tima's DIY RCM

[Bobvin]

As a water purification pro for the last 20 years, I will say you can save on the .2 micron absolute filter… .2 micron absolute is what I use in lab water systems as it is the standard for removal of bacteria, cyst, and virus. The absolute rating makes it expensive. It is my opinion for washing records this is significant overkill, and you would not notice any difference using a 1 micron filter, which would be $3 - $5 vs $50. I‘m not too worried my records will catch the covid

 

[Neil.Antin]

I now have Liquinox here and look forward to trying it out. I will use it on my vacuum RCM which can dose out the fluid and also does agitation as the record rotates. I will also do some manual scrubbing too and test results.

However, because the RCM has a reservoir from which it doses the fluid, I can only easily use one type of fluid at a time. Neil - do I infer correctly that you feel Liquinox is the best pre-cleaner to use given a choice between it and say an Enzyme cleaner? I note you previous analogy about enzymes being a lock and key situation, and therefore of potentially limited applicability whereas Liquinox is more of an all-rounder which therefore gives on average better results?

Anybody know of any vacuum RCMs out there which support multiple reservoirs so that different fluids can be used?!

What Nessi RCM do you have? The Vinylmaster Nessie Vinylmaster V8 | NESSIE Vinylmaster Serie (vinylcare.de) has the option to do a manual clean, where you manually apply cleaner. You should have a couple of options:

1. Use only the Liquinox with the reservoir. Liquinox does best with agitation.
2. Use the enzyme as a manual application with soak & then rinse and then followed up with Liquinox from the reservoir with immediate agitation.
3. Use the Liquinox as a manual application with agitation & then rinse, and then follow-up with enzyme from the reservoir with soak and then rinse.

Given that the enzyme cleaner is soil specific and needs time to soak this may make use as a manual application preferred, using the Liquinox in the reservoir. Whether to use the enzyme then becomes a matter of record condition. As I wrote in the book, exceptionally dirty records often need two applications of pre-cleaning. So, in this case, first applying the enzyme then applying Liquinox maybe the best process. But you may find Liquinox 1st and then enzyme is better; or just two-doses of the Liquinox best. Without knowing what is in the enzyme cleaner, its hard to make a valid assessment of it.

But, in the interest of speeding up the process, the 'normal' cleaning process can be Liquinox in which case, its what is used in the reservoir.

Good Luck,
Neil

 

[Neil.Antin]

As a water purification pro for the last 20 years, I will say you can save on the .2 micron absolute filter… .2 micron absolute is what I use in lab water systems as it is the standard for removal of bacteria, cyst, and virus. The absolute rating makes it expensive. It is my opinion for washing records this is significant overkill, and you would not notice any difference using a 1 micron filter, which would be $3 - $5 vs $50. I‘m not too worried my records will catch the covid

Here is a good quality 1-micron 'nominal' filter - Amazon.com: Pentair Pentek PD-5-934 Sediment Water Filter, 10-Inch, Under Sink Polydepth Polypropylene Replacement Cartridge, 10" x 2.5", 5 Micron : Tools & Home Improvement and here is the cut sheet - Polydepth.pdf (filterpure.com). The 95% filter efficiency point is 7.5 um. For people that are cleaning say 5-6 records at time, this is not going to keep the tank very clean for very long. A prior post #468 in this thread indicated that the tank was visibly turbid after 30 records with a 0.5 micron (likely nominal) - that is only 5-6 batches. And, 7.5um is a big particle as far as the stylus is concerned.

If you use a 1um nominal filter then you end up refreshing the bath more frequently. And, yes the cost of simple purified demineralized/distilled water is not expensive - it comes down to convenience and time. To refresh the bath, you have to drain the tank, clean the tank, refill the tank, measure out the chemistry, recirculate, then degas. Oh, and strictly by-the-way, yes as you point out a 0.2 micron absolute filter will remove bacteria and 'COVID" which for people who may be using the same bath for weeks, helps to keep the batch fresh.

But to put this into context, this is all about achieving the best level of cleanliness possible to extract the most that the record can playback. Anticipating the question - how long can you keep the record 'clean', longer than expected and its comes down to the particle deposition rate from the air which for small particles (less than ~10um) is very slow (its a function of Stokes Law, and terminal velocity). Once the record is spinning - there should be enough turbulence above to keep the really small stuff from depositing into the groove - larger fibers will deposit on the record, but generally above the groove and can be brushed away.

Neil

 

[rDin]

What Nessi RCM do you have? The Vinylmaster Nessie Vinylmaster V8 | NESSIE Vinylmaster Serie (vinylcare.de) has the option to do a manual clean, where you manually apply cleaner. You should have a couple of options:

1. Use only the Liquinox with the reservoir. Liquinox does best with agitation.
2. Use the enzyme as a manual application with soak & then rinse and then followed up with Liquinox from the reservoir with immediate agitation.
3. Use the Liquinox as a manual application with agitation & then rinse, and then follow-up with enzyme from the reservoir with soak and then rinse.

Given that the enzyme cleaner is soil specific and needs time to soak this may make use as a manual application preferred, using the Liquinox in the reservoir. Whether to use the enzyme then becomes a matter of record condition. As I wrote in the book, exceptionally dirty records often need two applications of pre-cleaning. So, in this case, first applying the enzyme then applying Liquinox maybe the best process. But you may find Liquinox 1st and then enzyme is better; or just two-doses of the Liquinox best. Without knowing what is in the enzyme cleaner, its hard to make a valid assessment of it.

But, in the interest of speeding up the process, the 'normal' cleaning process can be Liquinox in which case, its what is used in the reservoir.

Good Luck,
Neil

Nessie Vinylmaster, yes, although the V8 looks like an iteration on from mine. I *think* I can manually dose on mine - will check.

I use Nitty Gritty Enzyme+, mainly because it's the cheapest available to me. No idea of ingredients. It is also my most expensive cleaning consumable, so will be a bonus to replace with one bottle of Liquinox which should clean magnitudes more records compared to Nitty Gritty.

Will experiment. Thanks!

 

[rDin]

And, yes, manual mode is available, although it's not entirely intuitive to begin with, which is why I never spotted it before. This machine gets better and better

 

[tima]

As a water purification pro for the last 20 years, I will say you can save on the .2 micron absolute filter… .2 micron absolute is what I use in lab water systems as it is the standard for removal of bacteria, cyst, and virus. The absolute rating makes it expensive. It is my opinion for washing records this is significant overkill, and you would not notice any difference using a 1 micron filter, which would be $3 - $5 vs $50. I‘m not too worried my records will catch the covid

...

If you use a 1um nominal filter then you end up refreshing the bath more frequently. And, yes the cost of simple purified demineralized/distilled water is not expensive - it comes down to convenience and time. To refresh the bath, you have to drain the tank, clean the tank, refill the tank, measure out the chemistry, recirculate, then degas. Oh, and strictly by-the-way, yes as you point out a 0.2 micron absolute filter will remove bacteria and 'COVID" which for people who may be using the same bath for weeks, helps to keep the batch fresh.

But to put this into context, this is all about achieving the best level of cleanliness possible to extract the most that the record can playback. Anticipating the question - how long can you keep the record 'clean', longer than expected and its comes down to the particle deposition rate from the air which for small particles (less than ~10um) is very slow (its a function of Stokes Law, and terminal velocity). Once the record is spinning - there should be enough turbulence above to keep the really small stuff from depositing into the groove - larger fibers will deposit on the record, but generally above the groove and can be brushed away.

Neil

I added a 1 micron filter to my original build based on using air drying which was part of meeting my goal to batch process 4-6 records in a reasonable amount of a time in a single step. I figured that whatever is in the water when you pull records from the tank can dry on the record.

The first of the changes I made to my cleaning process was to improve air drying through better water quality caused by better filtration and monitoring. I switched to a 0.35 micron filter. Then I learned about the nominal/absolute difference in filter ratings. (The whole project has been a learning process.) I found a 0.2 micron absolute rated filter and Neil found a pump to drive it. I was less concerned about filtering bacteria than simply wanting really clean water.

A stylus can resolve physical features in the groove of 0.1 microns. (cf. Harley, An LP Primer, p.3, pdf). If you accept that claim and are willing to push what is possible in a DIY RCM, then the 0.2 micron absolute filter makes sense - at least it does to me. Yes, the cost of such a filter is more than eilther the 1 micron or 0.35 micron filters I tried, but hat filter may stay useable for a longer time and it is about the cost of a single fancy 200g audiophile record.

Since then I added an ultrasonic rinse tank that is filtered by the 0.35 micron nominal filter powered by the Little Giant pump that I had used previously on the wash tank. I'm trying the system as it is and gauging results. I'm quite satisfied. But then, I was quite satisfied with each step of improvements made along the way. Part of the project is pushing the envelope and clean records achieved with efficiency is prioritized over saving money.

As I wrote three years ago in my third article on The Vinyl Press: "If you think this is all fanaticism, I won't disagree."

 

[rDin]

First observation using Liquinox: I would normally start with an enzyme soak, vacuum that off and then spray on a surfactant - the surfactant would normally form puddles on the surface which I then brush about to cover the surface. After cleaning with Liquinox, the surfactant spray immediately sinks into the grooves and spreads itself out. This suggests that the vacuum wasn't removing the enzyme fluid completely and there was enough residue left for the surfactant to "sit" on? With the Liquinox there is no residue (or much less) and the surfactant goes straight into the grooves. This seems like a good thing

Second observation: manually applying the enzyme fluid results in much less being used compared to what the Nessie would normally dose in order to cover the surface. Another "good thing" as it should use the product more economically.

First listening test this afternoon.

 

[Bobvin]

Lots of pages Tim, I haven’t read through them all. What is your water source… are you buying distilled or DI water, or making it?

 

[Neil.Antin]

First observation using Liquinox: I would normally start with an enzyme soak, vacuum that off and then spray on a surfactant - the surfactant would normally form puddles on the surface which I then brush about to cover the surface. After cleaning with Liquinox, the surfactant spray immediately sinks into the grooves and spreads itself out. This suggests that the vacuum wasn't removing the enzyme fluid completely and there was enough residue left for the surfactant to "sit" on? With the Liquinox there is no residue (or much less) and the surfactant goes straight into the grooves. This seems like a good thing

Second observation: manually applying the enzyme fluid results in much less being used compared to what the Nessie would normally dose in order to cover the surface. Another "good thing" as it should use the product more economically.

First listening test this afternoon.

What 'surfactant' are you using - is it the Dehypon LS54 or ILFORD? If either of these surfactants puddled/beaded up after the enzyme cleaner it left some kind of incompatible coating/residue which is odd to say the least. Either 'surfactant' is nothing more than nonionic surfactant which is compatible with all water soluble surfactants. Either 'surfactant' should have a low enough surface tension to 'wet/spread-out' on the record instantly - just like the Liquinox which also has a very low surface tension. If the enzyme cleaner has an oil-soluble nonionic surfactant component - such as Tergitol 15-S-3 that is in Tergikleen then the residue left behind could cause the subsequent beading. The post application of the water soluble surfactant will need some agitation to emulsify the oily-surfactant residue.

Based on your observation, I would recommend only using the enzyme as a manual preclean to be followed by the Liquinox. The Liquinox which is a more aggressive cleaner will be much more suitable to remove residue left by the enzyme cleaner.

The Liquinox is an industry-standard and is designed for ease of rinsing - however as their own technical data sheet says -Liquinox_tech_bull.pdf (alconox.com) - "For critical cleaning, do final or all rinsing in distilled, deionized or purified water.". Also, either 'surfactant' is just a nonionic surfactant and it is compatible with all the components in Liquinox and so regardless of how well you vacuum the Liquinox the 'surfactant' will instantly wet deep into the grooves to remove any residue and/or softened exposed detritus.

Keep us advised,
Neil

 

[rDin]

What 'surfactant' are you using - is it the Dehypon LS54 or ILFORD?

My "surfactant" is a mix of Ilfotol and Glycol. I'm following Paul Rigby's (Audiophile Man) recipe, although replacing TergiKleen with Ilfotol. He uses a little glycol to help the surfactant stick to the record while vertical. I must say I've never tried it without glycol. Perhaps I should, but wouldn't want surfactant running down over the labels... I found with the Dyphon that it's quite "gooey" and would quickly transfer into the Degritter leading to foam after a few records were cleaned. No foam ever with Ilfotol with my current method.

If either of these surfactants puddled/beaded up after the enzyme cleaner it left some kind of incompatible coating/residue which is odd to say the least.

Could it be the glycol?

Based on your observation, I would recommend only using the enzyme as a manual preclean to be followed by the Liquinox. The Liquinox which is a more aggressive cleaner will be much more suitable to remove residue left by the enzyme cleaner.

Yes. Am following your previous suggestion of enzymes manually for obviously dirty records, otherwise Liquinox only.

Keep us advised,
Neil

Listened to two Liquinox scrubbed records this afternoon. Most likely a coincidence, but both had strikingly quiet backgrounds and almost no clicks/pops. One was a recently purchased 1971 second hand album for which I had no high expectations at all and the other was from 2000 which I've owned from new. I'm most surprised by the 1971 album. I will be keeping a keen ear open going forward, but so far am impressed.

 

[Neil.Antin]

Could it be the glycol?

It should not. Propylene glycol (PG) is completely miscible/soluble in water, and propylene glycol reduces the surface tension of water; not a lot; a 10% propylene glycol-water solution reduces the surface tension from 72 dynes/cm to about 51 dynes/cm. Its not much but it will be complementary with the ILFORD that should drops the surface tension much more. But. what is mixture that you are using for the ILFORD (mL ILFORD/L water) and the PG (mL PG/L water)?

Neil

 

[tima]

Lots of pages Tim, I haven’t read through them all. What is your water source… are you buying distilled or DI water, or making it?

Yes, lots of pages, Bob - over 3+ years and that's on top of another year acoss which David and I built our original systems and modified them several times. Personally, I find my experience and our group knowledge has come a long way. And I'd like to think that others, participating in thread or not, have gotten some ideas for maintaing and preserving their record collections. All of us gain hugely from Neil Antin's friendly participation and world-class publication.

Back around 2006 when I was cleaning records with the Loricraft PRC-3 point nozzle machine I bought lab grade reagent water, usually NERL (NRL 9805) in 5 gallon boxes. There was a time when it could be found relatively cheap and so was shipping - $33 with shipping. Those days are gone. It's now owned byThermo Fischer Scientific and sells >$100 + shipping.

Since using the Audio Desk Systeme machine (also gone) I buy 89¢/gallon distilled water from the grocery store. I don't know the ppm of NVR (non volatile residue) in grocery store distilled water, it probably varies and maybe there is no standard, only a general range. Filtering through 0.2 micron prior to adding Tergitol no doubts helps.

My understanding from chapter IV of Neil's 'book' says there are different grades/standards/ of water quality, ranging in TDS from <0.028ppm (ASTMD D1193 type 1) to <500ppm for EPA Drinking Water Standard. Granted not all residue is detectd by a TDS reader.

Neil said DIW has an NVR of <2.5 ppm. He recommended to me the D.I. Rinse Pro 50 System ($400) and I think it's also mentioned in his 'book'. From a 1/2 cubic foot of their resin the system will yield 2000 gallons of deionized water. Refill resin is ~$215 for two. I'm sure you are fully aware of this product and water quality standards, so I mention it for others. If you have alternatives, please share. This could be a next step for me.

Bob, thank you for your interest.

 

[rDin]

It should not. Propylene glycol (PG) is completely miscible/soluble in water, and propylene glycol reduces the surface tension of water; not a lot; a 10% propylene glycol-water solution reduces the surface tension from 72 dynes/cm to about 51 dynes/cm. Its not much but it will be complementary with the ILFORD that should drops the surface tension much more. But. what is mixture that you are using for the ILFORD (mL ILFORD/L water) and the PG (mL PG/L water)?

Neil

Currently 2.5mL/L Ilford/water and about ~6% glycol/water. Is there a better ratio?

 

[Neil.Antin]

Currently 2.5mL/L Ilford/water and about ~6% glycol/water. Is there a better ratio?

The ILFORD as delivered is already diluted between 20:1 and 10:1; it contains only 5-10% nonionic surfactant. When you prepare the ILFORD at 2.5mL/L = 0.25% and then accounting for the as delivered concentration = (0.25%)(0.1%) = 0.025% = 250 ppm (max) or 125 ppm (min). This is a good range for concentration and will yield a fluid with a low surface tension and whatever detergency the surfactant can provide.

As far as the PG which is added to increase the viscosity, if its working - no reason to change. However, if you want to experiment, here are some approximate viscosities of PG in water at 20C/68F to guide you:
0%= 1.00
3% = 1.45
6% = 1.98
10% = 2.80

FWIW: I am surprised when you said the Dehypon LS54 produced a lot of foam; it should foam less than the ILFORD. Being a 100% concentrated product it can be difficult to get the right concentration. Preparing a 5% solution (5 mL/L) and then proportioning from that similar to what you do with the ILFORD could be an option. If you do prepare a 5%, then you would only need 2.5 to 3 mL/L. If you have already tried this - disregard this comment.

Thanks for your info,
Neil

 

[rDin]

Thanks, Neil. I honestly cannot recall my exact method when testing Dyphon. I’d need to check my notes. I do recall that my thoughts at the time were that the Kirmuss wasn’t removing it completely, due to its stickiness, and so more was making in onwards to the Degritter for rinsing compared to less or none of the ILFORD. The Dyphon then built up to foaming levels In the Degritter.

I now refresh my Degritter water every session (max 5 records) so I suspect I’d be able to return to Dyphon without issues. But as ILFORD a is working exceptionally well there’s no urgency here.

Liquinox is a big step up. More listening done today and every record, even damaged ones with their own noise issues, sound much cleaner overall - the noise floor is lowered allowing more music detail through. Very pleased.

 

[squasher]

What is the current recipe for the cleaning solution?

Apologies if this question has been answered many times before but I wish there was a sticky (and updated) post that provided this info. As the thread gets longer and longer and the recipe changes), it becomes difficult to find this.

Thanks in advance

 

[dminches]

I don’t think there is 1 recipe.

I am using 3L of distilled water and 15-18 drops of Tergitol 15-S-9.

 

[dminches]

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

I finally got my Elma tank back from repair (short on the main PCB which was causing the fuse to blow; repaired at no charge).

I have run a couple cleaning sessions and all is working well. With the 2 fan radiator in the loop, the tank temperature stays at 31 degrees C which is what I was hoping for.

After the next session I will check the TDS reading to see if there is any contamination being caused by the radiator.

 

[Neil.Antin]

I don’t think there is 1 recipe.

I am using 3L of distilled water and 15-18 drops of Tergitol 15-S-9.

David,

This is what @tima is doing; https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/timas-diy-rcm.26013/post-733746.

Overall you are both getting about 160 ppm Tergitol 15-S-9 = 0.0160%. So for 3L = (3000 mL)(0.00016) = ~0.5 mL; and for 12L = (12000 mL)(0.00016) = ~2 mL.

Neil

 

[dminches]

David,

This is what @tima is doing; https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/timas-diy-rcm.26013/post-733746.

Overall you are both getting about 160 ppm Tergitol 15-S-9 = 0.0160%. So for 3L = (3000 mL)(0.00016) = ~0.5 mL; and for 12L = (12000 mL)(0.00016) = ~2 mL.

Neil

My numbers are off. I have the same tank so I have a 12 L tank as well. How much Tergitol should I use? 2 ml