tima's DIY RCM

[tima]

Letting people know that the Flow Max Pleated .35 Micron Filter Cartridge 2-1/2" x 10" that I describe using is now discontinued by the manufacturer (Watts). There may be some left in dealer stock, but I have not found any. I'm thinking they wanted to rebrand all their filters of this type under their own name.

Watts issued a replacment: Watts WPC0.35-975 0.35 Micron Pleated Filter. However, it now looks like Watts discontinued this 0.35 micron version, though again there may be some remaining in dealer stock.

A 0.35 micron pleated filter works very very well as the filter element for an USC/RCM. For now, the known replacement found by user dminches and myself is the: Neo-Pure PH-27097-S35 9-3/4" High Efficiency Pleated Filter 0.35 micron

I have not tried this NeoPure, and cannot comment on its efficacy, however spec-wise it should be a drop-in replacement for the Flow Max.

 

[dminches]

Freshwaterstystems.com had/has them in stock. They shipped me a couple 2 days ago. I would contact them if you need them.

They were also confident that the NeoPure filter was a suitable replacement.

 

[redcars]

Hi folks,

The new posts today were very timely help for me. I continue to be happy with the system I described in Post #20 https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/timas-diy-rcm.26013/#post-554934 , but I would like to increase my success rate in getting quiet surfaces in one cycle thru my cleaning, rather than the two or even three cycles I sometimes have to use. I noticed this recently, especially with NEW 45 rpm reissues. (deeper grooves, or just more tics from faster speed?)

There are several potential improvements I would like to explore, and your feedback will be important:

I still use a mixture of distilled water and Everclear (grain alcohol). The mix isn’t too scientific: My system’s total volume is about 1.5 gallons. I start with about 8 ounces of Everclear and add a touch-up about every other time I have to add more water due to evaporation. I would consider something other than Everclear if it would not affect my filter.

I should probably switch from my 1 micron filter to a .35 micron filter. I had not considered this before because I use a very diluted L’Art du Son solution as a final wash in the Loricraft. Is there an audible difference with the finer filter?

I am going to try running my pump during the cleaning process rather than afterwards. I can see that this should help. I will have to turn off the fans in my radiators (see photos in previous post) so that the solution will warm up.

I don’t like the idea of using brushes in the ultrasonic, but I have considered using the return water in some sort of a underwater car wash between the (3) records. Has this been tried before? Your thoughts?

Thanks in advance for your help,

Don

 

[tima]

Hi folks,

The new posts today were very timely help for me. I continue to be happy with the system I described in Post #20 https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/timas-diy-rcm.26013/#post-554934 , but I would like to increase my success rate in getting quiet surfaces in one cycle thru my cleaning, rather than the two or even three cycles I sometimes have to use. I noticed this recently, especially with NEW 45 rpm reissues. (deeper grooves, or just more tics from faster speed?)

There are several potential improvements I would like to explore, and your feedback will be important:

I still use a mixture of distilled water and Everclear (grain alcohol). The mix isn’t too scientific: My system’s total volume is about 1.5 gallons. I start with about 8 ounces of Everclear and add a touch-up about every other time I have to add more water due to evaporation. I would consider something other than Everclear if it would not affect my filter.

I should probably switch from my 1 micron filter to a .35 micron filter. I had not considered this before because I use a very diluted L’Art du Son solution as a final wash in the Loricraft. Is there an audible difference with the finer filter?

I am going to try running my pump during the cleaning process rather than afterwards. I can see that this should help. I will have to turn off the fans in my radiators (see photos in previous post) so that the solution will warm up.

I don’t like the idea of using brushes in the ultrasonic, but I have considered using the return water in some sort of a underwater car wash between the (3) records. Has this been tried before? Your thoughts?

Thanks in advance for your help,

Don

Hi Don - Thanks for your response. I re-read your upstream post again.

When you talk about a 'cycle' do you mean using the Loricaft with AIVS and your DIY RCM with Elmasonic tank? I know a few others who use two machines, often first with a horizontal machine and then a vertical. I used a Loricraft PRC 3 with AIVS for many years (review) but then switched to the USC only. In my opinion, you only need one, but everyone has their own preferences.

I think your ideas for potential improvements are pretty much on the mark. Here are some considerations/suggestions:

1. Run your pump+filter throughout the USC cleaning process.

2. Get a TDS meter (they're inexpensive). Test the water in your USC. This will tell you a lot about the state of your solution and choice of chemicals. A fresh tank of water plus chemicals should be ? 0001ppm. I won't let mine get above 0005ppm after multiple cleanings.

3. Try 99% pure Isopropyl Alcohol instead of the Everclear, which I assume is grain/ethyl alcohol. They are made from different substances (corn vs. propane). Test both with the TDS meter.

4. Try a rinse agent in the solution.

5. Try 30° C temperature with the Elmasonic,

6. Wrt audible results using a 0.35 micron filter: a) it somewhat depends on just how dirty the record is; b) finer particulate filtering increases the likelihood of trapping more dirt in the filter and keeping it out of the bath water, ergo cleaner water/solution; c) it is impossible to compare two methods for the same record.

7. Use both frequencies on your Elma if not already doing that. I go 6-10 minutes at 37kHz and 6-10 minutes at 80 kHz, time depending on how dirty are the records. Occasionally I will increase to a 15 minute cycle.

After going through your methods or the modifications suggested, try not wiping the record with a cloth to dry it. As long as the water on the finished record is clean, it should air-dry just fine. Wiping with a cloth may increase the liklihood of introducing dirt, lint, etc. back onto the record you just spent time cleaning. Actually I don't see the purpose in drying the record with a cloth - or by any means - only to then put it on the Loricraft.

With the above in place, let your record(s) air dry coming out of the USC. As long as whatever water on the record is clean, the record should be dry after 10-15 minutes, especially if you use a small amount of rinse agent in the solution. THEN - play the record without using the Loricraft. You can always add that step if you want. With USC alone, especially with an Elmasonic tank, you could cut your time at least in-half.

These are only suggestions, based on my experience and not intended to critique your obviously sophisticated set-up. If you try any of these suggestions, please follow-up with your findings.

 

[redcars]

Hi Tima,

Thanks very much for your reply. I will try to respond in more detail than before.

When you talk about a 'cycle' do you mean using the Loricaft with AIVS and your DIY RCM with Elmasonic tank? I know a few others who use two machines, often first with a horizontal machine and then a vertical. I used a Loricraft PRC 3 with AIVS for many years (review) but then switched to the USC only. In my opinion, you only need one, but everyone has their own preferences.

A cycle is 35-40 minutes in the Elmasonic followed by drying and then “rinsing” on the Loricraft. I do this because, as I said in my earlier memo “The L’Art instructions are to mix the bottle with one gallon of distilled water. I mix it with FIVE GALLONS of distilled water. With any stronger mix I can hear that the sound is veiled. With my dilution, the benefits of using L’Art du Son as a final cleaner and surface treatment are optimized. Music comes alive with this additional step. Records have increased soundstage depth and sense of musical ease.”

Thinking about a potential related issue, I think I should try filtering my L’Art solution.

I think your ideas for potential improvements are pretty much on the mark. Here are some considerations/suggestions:

1. Run your pump+filter throughout the USC cleaning process. I plan to start doing this as soon as I get some hardware changes made. I thought I would make a system to direct the return water against the record in the wash, perhaps helping to loosen any debris that has shaken loose. I think I will add a second complete system with pump and filter for continuous duty. I will keep the pump, filter and radiator for lowering the water temperature between cycles. My setup will soon look even more like a chemistry lab.

2. Get a TDS meter (they're inexpensive). Test the water in your USC. This will tell you a lot about the state of your solution and choice of chemicals. A fresh tank of water plus chemicals should be ? 0001ppm. I won't let mine get above 0005ppm after multiple cleanings.

I go several months before going to a fresh tank, so perhaps I should get a TDS meter. The pump I’m using is very time consuming to prime and eliminate all air bubbles, so I end up flushing it twice to keep water in the system. I like this pump because it is almost silent, and will not build up pressure if restricted.


3. Try 99% pure Isopropyl Alcohol instead of the Everclear, which I assume is grain/ethyl alcohol. They are made from different substances (corn vs. propane). Test both with the TDS meter.

This is probably worth a try. Do you have a specific product recommendation?

4. Try a rinse agent in the solution.

If you are talking about Photo Flo, I have tried using a few drops of that, but it’s hard to control and too much affects the sound. More would be required for continuous running


5. Try 30° C temperature with the Elmasonic,

I commented before: “I warm up the fluid to about 35 degrees C with the built-in heater. After 30 minutes of running, but without the heater, the temperature is up to about 45 degrees C.” The temperature will not rise as much with the pump running, but my theory has been that hotter is better as long as it stays below about 47 degrees C. I did a test with 50 degrees C and a thin record without causing a problem, but I would not want to stop the record from turning at this temperature.


6. Wrt audible results using a 0.35 micron filter: a) it somewhat depends on just how dirty the record is; b) finer particulate filtering increases the likelihood of trapping more dirt in the filter and keeping it out of the bath water, ergo cleaner water/solution; c) it is impossible to compare two methods for the same record.

7. Use both frequencies on your Elma if not already doing that. I go 6-10 minutes at 37kHz and 6-10 minutes at 80 kHz, time depending on how dirty are the records. Occasionally I will increase to a 15 minute cycle.

I’ve done this, but it’s hard to prove how well it works. On records that are new or previously cleaned I use 35-40 minutes on 80 kHz; other records I start at 37 kHz for 10 minutes and then switch to 80 kHz for 25-30 minutes.

After going through your methods or the modifications suggested, try not wiping the record with a cloth to dry it. As long as the water on the finished record is clean, it should air-dry just fine. Wiping with a cloth may increase the liklihood of introducing dirt, lint, etc. back onto the record you just spent time cleaning. Actually I don't see the purpose in drying the record with a cloth - or by any means - only to then put it on the Loricraft.

So I do three records in the Elmasonic, and then go directly to the Loricraft while the next batch is cooking. The records would still be wet going to the Loricraft. But maybe you are correct; I will consider doing this. Thanks

With the above in place, let your record(s) air dry coming out of the USC. As long as whatever water on the record is clean, the record should be dry after 10-15 minutes, especially if you use a small amount of rinse agent in the solution. THEN - play the record without using the Loricraft. You can always add that step if you want. With USC alone, especially with an Elmasonic tank, you could cut your time at least in-half.

I would not really reduce the time much because I do the Loricraft while the next batch is cooking. And, most importantly, everything sounds better with (very diluted) L’Art on it.

Thanks again for your help. We’re going to ace this yet!

Don

 

[tima]

Thanks for the follow-up.

3. Try 99% pure Isopropyl Alcohol instead of the Everclear, which I assume is grain/ethyl alcohol. They are made from different substances (corn vs. propane). Test both with the TDS meter.

RC: This is probably worth a try. Do you have a specific product recommendation?

MG Chemicals 824-1L 99.9% Isopropyl Alcohol

4. Try a rinse agent in the solution.

RC: If you are talking about Photo Flo, I have tried using a few drops of that, but it’s hard to control and too much affects the sound. More would be required for continuous running

I do not recommend using Photoflo. (See Post #8 and #9 in this thread.) Try Ilford Ilfotol - with it in solution water will run off records when you remove them from the tank. Maybe your L'Art du Son cleaner is "improving" your sound because it is removing the Photoflo.

My current formula: To roughly 3 gallons of distilled water add 1? cup of 99% pure Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) and .9 tablespoons of Ilfotol. Exact amounts are not required. I buy the Ilfotol from B&H .

After going through your methods or the modifications suggested, try not wiping the record with a cloth to dry it. As long as the water on the finished record is clean, it should air-dry just fine. Wiping with a cloth may increase the liklihood of introducing dirt, lint, etc. back onto the record you just spent time cleaning. Actually I don't see the purpose in drying the record with a cloth - or by any means - only to then put it on the Loricraft.

RC: So I do three records in the Elmasonic, and then go directly to the Loricraft while the next batch is cooking. The records would still be wet going to the Loricraft. But maybe you are correct; I will consider doing this. Thanks

Yes, the records would still be wet going to the Loricraft where you proceed to wet them again.

With the above in place, let your record(s) air dry coming out of the USC. As long as whatever water on the record is clean, the record should be dry after 10-15 minutes, especially if you use a small amount of rinse agent in the solution. THEN - play the record without using the Loricraft. You can always add that step if you want. With USC alone, especially with an Elmasonic tank, you could cut your time at least in-half.

RC: I would not really reduce the time much because I do the Loricraft while the next batch is cooking. And, most importantly, everything sounds better with (very diluted) L’Art on it.

My primary point here is less about time than to try skipping the whole Loricraft step. I'm saying just try it for one batch of 3 records. You can always redo that one step.

The claim that 'everything sounds better with diluted L'Art du son on it is unique to me. I'm not questioning your choice. If you've done a test of playing a clean record without L'Art du son then play the same record after the L'Art du son treatment, would you describe the difference please?

To appease my somewhat sceptical nature, I would measure the L'Art du son + water with a TDS meter before using it on a records, then try to capture that solution before you vacuum it off or keep the vacuumed off solution. Measure the captured solution with the TDS meter to see if the dissolved solids are higher than the first measurement. That might tell if the L'Art du son treatment removed anything (dirt) from the record. Or do you think it does something else to the vinyl besides removing dirt? Again, I'm curious but not questioning your choice.

 

[redcars]

Hi Tima,

Thanks for your reply.

I’ve tried lots of record cleaning solutions and have stuck with L’Art Du Son. I used it before I had even heard of ultrasonic cleaning of records. My mistake with L’Art, early on, was to use the recommended dilution and/or not clean it off.

As my system has improved over the years, my choices in record cleaning have also improved because I can more clearly hear the results.

The solution that I use now is not really a “cleaner.” The records are already clean, and I only use the L’Art and the Loricraft as a final wash, and as a “surface enhancer,” if you will.

I have played new and used records directly out of the ultrasonic and they sound cleaner, but not nearly as good as with L’Art. It’s not an issue of cleanliness.

My theory is that anything you add to record surfaces affects the coefficient of friction of the stylus in the groove. Of probably hundreds of things I have tried, all have a different sound after application. Most are worse. Changing the friction on the vinyl surface affects the sound. The different ingredients in different record cleaners all produce different sounds from vinyl records. Photo flo, mold release, different cleaners, all have different sounds. At the other end of the spectrum, alcohol, by itself, increases the friction and gives a more brittle sound.

You are saying to me “try it.” Since you are skeptical, I am saying to you: Try it; you’ll like it. If you don’t, you can clean it off.



The tics and pops thing is a different matter that I am trying to address with using the ultrasonic.

My results are that I get some records, both new and used, that have perfectly quiet backgrounds after cleaning. And other records, both new and used, have gritty backgrounds after cleaning. They can be in the same batch of records being cleaned. The ultrasonic always produces cleaner records (more detail). It also, I suspect but haven’t proven, sometimes results in a more gritty background. Usually, cleaning a second time makes the background noise significantly quieter.

This is the problem that I am addressing and I am still looking for a reliable solution.

I will try eliminating the microfiber towels and will add the continuous filtering and see where that leads. You have also given me other ideas to work on after that if necessary.

Best,
Don

 

[tima]

I have played new and used records directly out of the ultrasonic and they sound cleaner, but not nearly as good as with L’Art. It’s not an issue of cleanliness.

My theory is that anything you add to record surfaces affects the coefficient of friction of the stylus in the groove. Of probably hundreds of things I have tried, all have a different sound after application. Most are worse. Changing the friction on the vinyl surface affects the sound. The different ingredients in different record cleaners all produce different sounds from vinyl records. Photo flo, mold release, different cleaners, all have different sounds. At the other end of the spectrum, alcohol, by itself, increases the friction and gives a more brittle sound.

You are saying to me “try it.” Since you are skeptical, I am saying to you: Try it; you’ll like it. If you don’t, you can clean it off.

Thanks for that explanation - I understand better what you're doing ...I think. Your approach is to clean the record then 'treat it' with L'Art du son.

This is fascinating. Although I'm not reading you explicity to say the L'Art du son leaves or adds something on the record surface that was not there before its application, my takeaway is that it does put something on the record that changes the friction of the stylus in the groove. And this changes the sound you hear and you like the change.

Does L'Art du son permeate or somehow bond to the record surface? I remember the claim that the Last product became part of the vinyl's structure - or something like that. Or is it like the Gruuv Glide product that eventually wears off? Does the L'Art du son come off on the stylus?

Wrt your final step with the Loricraft machine, if my understanding is correct, it falls under a separate category than record cleaning, viz., Record Treatment. Without meaning to be presumptuous, I'd invite you to start a thread on such - I'd like to hear what others do to treat their records.

Nice system, btw.

 

[redcars]

Thanks Tima,
I had a problem with my radiator, so I’m down to three records a day until my new radiator arrives. Without the radiator, but even with the continuous flow, my water stays too hot to begin cleaning again for over an hour.

I am also adding a second pump to continuously circulate the water through a new Neo-Pure PH-27097-S35 Filter 0.35 micron, but not through the radiator. So there are now two circulating systems, both with filters, but only one with the cooling radiator. Complicated, but easy to operate with a switch.

I discovered that wiping down my records with a “lint-free” cloth was NOT lint-free. So I’m trying to come up with a system to spin the water off the records (hopefully by hand) and then let them air dry until I get them on the Loricraft. I would like to avoid Photo Flo or its competitors.

I bought a TDS meter.

I bought a quart of MG Chemicals 824-1L 99.9% Isopropyl Alcohol and may try it (or use it for other cleaning).


Thanks for that explanation - I understand better what you're doing ...I think. Your approach is to clean the record then 'treat it' with L'Art du son.
This is fascinating. Although I'm not reading you explicity to say the L'Art du son leaves or adds something on the record surface that was not there before its application, my takeaway is that it does put something on the record that changes the friction of the stylus in the groove. And this changes the sound you hear and you like the change.

This is correct. Thanks for rephrasing it for me. A secondary purpose for L’Art is to remove any particles that may be loosened but not removed in the the ultrasonic.


Does L'Art du son permeate or somehow bond to the record surface? I remember the claim that the Last product became part of the vinyl's structure - or something like that. Or is it like the Gruuv Glide product that eventually wears off? Does the L'Art du son come off on the stylus?

L'Art leaves a surface coating on the record even after it has been vacuumed off in two passes by the arm of the Loricraft. As my system improved, I still liked some of the effects of L’Art, but I could hear the L’Art as a clouding of the music and I did not like it. I started with the recommended dilution of one bottle in a gallon of water, and increased that in steps until I got to five gallons. (4.9 gallons was still audible) Keep in mind that the L’Art is basically a concentrated soap (with other mystery ingredients?) in a four ounce bottle. Diluted in five gallons of water it is a 160:1 reduction.

L’Art is removable; it washes off in the ultrasonic. I have never noticed that it goes away with time or with playing the record.

The other two products you mentioned are both NASTY STUFF.

LAST record preservative does bond to the record and IS NOT REMOVABLE. It also changes the sound of the record. The chemist at the Last Factory told me “It stays on the record, and sinks into the vinyl, in order to act as heat and friction disburser from the stylus. It stays on even when a record is repeatedly cleaned, because cleaning is only a surface treatment.”

I can verify that statement because I tried everything to get it off without success. (It does help a bit to increase the VTA on Last treated records)

I tried Gruv Glide once. It clouded the sound, gunked-up the record and came off on the stylus. At least it can be cleaned off.


Wrt your final step with the Loricraft machine, if my understanding is correct, it falls under a separate category than record cleaning, viz., Record Treatment. Without meaning to be presumptuous, I'd invite you to start a thread on such - I'd like to hear what others do to treat their records.

I have never found anyone else who has experimented with this or claimed to follow my lead. No one else (but Tima) on any WBF thread has commented. I’m not concerned with this, but I don’t have unlimited time to be a crusader for my methods (I need to go clean some more records.)

I might change my mind if others chimed in here on this subject.




Best wishes,
Don

 

[tima]

I discovered that wiping down my records with a “lint-free” cloth was NOT lint-free. So I’m trying to come up with a system to spin the water off the records (hopefully by hand) and then let them air dry until I get them on the Loricraft. I would like to avoid Photo Flo or its competitors.

Thank you for your updates, Don.

To be perfectly honest, this news about drying with a cloth is not a surprise. In terms of the type and size of dirt that can cause clicks n pops on a record, no cloth is clean. Although I'd not do it myself, a newspaper is probably cleaner than a cloth.

If the water/solution at the end of a USC cycle is clean (as tested with your new TDS meter) the water on the record when it comes out should also be clean. A bit of wetting agent in the solution will help the water glide off the record when it comes out of the tank - not completely but it helps, especially if you give the records on a spindle a bit of a shake when they're out. I believe (but have not tested) that this should be as good as spinning the records in the air, either approach prior to air drying.. But, hey, spinning the record may speed up the process. I sometimes use a small fan at low speed to circulate the air around records drying on their spindles - I guess that's a different type of spinng.

I too have not read people posting about treating their records after cleaning them. So yes your approach may be unique. I do agree about Last and Gruv-Glide.

I don't know how much of a role friction plays in stylus deflection and the generation of signal amplitude. I don't know if reducing friction changes the signal coming out of the cartridge. If you hear a difference in records with L'Art du son applied, then perhaps it does.

Given stylus life may be relatively short, friction probably has a hand in that. It's an interesting topic or at least I'd be interested in knowing something definitive of the role of friction as a stylus traverses the groove. Again, perhaps another thread, if someone has clear information, please start it.

 

[redcars]

Hi Tima,
I have completed my revised filtering system per our previous discussion. There are now two pumps, two 0.35 micron filters and one radiator (fed by one of the two pumps). I am running one pump continuously to circulate the water and both pumps concurrently to cool. It works great: The flow rate is higher and the continuous circulation keeps the temperature rise down.

I bought a tds meter and it tells me that my current reading is 11 ppm.

For comparison, I measured:
Tap water 142 ppm
Distilled water 0 ppm
Everclear 0 ppm

This is the meter I purchased:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073713G5F/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

If 0.35 micron = 0.000014 inch, it would seem that this is liquid contamination, and not solids.

Other than the fact that cleaner is better, what determines the upper limit for cleaning records?

Tima said: A fresh tank of water plus chemicals should be ? 0001ppm. I won't let mine get above 0005ppm after multiple cleanings.

There is no decimal in your statement, and most of these tds meters are rated at +/- 2% accuracy. Are you talking about 1.0 ppm, or do you have a much more accurate meter?

The discrepancy with my 11 ppm reading has likely come from records cleaned, and/or contamination in parts of the system. I will flush it again soon.

So far, relative to my goal of reducing tics and pops, it may be slightly better, but I cannot put a number on it. Changing from wiping the records to gently blotting to remove water drops is a definite improvement. Thanks for that. The records always LOOK spotless after my Loricraft treatment/flush.

Thanks for your continuing help,
Don

 

[dminches]

Don, can you post some pictures of the radiator and pump you are using to cool the water? The only issue I have with the cleaning system that matches Tim’s is that the water continuously heats during the process. I would like to keep the water at 30 degrees Celsius, if possible.

Also, if you can list the parts that you use for this that would be helpful too.

 

[tima]

If 0.35 micron = 0.000014 inch, it would seem that this is liquid contamination, and not solids.

Not sure about this - I assume you're not saying no solid is 0.35 microns in size. Fwiw, for filters this size, the stated spec is nominal, not absolute. The smallest spec I've seen given as absolute is 1 micron - that does cost more. I have no doubt a 1 micron filter is very effective - see here. The main reason I switched to the 0.35 size was because I could for low cost - the fewer solids in the water the better. I'm open to hearing an argument that a larger opening is better. At this point the only one I've heard is based on flow; thus far that has not been an issue in my setup.

Other than the fact that cleaner is better, what determines the upper limit for cleaning records?

We do. If you're comfortable with a higher number of solids drying on a record, go for it. I found after starting from a fresh solution and 15-25 records cleaned, that 00005 ppm TDS holds fairly steady for my solution. If after cleaning a batch I'd be surprised at a 00006ppm reading; I would expect a jump, maybe increase of 3-5ppm. That would tell me maybe its time to change the filter.

To my knowledge, there are no pre-ordained rules or specifications for much of what we're doing. Imo, accumulating a body of experience is needed to gather 'evidence'. Of course there are plenty of industrial level studies and suggestions we may learn from, but not much on vinyl specifically. If the final result is gauged based on listening, then it will probably take a lot of information gathered over time to tell if there are any trends associated to the choices we're making.

There is no decimal in your statement, and most of these tds meters are rated at +/- 2% accuracy. Are you talking about 1.0 ppm, or do you have a much more accurate meter?

I'm quoting the readout number off the TDS. I assume there is no decimal as none is shown.

The discrepancy with my 11 ppm reading has likely come from records cleaned, and/or contamination in parts of the system. I will flush it again soon.

Start with fresh solution, a new filter, clean cannisters and a clean tank. If your reading is still high, maybe replace the hoses. After that ... what's left? The pump?
-------------

As regards cooling the solution - presumably while the unit is running a cyle - I'm not sure what to think of that.

- The tank is heated to a specified temperature.
- The ultrasonic transducers will increase the temperature of the solution by N degrees while they operate.
- You have a radiator (?) to cool the solution; this runs during a cleaning cycle, between cleaning cycles? If the former then you're heating and cooling the water at the same time. To what purpose? I'm guessing to hold the temperature to a narrow range or close to the original temp setting of the heater.

How high does your solution temperature get for what length cycle?

I set the heater for 30° C. For a 20 minute cycle I don't remember it getting higher than 36° C (and usually it's 33° C) , and when that happens its usually toward the end of the cycle. Once the water reaches the specified temp of 30° C, the heater shuts off and any additional heat comes from the transducers working. Fwiw, my tank cools pretty quick.

At this point I'm not concerned about solution during part of a cycle getting to 36° C - that's 96.8° F. I've experienced no issue there and haven't found information saying that temp is too high for vinyl. If you have more definitive info on ultrasonic cleaning vinyl and temperature, please share. Franc Kuzma suggests 30-33 C degrees.

Of course you could set the heater for 5 degrees less and allow the induced increase to work for you. Obviously that is not a steady temperature.

I suppose the real question is: what is the temperature where ultrasonic cleaning with the solution type we're using is most effective? Is it a specfic temp or a range? And what are the trade-offs if the solution is, say, +/- 5 degrees of that.

Nice to learn you're making progress and thanks again for sharing that here.

 

[redcars]

Hi dminches,
Thanks for asking.
I think that the attached history of my ultrasonic cooling experiments will answer most of your current questions.

Hi Tima,
Thanks for your reply.
"that 00005 ppm TDS holds fairly steady for my solution"
FWIW, I'm pretty certain that your 00005 reading is 5.0 parts per million.

I believe that my higher reading (11 ppm) is more than acceptable if the filters are doing their job. As long as I run the Loricraft immediately (?) afterwards, I am removing anything else that is loose in this final flush and vacuum.

Best,
Don

PS:
One thing that I think you should definitely NOT do is to have the Elmasonic heater turned on when you have records in the solution. The side of my tank where the heaters are is discolored (black) from the heaters. I do not depend on the heater not coming back on when I am actually cleaning!

PPS:
See my attachment for more detail on how I have been running my cleaning/cooling cycles.
I think that if you ran your Elmasonic on full power plus "sweep" for 40 minutes, that you would get the same temperature increases that I do.

Don

 

[tima]

FWIW, I'm pretty certain that your 00005 reading is 5.0 parts per million.

Yes, that's what I take it to mean.

Typically I run the Elma P120 at 70-80% power. A 37khz-80khz cycle is usually 20 minutes, 10 minutes at each frequency.

One thing that I think you should definitely NOT do is to have the Elmasonic heater turned on when you have records in the solution.

Why?

Thanks for the PDF - I'll take a look.

 

[redcars]

Why?

Because the two heating elements are on the back wall and are about 1.5 inches from the rear record of the three in rotation. They get hot enough to leave a black coating on the back wall. I haven't measured the temperature, but I think that it's possible you could melt/warp the back record.

If you do a test and find out otherwise, let us know.
Don

 

[tima]

Because the two heating elements are on the back wall and are about 1.5 inches from the rear record of the three in rotation. They get hot enough to leave a black coating on the back wall. I haven't measured the temperature, but I think that it's possible you could melt/warp the back record.

Wow. I've not read or heard of that happening. The back wall of the outside of the Elma or the inside? Could it have been the record as the source of the blackening?

 

[redcars]

Tima,
On the inside back wall about an inch above the bottom, there are two obround heaters about 2.5 inches wide x 1 inch high and spaced a couple of inches apart. I would take a photo, but I just cleaned it off.
Don

 

[tima]

Tima,
On the inside back wall about an inch above the bottom, there are two obround heaters about 2.5 inches wide x 1 inch high and spaced a couple of inches apart. I would take a photo, but I just cleaned it off.
Don

So it's something you can clean off rather than a discoloration of the stainless steel?
Presumably this happened without your radiator in place? And we don't know temps at the time?

If it is something you cleaned off obviously it did not go down the drain to be filtered. And it adhered (?) to the tank wall. Hmmm ... I'm not sure what to make of that.

How often has that happened? If you have a sacrificial record, maybe try to make it happen while observing. I suppose that's a lot to ask.

Fwiw, the TDS meter takes temperature so maybe check with that to confirm the Elma temperature?

 

[tima]

Don, I looked at your "3 Stages..." PDF. I see there is a splitter coming off the drain. I gather that one filter can be used straight thru to the tank without cooling and the other filter is inline with the radiator. And there is a valve that allows returning just one or both to the tank concurrently. Do I have that right?
I see you operate the system at 35 and 45 degrees C. What temp is set on the Elma, 35 and 45?

It was fascinating to learn of your use of 4 silver 'kill-coil' thingies across filters and lines to address algae and bacteria.