I guess you meant Centigrade. I just want to make sure of the details not intend to point mistakes.
Last edited:
tima's DIY RCM
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
Hi 'tima', Hi Neil,Equipment for the circulating filtered water I will be purchasing here in the UK (as per your's and Neil's recommendations) which I have 'book marked';
PVDF Ultrafiltration (UF) Membrane Cartridge
PVDF Ultrafiltration (UF) Membrane Cartridgewww.directwaterfilters.co.uk
(If I decide not to buy distilled / demin water i.e. based on usage vs cost of my DIY Ultrasonic Record Cleaner)100 GPD PURA RODI Reverse osmosis water
100 GPD PURA RODI Reverse osmosis water
Dehypon - 1 Litre
Extensive tests by British textile conservators and conservation scientists led to the introduction of this detergent for the cleansing of valuable textiles. Dehypon LS54 was found to be the best all-round one-off detergent for wool and cotton. Size: 1 litreconservation-resources.co.uk
https://www.amazon.co.uk/GST60A12-P1J-AC-DC-Industrial-Desktop-Adaptor/dp/B013EU0AQQ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3PCQCPL9ADXIG&keywords=mean%2Bwell%2Bgst60a12-p1j%2B12v%2B5%2Bamp&qid=1687380256&sprefix=MEAN%2BWELL™%2BGST60A12-P1J%2B%2Caps%2C251&sr=8-1&th=1
Any advantage for ultrasonic record cleaning between the Elmasonic P120H and the P180H as the P180H is only a little bit more expensive than the P120H in the UK and yet it has a larger fluid holding volume (i.e. 'tank internal dimensions W/D/H (mm) for the P120H is 300/240/200 = max filling volume is 12.75 litres and the P180H is 327 / 300 / 200 = max filling volume is 18 litres) ?
Both have the same power ratings.
No other than the P180H will likely cost you more to maintain and the standard Kuzma Kit may not fit the 340-mm outside width (listed as depth) meaning a custom unit from Kuzma. Here are other items:
1. Also, noting that the 200-mm depth (listed as height) is the same for both, the larger surface area of the P180 (98,100 mm^2) vs the P120 (72,000-mm^2) exposes 36.25% more of the fluid to the air. This 'may' contribute to faster degradation by CO2 absorption, but this 'may' be offset by the 50% greater volume. But I suspect that the 18L will not increase the bath life over the 12L.
2. Furthermore, with both having the same heater (1kW), the 18L will take 50% longer to heat initially from ambient to the 28C that Tim uses to start.
3. Additionally, the large tank will take longer to filter. Using the SHURFLO SVL-10 pump, it will take near 18-min to fully filter the tank, while the pump can fully filter the 12L tank in about 11-min. For the 18L tank, 18-min is not really practical, and you probably need a larger ($$) pump.
4. The only benefit I can see is that the larger volume will take longer to heat-up when cleaning records which 'may' mean more time for cleaning before you have to stop to allow the tank to cool. But I seem to recall that this was not going to be an issue for you.
Take care,
Neil
Hi Neil,
Thank you so much for your speedy and very informative and detailed reply and feedback. Very much appreciated.
Ok, P120H it is then
Elmasonic P Series
Kuzma RD
Here's how I translate between Elma and Kuzma. (pls correct if wrong)
L | W | H | |
| P180 external | 390 | 321 | 340 |
| RD tank max external | 365 | 278 | 395 |
As I see it, the P180 is too big for the standard RD. Although I have not inquired, a larger RD stainless front panel would likely be required along with longer connecting stainless side dowels. The dowels are probably not a big deal but the front panel is. Franc might do it if he had the time, but it truly would be a one off.
edit: Crikey - I see the P180 pdf that BJ posted shows different specs for W/D/H than the chart I posted, which is also from Elma. Take your choice for width, 321 or 340mm -- it still won't fit.
Last edited:
Hi 'tima',
Thank you for your also very informative post. Very much appreciated.
As Neil, pointed out with my small batches of LP cleaning and with Kuzma having to make a custom RD, it just wouldn't be worth it, plus all of the other disadvantages that Neil has very kindly pointed out.
Also it is well published now both from your good self 'tima' and from Neil that and Kuzma that the Elma Elmasonic P120H is the ideal machine for Ultrasonic Cleaning of LPs.
For the UK an online company that distributes Messrs Elma equipment is having a sale till end the year on the Elmasonic machines with some very reasonable reduction in prices (P120H currently £1,648 (excl. 20% VAT), reduced from normal UK price of £2,080 (excl. 20% VAT))i.e.;
Ultrasonic baths, Elmasonic P series
The Elmasonic P ultrasonic series is ideal for all applications in analytical and medical laboratories and in industrial production. Six different sizes are available. These practical units are easy to operate with a clearly arranged display showing all set and actual parameters. Several special...
uk.vwr.com
There is also another online company serving the UK with Messrs Elma products that has an even a higher reduction in prices (P120H £1,590 (excl. 20% VAT)) but the Elmasonic machines are re-badged with their own company name ('Fischerbrand') i.e.;
Fisherbrand P-Series Ultrasonic Cleaner - Glassware Washers and Cleaners, Ultrasonic Cleaners
Fisherbrand™ P-Series Ultrasonic Water Baths have convenient digital display of set and operating parameters, a cavitation resistant stainless steel tank, ergonomic handles for easy positioning and a durable lid that helps reduce sound and solution evaporation.
The other online company serving the UK with Elma Elmasonic machines (but at the current full UK price of £2,080 (excl. 20% VAT)) is;
Elma Elmasonic P Multi Frequency Digital Ultrasonic Cleaners
Elma Elmasonic P Multi Frequency Digital Ultrasonic Cleaners
www.thelabstore.co.uk
However, the problem with all of these online companies is that you have to register your company with them first before you can buy from them.
I can do this (as I have a registered UK Ltd company that I have owned and ran since 2010). However, they may want you to buy to a certain value over a certain time i.e. a turnover / yr. I need to make contact with them and see what the rules are for buying just one off machine from them (although I may also consider another Elmasonic machine for rinsing, like you do 'tima', instead of using my Keith Monks RCM for the rinsing and only use the KM RCM for the initial pre-wash for records that haven't gone through that process yet).
My current favourite at the moment is the 'VWR' online company.
Looks a a fine deal to me.
I'm happy to see you moving forward in putting together what will be a top-notch record cleaning system. All the best to you!
Thank you 'tima' for the very kind words and encouragement and your's and Neil's great support and help in me deciding which way to go with choosing an Ultrasonic Record Cleaning Machine (URCM) and System.
From lots of reading from the great threads & posts in WBF, Neil's fantastic book and other online information and reviews etc., I believe this is definitely the URCM System to go for (based on other URCMs currently on the market) based on an overall cost, performance, operational and maintainable basis and hopefully will give me many years of great use.
Hi Neil (and @tima and others). Replying to an old post. So it seems like there's some consensus (?) nowadays that IPA is no longer recommended for a no-rinse USC bath formula? Is the 15-S-9 concentration shown above considered optimal now for a no-rinse solution? Assume a 40KHz tank.
Tony:
Here are the general rules for Tergitol 15-S-9.
1. 0.003 to 0.005% to get a no-rinse required wetting solution.
2. 0.0075% to get a no-rinse required wetting solution with a touch of detergency. Note: If you have very sensitive hearing, you should post rinse distilled water.
3. 0.0125 to 0.0150% to get a wetting solution with detergency. Post rinse with distilled water is recommended to avoid audible residue.
4. Adding 2 to 2.5% IPA may yield some benefit to concentrations 1 & 2 above. However, as written in the book: VIII.8.8 Alcohol Evaporative Losses: Ethanol and IPA at low concentrations (<50%) will evaporate separately from water. ...For those that may use Ethanol or IPA at low concentrations in an ultrasonic tank (use only at concentrations that are not flammable); over a period of time, the alcohol will evaporate from the water faster than the water evaporating. Unless the alcohol concentration is monitored (alcohol hydrometers are available), the concentration will drop if the tank bath life is extended.
5. Anticipating the question - no Tergitol 15-S-9 is not volatile, so as the bath water evaporates, it just concentrates. However, some is lost from drag-out. So if using the lowest concentration #1, and the bath use is extended (weeks) you may notice some loss of wetting - just add a few drops to restore. The Nalgene dropper bottle that delivers 0.04-ml/drop is good for measuring out - Nalgene 2 oz. Leakproof Travel Dropper Bottle | The Container Store
Take care,
Neil
Thanks as always, Neil. To me this is the key point, I think (italics mine)
What do you consider a rinse after being in tergitol. I have a spin clean I drop the record in and by hand push it hand over hand about 3 revolutions each direction. Then I remove it to towel and air dry. Am I getting the tergitol out of the groove.
What concentration Tergitol 15-S-9 are you using? Some people who use the Spin-Clean will often have a second Spin-Clean with only DIW. Otherwise, if just towel drying to remove most liquid and then air drying some Tergitol (and whatever was cleaned from the record) will dry on the record. How much and the 'risk' of a negative effect is dependent on the initial Tergitol concentration.
Kirmuss Web site describes:
| Tank Capacity | 7.5 Litres Tank, Maximum 6.0 Litres, Minimum 4.3 Litres, |
At 6-8 drops of Tergitol for ~6 liters you might be using too much Tergitol.
I use this for measuring:
I use distilled water for rinsing.
@tima, @Kingrex,
1. The average eyedropper can vary between 0.04 to 0.06-ml/drop. If we assume 0.05-ml/drop, then 8 drops = 0.4-ml/6000-ml = 0.0067%. This is just above the no-rinse wetting solution concentration but just below enough (0.0075%) to get some detergency. Since you are rinsing, I would recommend increasing the concentration to 0.0075%, and by using the Nalgene Dropper Bottle you would add 11-drops. If you accidently add 12-drops, no problem.
2. As I alluded to above, I now recommend for smaller tanks, to use the Nalgene Dropper Bottle because it is designed to deliver 0.04-ml/drop - it has been measured to be quite accurate - Factors to consider in accuracy and precision of Nalgene Dropper Bottles (thermofisher.com), and very cheap - Nalgene 2 oz. Leakproof Travel Dropper Bottle | The Container Store and will last a very long time.
3. Are you adequately rinsing the Tergitol in the Spin-Clean with Zero water - yes. But I would recommend you refresh the Spin-Clean every 10-15 records, and here is the math.
a. Assuming 0.0075% = 75 ppm, = 75-mg Tergitol/1000-ml = 0.075-mg/ml
b. Assume 5-ml drag out from the Kirmuss to the Spin-Clean. Therefore, every record rinsed adds (5-ml) x (0.075-mg/ml) = 0.375-mg of Tergitol to the Spin-Clean tank.
c. The Spin-Clean tank is ~650-ml. So (0.375-mg/record)/(0.650-L) = 0.6 mg/L = 0.6-ppm/record. So, every record that is rinsed, will raise the Tergitol concentration in the Spin-Clean (from drag-out) by 0.6-ppm.
d. Refresh the Spin-Clean at 10-ppm to ensure no deleterious residue, so (10-ppm)/(0.6-ppm/record) = 17-records.
e. However, to account for what was cleaned from the record, we add a 25% margin for uncertainty, so (17-records) x (0.75) = 13 records. But the detritus concentration (from the record) in the Kirnuss tank increases with every record cleaned, so we arbitrarily expand the range to refresh the Spin-Clean at 10-15 records.
Take care,
Neil
1. The average eyedropper can vary between 0.04 to 0.06-ml/drop. If we assume 0.05-ml/drop, then 8 drops = 0.4-ml/6000-ml = 0.0067%. This is just above the no-rinse wetting solution concentration but just below enough (0.0075%) to get some detergency. Since you are rinsing, I would recommend increasing the concentration to 0.0075%, and by using the Nalgene Dropper Bottle you would add 11-drops. If you accidently add 12-drops, no problem.
2. As I alluded to above, I now recommend for smaller tanks, to use the Nalgene Dropper Bottle because it is designed to deliver 0.04-ml/drop - it has been measured to be quite accurate - Factors to consider in accuracy and precision of Nalgene Dropper Bottles (thermofisher.com), and very cheap - Nalgene 2 oz. Leakproof Travel Dropper Bottle | The Container Store and will last a very long time.
3. Are you adequately rinsing the Tergitol in the Spin-Clean with Zero water - yes. But I would recommend you refresh the Spin-Clean every 10-15 records, and here is the math.
a. Assuming 0.0075% = 75 ppm, = 75-mg Tergitol/1000-ml = 0.075-mg/ml
b. Assume 5-ml drag out from the Kirmuss to the Spin-Clean. Therefore, every record rinsed adds (5-ml) x (0.075-mg/ml) = 0.375-mg of Tergitol to the Spin-Clean tank.
c. The Spin-Clean tank is ~650-ml. So (0.375-mg/record)/(0.650-L) = 0.6 mg/L = 0.6-ppm/record. So, every record that is rinsed, will raise the Tergitol concentration in the Spin-Clean (from drag-out) by 0.6-ppm.
d. Refresh the Spin-Clean at 10-ppm to ensure no deleterious residue, so (10-ppm)/(0.6-ppm/record) = 17-records.
e. However, to account for what was cleaned from the record, we add a 25% margin for uncertainty, so (17-records) x (0.75) = 13 records. But the detritus concentration (from the record) in the Kirnuss tank increases with every record cleaned, so we arbitrarily expand the range to refresh the Spin-Clean at 10-15 records.
Take care,
Neil
Perfect, thanks Neil.
I have run into an interesting phenomenon. My regular process is drop record into Kirmus with Tergitol in bath. Run a couple minutes. Remove, then spray with .25% Alconox and agitate with record doctor brush. Rinse the Alconox into a bucket then drop the record back into the Kirmuss with tergitol for a couple more minutes, remove it, spin clean for a rinse, then dry.
The phenomenon is occasionally I have started with a spray of the Kirmuss solution. If that spray and brush with the kirmuss solution results in a pasty white gum coming out of the record, I have to continue with the Kirmuss solution and process until that stops. It may take 5 or 6 brush, ultra, brush ultra for it to stop. If I see that white paste and go into my process of the kirmuss ultasonoc, then Alconox agitstion, then kirmuss ultrasonic, that white paste still forms heavily if I brush with the Kirmuss solution again.
This tells me, someone must have used something on the record in the past that Tergitol and Alconox don't remove.
This bothers me in that I feel I need to utilize the Kirmuss as a first step to know if something is there.
It also makes me wonder just how effective is my process. Why is tergitol and Alconox not able to lift something out of the groove that the Kirmuss solution seems to be able too.
My gut says my process is cleaning smoke, dust, grease from the record. But maybe my chemicals are not able to penetrate a residual soap someone else left on the surface.
I have run into an interesting phenomenon. My regular process is drop record into Kirmus with Tergitol in bath. Run a couple minutes. Remove, then spray with .25% Alconox and agitate with record doctor brush. Rinse the Alconox into a bucket then drop the record back into the Kirmuss with tergitol for a couple more minutes, remove it, spin clean for a rinse, then dry.
The phenomenon is occasionally I have started with a spray of the Kirmuss solution. If that spray and brush with the kirmuss solution results in a pasty white gum coming out of the record, I have to continue with the Kirmuss solution and process until that stops. It may take 5 or 6 brush, ultra, brush ultra for it to stop. If I see that white paste and go into my process of the kirmuss ultasonoc, then Alconox agitstion, then kirmuss ultrasonic, that white paste still forms heavily if I brush with the Kirmuss solution again.
This tells me, someone must have used something on the record in the past that Tergitol and Alconox don't remove.
This bothers me in that I feel I need to utilize the Kirmuss as a first step to know if something is there.
It also makes me wonder just how effective is my process. Why is tergitol and Alconox not able to lift something out of the groove that the Kirmuss solution seems to be able too.
My gut says my process is cleaning smoke, dust, grease from the record. But maybe my chemicals are not able to penetrate a residual soap someone else left on the surface.
The first weakness with your process is you are using the Liquinox way less than required. Use at 0.25% is not going to get the detergency that product can provide. As written in the book, the minimum concentration is 0.5% (vacuum-RCM) and for manual clean with availability of large volume rinse (tap-water) use 1.0%.
Second, you are not exposing the record to the ultrasonics continuously long enough. Technically, the Liquinox is intended as a pre-cleaner and using this thought, you may wish to 1st spray the record with 0.5% Liquinox, brush (agitate enough to develop foam in the brush and some on the record), spray rinse with DIW, and then into the UT for a continuous time of 7-9 minutes. But time it so that there is an even number of record rotations, so the record surface is equally exposed to the UT.
Note that there is some thought that going 1st to UT can help with softening up dirt on the record making it easier to then apply a pre-cleaner. But this risks loading up the UT with a lot of junk. So, I recommend doing a pre-clean first.
Otherwise, the white paste is a consequence of a chemical reaction between the Kirmuss cleaner and what may be on record. Generally, anionic surfactants (that could be prior cleaner residue) are incompatible with cationic surfactants (that are often used for anti-static purposes) and can form a white paste. But which is which (is the Kirmuss a cationic or anionic surfactant) is uncertain. Some RCA records have an internal anti-static ingredient, and it will migrate to the surface which is beneficial. Removing it may not be beneficial. However, I have not found the Liquinox at 0.5 to 1% unable to remove smoke or prior cleaner residue.
Similar threads
