting yourself into a corner. You want a convenient process that provides excellent results but at low cost and is not noisy:
-Hand washing is a no-go - its too inconvenient;
-The noise of vacuum RCM like VPI likely eliminates this option. If you consider vacuum-RCM, you want one with a top air/vacuum draw - they are much more convenient and get better results; but you still have to do some manual brushing. I have worked with people over at VPI that get very good results with vacuum RCM using Alconox Liquinox @ 0.5%, DIW rinse, Tergitol 15-S-9 @ 0.05%, rinse, dry.
-It may eliminate UT tanks - the better higher frequency units that are reasonably quiet are too expensive? I am not sure of your $$$ threshold, but I worked with someone over at Steve Hoffman that put together a decent cleaning process using the Isonic UT (filtered) then moves the Isonic spinner to a tub of DIW for rinse and monitors the DIW with a TDS meter and refreshes at 5-10 ppm. See "latheofhevan" at Kirmuss Audio Ultrasonic RCM? | Page 54 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums. Note the Kirmuss is an Isonic unit but with a custom spinner - the slot-spinner makes it very convenient - you do not need to use his chemistry. This company sells high frequency 132 kHz UT tanks that should be very quiet - CleanerVinyl: Ultrasonic Vinyl Record Cleaning Systems. Yes, the filter systems are over-priced; you can DIY much better/cheaper.
The concept of multiple hand-spin/with brush tanks can work, but as Tim echoed above, if it becomes cumbersome, you are not going to be happy.
The simplest, cheapest, that some claim is very effective is the Audio Technica™ AT-6012 brush (the older white handle is the one most recommended, no one is sure of the newer black handle) with 91% IPA applied to the brush bristles or to the record directly. The older Audio Technica™ AT-6012 kit cleaner was mostly alcohol, the newer is a detergent - do not use. After every say 5-10 records, flush the brush with DIW to remove debris and then flush with a little bit of IPA to remove the DIW.
Hope this is of some help,
Neil
I bought the 3ml Calibrated Eye Dropper pipettes Neil mentions, and 1 pint of Tergitol 15-S-9 from Talasonline.com ($21.75 + ship) The calibrated pipettes graduated in 1,2 and 3 ml are a perfect tool for adding Tergitol to a tank - very nice, thanks for the suggestion Neil. I emptied the tank of its water+ILFOTOL solution along with the filter cannister. Filled tank and cannister with fresh distilled water then degassed the tank for 20 minutes. Then I added 2ml of Tergitol 15-S-9 to the tank and ran the pump. I can report that 2ml Tergitol in the 12.75 liter tank yields a small amount of foarm, nowhere near as much as the ILFOTOL I had been using (albeit with good result.) Fwiw, 1ml of Tergitol 15-S-9 showed no foam. Now I'll clean 4 records with three RD spacers between. Results later.
Yesterday I cleared my tank and refilled with distilled water and 2 ml of Tergitol. I found that it foamed a pretty good amount for the first run through. Given that I also do a full rinse cycle in a 2nd tank it wasn't an issue since anything that was left on the record surface after the wash cycle was quickly removed in the rinse cycle.
Can you send a link to the pipettes that you bought?
It is in Neil's reply quoted in my message #336 above - run your cursor over last sentence.
Btw, I took a picture of the foam in my wash tank (which I'll post later today) so you can compare.
A
"XIV.7.e....Additionally, the sequence of adding nonionic surfactant +IPA to water makes a difference. If you take a small glass container (150-200 mL) and just fill with tap-water, and do the following experiment the following will be observed:
• If IPA (2.5% equivalent) is added first and then add the non-ionic surfactant the surfactant does not immediately break-up, it sinks as a solid drop(s). It will go into solution but it needs to be agitated. As it’s agitated, the drop of surfactant break-ups and 'slowly' goes into solution.
• If 1-drop of non-ionic surfactant is added first, the drop immediately breaks-up and with some agitation quickly goes into solution.
Tim is not using IPA with Tergitol 15-S-9, but if you are, then first add the Tergitol 15-S-9 then add the IPA. Also, its noted that Tim degassed the DIW first before adding the Tergitol 15-S-9 and that may make a difference in the amount of foam produced.
Otherwise, the foam is mostly air - the amount of chemical that is carried-over to the rinse tank is very little. For your rinse tank, periodically obtain a small sample of the UCM bath water in a clean clear container (fill 1/4 to 1/2) such as 100ml Glass Round Media Storage Bottles with GL45 Screw Cap, Borosilicate Glass, Karter Scientific 251X2 (Pack of 2): Amazon.com: Industrial & Scientific (any clean glass jar will do). Cap, shake and verify no stable foam (foam across the entire surface) after 5-min. This will check/monitor for the build-up of Tergitol 15-S-9 in the rinse tank carried-over from the clean step.
Take care,
Neil
Are you using IPA? If so, you need to be careful when adding Tergitol 15-S-9 (and likely any concentrated surfactant):
"XIV.7.e....Additionally, the sequence of adding nonionic surfactant +IPA to water makes a difference. If you take a small glass container (150-200 mL) and just fill with tap-water, and do the following experiment the following will be observed:
• If IPA (2.5% equivalent) is added first and then add the non-ionic surfactant the surfactant does not immediately break-up, it sinks as a solid drop(s). It will go into solution but it needs to be agitated. As it’s agitated, the drop of surfactant break-ups and 'slowly' goes into solution.
• If 1-drop of non-ionic surfactant is added first, the drop immediately breaks-up and with some agitation quickly goes into solution.
Tim is not using IPA with Tergitol 15-S-9, but if you are, then first add the Tergitol 15-S-9 then add the IPA. Also, its noted that Tim degassed the DIW first before adding the Tergitol 15-S-9 and that may make a difference in the amount of foam produced.
Otherwise, the foam is mostly air - the amount of chemical that is carried-over to the rinse tank is very little. For your rinse tank, periodically obtain a small sample of the UCM bath water in a clean clear container (fill 1/4 to 1/2) such as 100ml Glass Round Media Storage Bottles with GL45 Screw Cap, Borosilicate Glass, Karter Scientific 251X2 (Pack of 2): Amazon.com: Industrial & Scientific (any clean glass jar will do). Cap, shake and verify no stable foam (foam across the entire surface) after 5-min. This will check/monitor for the build-up of Tergitol 15-S-9 in the rinse tank carried-over from the clean step.
Take care,
Neil
Neil, I am not using IPA. I am only using DIW plus the Tergitol.
I did not degass before adding the Tergitol. I am sure that when I do a second cycle in the wash tank the amount of foam will be minimal. That’s been my experience in the past.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |