David,
Sorry to hear your UT went belly-up as they say. Any initial results with TDS from the aluminum Koolance radiator? Did your fans from your previous copper radiator move over easy?
Neil
tima's DIY RCM
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
Sorry to hear your UT went belly-up as they say. Any initial results with TDS from the aluminum Koolance radiator? Did your fans from your previous copper radiator move over easy?
Neil
Neil, I will have better information once I start with a clean tank and solution.
The fans moved over easily. It took me 5 minutes to switch them over.
I cleaned a 7 record box set with those parameters however they were new records. No issues, just not the best for assessment. Let me get back on your question after I've clean a couple batches of used LPs.
The record needs to be kept wet; many record appropriate surfactants provide some lubrication. The brush itself is v important. Short relatively stiff bristles made of a material that will not scratch, such as nylon. I used the Osage Audio brushes. Consider rinsing the brush while using it. Avoid pad type brushes that can trap particles ibetween the brush and record. Brush with the groove not against it. If something seems really stuck on a record I'd suggest first keeping it wet with cleaning solution to see if it will soften or solubilize. I am reluctant to use agressive scrubbing.
Aggressive is back & forth, not pushing down. Otherwise, as written in the book:
XII.4 The Record Doctor™ Clean Sweep Brush (Record Doctor Clean Sweep Brush-Audio Advisor) with clusters of 0.05 milli-meter (0.002”) wide Nylon bristles (260,000 bristles total) or the OSAGE™ Nylon record brush with 0.004” wide Nylon bristles should not deeply penetrate the record groove. Additionally, Nylon absorbs water and softens during use (but returns to original properties once dry). Furthermore, the bristle width is near equal to the top width of the record groove and when combined with the low surface tension of both the Alconox™ Liquinox™ and Dow™ Tergitol™ cleaning solutions should form a hydraulic wedge to force the cleaner deep into the groove. The back-and-forth brushing action should then develop the fluid agitation (a combination of shear force & cavitation) necessary to deeply scrub/clean/flush the groove. But, since a new Record Doctor™ Clean Sweep Brush (or OSAGE™ brush) does not deeply penetrate the groove, there should be very little risk of record harm. Additionally, use of the Nylon brush ‘wet’ mitigates developing static that could occur if used ‘dry’ because of the strong triboelectric effect (recall Figure 25) that would occur between the positively charged Nylon and the negatively charged record. Note that a brush that has been used ‘dry’ may over time develop Nylon bristles with a chiseled or elliptical tip that could deeply penetrate the groove.
I have both Osage and Keith Monks brushes. Both similarly delicate bristles, but KM has more of them. I do a bi-directional scrub quite aggressively as it was helping me in the past (tested by ear soak vs scrub). IIRC the Keith Monks guy was also pressing the brush quite hard against the record on the shows (without scrubbing - pressing down for 1 rev then vac off). BTW, I assume Nylon is softer then vinyl as a material right?
Edit: KM has apparently tapered bristles http://www.keithmonks-rcm.co.uk/features1.html#3
Edit: KM has apparently tapered bristles http://www.keithmonks-rcm.co.uk/features1.html#3
Last edited:
Jarek,
Long story short, there is no evidence the nylon filament bristle used by these record brushes are scratching the record (especially used wet) - the very thin flexible bristle helps a lot. Otherwise you can rest assured that carbon fiber (CF) is much harder than the record and the record is not being scratched at least when following the groove with these CF brushes.
For a bit more technical (and this is as far as I am willing to discuss); Nylon - known as polyimide has a wide variety of formulations, the most common for brushes are PA-6, PA-6.6 & PA-6.12 (or just PA-12). This chart shows the hardness of many plastics Shore D Hardness Test (Durometer Scale) - Hardness of Plastic Materials (specialchem.com) with the many variations of polyimide and PVC plasticized and rigid.
The record is not plasticized PVC, but a copolymer of polyvinyl-chloride-acetate (PVCa) and its hardness should fall somewhere between rigid-PVC (65 to 90) and the highest PVC-plasticized (70). So for arguments sake lets say that the hardness of PVCa is ~80. The likely nylon/polyimide filament bristle material is PA6.12 (PA12) and the worst case (unfilled) rigid version hardness is 72. So, its likely that from a pure material science analysis these nylon record cleaning brush bristle hardness is softer than the record PVCa.
One item to add is the natural color of nylon is clear, so the Stasis record brush Statis Groove Cleaner Wet Record Brush (ttvjaudio.com) is the same as the Record Dr brush, excepts its bristles are clear; same as the OSAGE, KM. The black coloring is a stable pigment and may be carbon-black. Is there a difference - I leave that to others to debate. I use the black Record Dr brush and it has stood-up to manual cleaning of 100's of records with a variety of cleaners.
Neil
For this reason, I guess, I no longer use CF dust brushes - I've seen too many hairlines put down by them, and while hairlines don't affect the sound, I also don't want them spoiling my records.
I have observed one interesting thing: People with a vast experience in LP cleaning seem to be against rubbing and lean more towards soaking. I know at least two - Tima and The Cat. I'm nowhere close to these two gentlemen with the number of cleaned LP's and I still believe in scrubbing. My inclination towards scrubbing comes from two sources:
i) Rational - I did a soaking vs scrubbing test only once, working on a hard but beautiful case (Sutherland singing Haendel); I first soaked (about 5mins per side) and scrubbed gently, then listened, then scrubbed more and aggressively and listened again, then again, the more I scrubbed the cleaner was the reproduction up to some limit when no additional scrubbing would offer any benefit (reached pretty quickly).
ii) Irrational (largely) - I have a *feeling* that some solidified dirt won't go away just by soaking or gentle scrub as the momentary, local velocities developed around the bristles will be too low (will carry to low momentum) to move it up into the cleaner. At least after reasonable soaking times. And the vacuum force will be too low to pull it up, at least generated by the lip-suction RCMs like ON. Perhaps soaking alone would be enough with high suction devices like KM or Loricraft, no experience here.
Cheers,
Cleaning agents work differently for different soils.
Lets differentiate the easiest - particles:
-Per the book, "XII.6.a ...there is an entire science on the removal of particles from surfaces....The paper Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces, Aerosol Science and Technology, M. B. Ranade, 1987 (38) shows for aluminum oxide particles, the force (acceleration) required to remove a 10-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^4 g’s, a 1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^6 g’s and a 0.1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^8 g’s." You are not going to develop the force to remove these particles w/o agitation.
-And,. as fluid flows past a surface, a boundary layer is developed and depending on its thickness (upwards of 5 microns) it will essentially shield any particles within it. So, agitation (and the associated fluid shear force) is critical in reducing the boundary layer to expose the surface within it as is back-&-forth motion (see the book XIII.3)
Organic types soils such as oil, grease, and variations thereof can be removed with the following, but each requires a different process:
-Solvents such as alcohol and enzymes - these need time to soak to either be absorbed by the soil (solvent swell), to dissolve it (solvent & enzyme) or to break-it up (enzyme). But enzymes and solvent are soil specific. In enzymes there is the Lock & Key analogy. The enyzme Key must fit the soil-Lock or nothing will happen. However, once soaked, they still need agitation to remove what swelled or what broke-up but was not dissolved.
-Surfactants work by surrounding, lifting and breaking-up soils. They need agitation. BUT, most enzyme cleaners have surfactants to assist with wetting, surrounding and lifting soils that were only broken-up.
The days of the universal solvent that could dissolve just about anything are gone. Per the book Forward,
Wishful Thinking: Everyone wants the silver bullet – the single cleaning solution. There was only one safe, nonflammable, cheap, superior solvent ever manufactured that could degrease and remove fine particulate in one step with a boiling point low enough to dry quickly leaving essentially no residue, and compatible with just about all materials - 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113), often known as Freon® PCA (precision cleaning agent). Unfortunately, chloro-fluorocarbon CFC-113 had this “small” problem with damaging the ozone layer, and by the Montreal Protocol of 1986, all manufacture stopped 1996. In its place were created the many equivalent aqueous cleaning processes now in-use. As a note of caution, non-flammable, high performance chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents such as perchloroethylene that are still manufactured; and easily purchased, are not CFCs but are highly toxic and known to cause cancer among other unpleasant effects.
Lets differentiate the easiest - particles:
-Per the book, "XII.6.a ...there is an entire science on the removal of particles from surfaces....The paper Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces, Aerosol Science and Technology, M. B. Ranade, 1987 (38) shows for aluminum oxide particles, the force (acceleration) required to remove a 10-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^4 g’s, a 1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^6 g’s and a 0.1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^8 g’s." You are not going to develop the force to remove these particles w/o agitation.
-And,. as fluid flows past a surface, a boundary layer is developed and depending on its thickness (upwards of 5 microns) it will essentially shield any particles within it. So, agitation (and the associated fluid shear force) is critical in reducing the boundary layer to expose the surface within it as is back-&-forth motion (see the book XIII.3)
Organic types soils such as oil, grease, and variations thereof can be removed with the following, but each requires a different process:
-Solvents such as alcohol and enzymes - these need time to soak to either be absorbed by the soil (solvent swell), to dissolve it (solvent & enzyme) or to break-it up (enzyme). But enzymes and solvent are soil specific. In enzymes there is the Lock & Key analogy. The enyzme Key must fit the soil-Lock or nothing will happen. However, once soaked, they still need agitation to remove what swelled or what broke-up but was not dissolved.
-Surfactants work by surrounding, lifting and breaking-up soils. They need agitation. BUT, most enzyme cleaners have surfactants to assist with wetting, surrounding and lifting soils that were only broken-up.
The days of the universal solvent that could dissolve just about anything are gone. Per the book Forward,
Wishful Thinking: Everyone wants the silver bullet – the single cleaning solution. There was only one safe, nonflammable, cheap, superior solvent ever manufactured that could degrease and remove fine particulate in one step with a boiling point low enough to dry quickly leaving essentially no residue, and compatible with just about all materials - 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113), often known as Freon® PCA (precision cleaning agent). Unfortunately, chloro-fluorocarbon CFC-113 had this “small” problem with damaging the ozone layer, and by the Montreal Protocol of 1986, all manufacture stopped 1996. In its place were created the many equivalent aqueous cleaning processes now in-use. As a note of caution, non-flammable, high performance chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents such as perchloroethylene that are still manufactured; and easily purchased, are not CFCs but are highly toxic and known to cause cancer among other unpleasant effects.
The reason scrubbing interests me is due to recent cleaning experience. My current regime is enzyme soak on vacuum RCM, then ultrasonic wash with surfactant then ultrasonic rinse in DIW with blow dry. This is by far my most successful method at present. But, I played an album after cleaning and it got stuck... investigating I found a stuck on piece of debris which I was able to gently dislodge with a cocktail stick and was able to recover the playability. I'm now wondering whether scrubbing might have removed that during cleaning along with other such stuck items that the soaking isn't removing and so would be a useful addition to my method. BUT, Neil's insights aside, intuition tells me that scrubbing my records has the potential for damage so I'm a little wary... I think I'll buy some "spare" albums and give it a go...
You might consider inspecting records with a UV flashlight before or after vacuuming. That should probably reveal debris such as you found and give you a targeted instance to avoid scrubbing every record.
We talked about this earlier:
tima's DIY RCM
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...
www.whatsbestforum.com
I'm noticing the precis in the above does not match the text of the cited post. But it appears to go to the correct place, post #346.
Such experiences, leaving the brilliant exposition of the subject by Neil aside, is exactly why I feel that scrubbing is necessary. Given the softness of wet, micron nylon bristles, if they can damage the grooves then the stylus should simply ruin them.
You are not the first with that concern. You may find these posts from the VPI Forum of interest:
Otherwise, for the Osage, Record Dr/Stasis brushes, the greatest risk of damage is from the handle. The sharp edges can cause damage if you apply too much pressure and the handle rubs/scratches the record - file those edges smooth to minimize.
You can buy the Record Doctor Brush via eBay - record doctor brush | eBay
You can by the Stasis Record Brush via eBay - stasis record brush | eBay
Good Luck,
Neil
From working with you over at the Steve Hoffman site, you have a very intensive single record at a time cleaning process:
Step 1 - Enzyme clean with a Nessie vacuum-RCM.
Step 2- Ultrasonic clean with 35kHz & surfactants
Step 3 - Ultrasonic clean with Degritter 120kHz & DW.
Your process has a lot of agitation. But, 30 to 60-sec of brushing (each side) during Step 1 should pay dividends for the type of debris you encountered. When you 'soak' the cleaner at the soil boundary becomes saturated/used-up and brushing brings-in/refreshes with fresh cleaner. Think about how a laundry machine works (and most laundry detergents have enzymes) - it can soak and then agitates.
Neil
Neil, I have one tough problem, if I may: Paint. Just came across one record that seem to have paint (!) markings. Extensive scrubbing did not help. Is there any safe way to remove it?
Jarek,
Try soaking the areas with Ethanol (undiluted). This could take 1-2 hrs. Use a Q-Tip (or equal) or a white clean piece of cotton so it remains wet. Every 30 minutes rub gently to see if there is color transfer which indicates it's working, albeit likely slowly.
If the Ethanol does not work, there are more 'extreme' alternatives such as using lighter fluid - but need to know what the composition is - people have reported acceptable results using Zippo lighter fluid SDS EU (Reach Annex II) (zippo.com). Zippo does not contain ketones such as methyl-ether-ketone, or toluene or acetone which will dissolve PVC.
Good Luck,
Neil
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |