tima's DIY RCM

[shadowlight]

@tima thanks for the additional information.

* Brand new pump from pumpvendor, turned on for the first time yesterday with everything connected (I reached out to see what options I have available, since I am past the two week I think I will have to deal directly with Franklin Electric)
* I will shorten the various tubing length to see if that will help
* I am using about 2 gallon of water with 1 1/3 cup of IPA and about 10ml of Ilford fluid.

 

[Hi-FiGuy]

a leak is a leak and the amount of fluid in the system is not going to change things. if the leak is on the back side of the bracket between the motor and the pump it sounds like the shaft seal is leaking and some times just using it will seat the seal.
Try filling the system with some warm or mildly hot water and let it run for a while with hot water and see if the seal seats itself.
use the heater on the tank, use water only dont waste any cleaners.

 

[tima]

* I am using about 2 gallon of water with 1 1/3 cup of IPA and about 10ml of Ilford fluid.

I ran 8 records through the mixture without the water circulation pump being on. I am seeing water beads on the records? Does that mean that I need to add additional Ilford solution?

Short answer: Probably not, but ...

With 2 gallons of water (7570 ml), you have ~4% IPA and ~0.13% Ilfotol or 1.3ml/L. I'm told the active ingredient in Ilfotol is 5% in its solution, so it's already diluted. (1.3ml/L)/20 = 0.065 ml/L = 65.0ppm.

You could try increasing the Ilfotol to 15ml. You might see a wee bit more foaming. Listen for any increase in surface noise. If you try that, pls let me know.

With those amounts of Ilfotol it's largely performing its wetting agent function and with not so much for surfactant. It can leave a residue though very little; with a rinse step you could use even more. The IPA is acting as a surfactant. Keep in mind the IPA can yield flammable vapor.

By comparison, in my 3.36 gallon tank I use ~2.5% IPA and ~0.126% Ilfotol.

There is a lot of debate about solution formulation.

For the 8 records you cleaned, how did they turn out? Are you generally satisfied with the approach?

 

[shadowlight]

I am up and running with the Little Giant motor. The records sounds good to me with occasional crackle and pop on 2 or 3 records out of the 20 or so that I have cleaned so far. Need to get stylus cleaner.

I still need to resolve the particle measurement. I am hovering around 140 instead of the 5 that Tim is achieving. Need to figure out what's going on but it's consistent from the first record. For now I am going to just role with it and enjoy listening to music.

 

[dminches]

I am up and running with the Little Giant motor. The records sounds good to me with occasional crackle and pop on 2 or 3 records out of the 20 or so that I have cleaned so far. Need to get stylus cleaner.

I still need to resolve the particle measurement. I am hovering around 140 instead of the 5 that Tim is achieving. Need to figure out what's going on but it's consistent from the first record. For now I am going to just role with it and enjoy listening to music.

Are you measuring the liquid before you clean any records? Each of the components of the mixture should test at or close to 0.

 

[shadowlight]

Are you measuring the liquid before you clean any records? Each of the components of the mixture should test at or close to 0.

I forgot to test after I added the ilford and before starting the pump but the measure was done before any records were cleaned.

 

[dminches]

I forgot to test after I added the ilford and before starting the pump but the measure was done before any records were cleaned.

What water are you using? Distilled should test at 0 as should isopropyl.

 

[shadowlight]

What water are you using? Distilled should test at 0 as should isopropyl.

With distilled water and IPA solution tested at 0. I forgot to measure after adding ilford, which was a major miss on my part. The 140ppm was after ilford was added and solution circulating through the filter but before any records were cleaned. I introduced the extra particles via ilford (i doubt that) or the filter introduced that.

The filter that I am using is not the one that Tim recommended, but compatible .35 micron.

I will order the filter that Tim had recommended (provided I can find any in stock) and start over again.

 

[dminches]

With distilled water and IPA solution tested at 0. I forgot to measure after adding ilford, which was a major miss on my part. The 140ppm was after ilford was added and solution circulating through the filter but before any records were cleaned. I introduced the extra particles via ilford (i doubt that) or the filter introduced that.

The filter that I am using is not the one that Tim recommended, but compatible .35 micron.

I will order the filter that Tim had recommended (provided I can find any in stock) and start over again.

I am using the same components and my starting measurement is 0000. I don’t know why the filtration system would be adding impurities.

 

[Hi-FiGuy]

How did you stop the leak

 

[tima]

I am up and running with the Little Giant motor. The records sounds good to me with occasional crackle and pop on 2 or 3 records out of the 20 or so that I have cleaned so far. Need to get stylus cleaner.

I still need to resolve the particle measurement. I am hovering around 140 instead of the 5 that Tim is achieving. Need to figure out what's going on but it's consistent from the first record. For now I am going to just role with it and enjoy listening to music.

Are you measuring the liquid before you clean any records? Each of the components of the mixture should test at or close to 0.

Hi Shadowlight - David is correct. A combination of distilled water, 99.9% pure IPA and Ilfotol should typically yield 0 ppm on a TDS meter.

Bare with this bit of science; I am not a chemist so feel free to check my explanation One way of classifying surfactants (short hand for 'surface active agents') is their ability to hold an electrical charge. A surfactant molecule whose head is capable of carrying a positive electrical charge is called a cationic surfactant; those molecules carrying a negative electrical charge are labeled anionic surfactants. And surfactants capable of carrying both positive and negative charges have the funny name of zwitterionic molecules. Cleaning agents not carrying an electrical charge are named nonionic surfactants.

A TDS meter measures the conductivity (the total charged particle content) of the solution it samples and indicates dissolved solids in parts per million. The TDS meter will not measure nonionic (uncharged) surfactants or other particles.

The TDS meter will show very little for pure distilled water, 99.9% pure IPA, and Ilfotol because they are nonionic. Thus the 000ppm reading of an initial solution prior to cleaning records. So any increase in TDS reading is likely from something else. We check the tank solution prior to cleaning to establish a baseline.

So the question becomes where are the particles coming from that cause your meter to read 140ppm?

I don't know what filter it was that you started with. It would be surprising if that was the source of your higher TDS reading, but I guess it could be possible. Otherwise, if the IPA was not high purity or the tank itself was dirty, those are possibilites. Also, TDS meter accuracy is a possibility. If your meter has but a single scale, for example 0-1000ppm and it is 2% accurate, the 2% is full scale. Ergo, the the accuracy is 1000x0.02 = +/- 20ppm, etc.

You mentioned looking for the filter I use. Fwiw, the Flowmax FM-035-975 I was using has been discontinued. The suggested alternative is a Neo-Pure PH-27097-S35 - I believe it was David who found this. I have not tried the Neo-Pure, but it should fit a 10" cannister and looks to be of similar construction. Note that either of those filters is nominally rated. David have you used one of these?

Thanks for the picture of your setup. Please stay in touch with your progress and questions.

 

[shadowlight]

Tim, David, I agree with you. I somehow contaminated the solution. I will order the neo-pure filter and switch the solution out and start over again.

Thanks for all the help so far.

 

[dminches]

Tim, David, I agree with you. I somehow contaminated the solution. I will order the neo-pure filter and switch the solution out and start over again.

Thanks for all the help so far.

Best to clean the tank with some isopropyl when you do this.

 

[shadowlight]

Best to clean the tank with some isopropyl when you do this.

Do I just wipe the inside of the tank is isopropyl or need to do something special? I was thinking about running 1/2 gallon of distilled water through the replacement filter to remove any left over stuff in the tank/tubes before I redo the mixture.

 

[dminches]

Do I just wipe the inside of the tank is isopropyl or need to do something special? I was thinking about running 1/2 gallon of distilled water through the replacement filter to remove any left over stuff in the tank/tubes before I redo the mixture.

Just wipe it.

 

[shadowlight]

You mentioned looking for the filter I use. Fwiw, the Flowmax FM-035-975 I was using has been discontinued. The suggested alternative is a Neo-Pure PH-27097-S35 - I believe it was David who found this.

Tim, David, would you happen to know the difference between High Efficiency and Standard?

 

[tima]

Tim, David, would you happen to know the difference between High Efficiency and Standard?

I see the Neo-Pure filter described as High Efficiency. I don't think there is some industry standard terminology for that and Standard. Imo, Standard vs High Efficiency implies the latter is more efficient. The Neo-Pure is described as 90% Efficient. That claim means 90% of all particles of 0.35 microns or larger are trapped by the filter. A Standard Efficiency filter (never seen one labeled as such) might be, say, 80% efficient.

What wee don't see is that filter as described as absolute, or see a spec sheet for it. Absolute and Nominal are accepted industry filter descriptions. Typically If a filter is not described as Absolute, it is rated as Nominal, but sometimes you can tell by the efficiency rating alone; I'd say 97% - 98% efficient can be conidered Absolute. Lot's information on the Web about this, eg. here or here.

 

[tima]

I just put everything together and there is a leak from the pump. I have confirmed that it's not leaking from the input of the output but from behind the metal plate.

How did you stop the leak

Shadowlight - how did you resolve the leaking pump. There are several Little Giant users among us and I think we'd all appreciate learning what happened. Thanks.

Btw - it is being suggested that you enclose the pump for a variety of reasons, one being proximity to the tank full of water.

 

[shadowlight]

Shadowlight - how did you resolve the leaking pump. There are several Little Giant users among us and I think we'd all appreciate learning what happened. Thanks.

Btw - it is being suggested that you enclose the pump for a variety of reasons, one being proximity to the tank full of water.

Yes, I sent the pump off to Pump Vendor and they tested and said they were not able to find any leaks. I guess they tightened some stuff up before testing and when I got it back no leak. Yes, I am going to put that in a enclosure before I move the setup to the permanent location.

How are folks dismantling the setup to clean/change filter etc. My tank always seems to have a very thin layer of solution left when I empty the tank out, so I have to disconnect from the pump to empty it completely.

 

[shadowlight]

I see the Neo-Pure filter described as High Efficiency. I don't think there is some industry standard terminology for that and Standard. Imo, Standard vs High Efficiency implies the latter is more efficient. The Neo-Pure is described as 90% Efficient. That claim means 90% of all particles of 0.35 microns or larger are trapped by the filter. A Standard Efficiency filter (never seen one labeled as such) might be, say, 80% efficient.

What wee don't see is that filter as described as absolute, or see a spec sheet for it. Absolute and Nominal are accepted industry filter descriptions. Typically If a filter is not described as Absolute, it is rated as Nominal, but sometimes you can tell by the efficiency rating alone; I'd say 97% - 98% efficient can be conidered Absolute. Lot's information on the Web about this, eg. here or here.

The reason that I asked about the filter type is that Freshwater Systems has both high and standard version listed.

I will order the high efficiency one later tonight.