tima's DIY RCM

[Neil.Antin]

Tim,

Regarding ILFORD ILFOTOL, I worked with some people over at the Steve Hoffman site developing alternative cleaning solutions for the Degritter. My book Section XIV.7 summarizes the testing. Of the cleaning solutions tested, ILFORD ILFOTOL produced the most foam (the Degritter is very sensitive to producing foam); so much that we were never able to get a low enough concentration. So, at this point its not a big surprise that at the higher concentration you are seeing foam.

You may be better off with Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.015% which would be 3X the critical micelle concentration. (EDIT - note that the 0.2 micron absolute filter you are using will remove bacteria) And quoting my book: Chapter VIII:

"VIII.2.2....Surfactants when they are first added to water collect at the surface lowering the surface tension. There is a concentration when the surface tension will not decrease any further, and this point is known as the “critical micelle concentration” (CMC).

VIII.2.3 When the surfactant concentration is greater than the CMC, the surfactant forms aggregate cylindrical and spherical type structures called “micelles” as illustrated Figure 29. As the micelle forms, the surfactant hydrophilic heads position themselves so they are exposed to the water, while the lipophilic tails are grouped together in the center of the structure protected from the water. Micelles are what provide the detergency of a surfactant.

The book in Chapter XIV provides a number of different chemistries for ultrasonics depending on whether its for pre-clean (XIV.9.4) for final clean (XIV.10); and to others who are reading, the best cleaning is achieved with a final DIW rinse. All surfactants regardless of concentration can leave 'some' residue if not rinsed. Whether you will hear it is something else entirely.

Otherwise, one of problems is that almost every equipment application requires some customizing WRT to chemistry and parameter; essentially you have to 'dial-in' what works best for your particular application.

Feel free to ask questions, I will do my best to answer, but Tim this is your thread. If you feel that I am interfering, my apologies, and I will withdraw.

Take care,

Neil Antin

 

[Kingrex]

Hello Neil,
I have a question. In general terms, it seems some sort of friction is needed to break tension on the surface of the vinyl to allow the stuck particles to be removed.

Bristles are to large to fit in the groove so people are using ultrasonic to create agitation which is friction. Ultrasonic is expensive and loud. Hearing protecrion is required.

Loricraft and other vacuums seem to use air as the form of friction. But its a very short duration of time the fluid has to be in contact with the debris while under the influence of the friction.

Why not water jets to dislodge debris. Sure water can cut steel, but a "tuned" stream of water in a bath with long emmerson to me seems like it would also clean well. Then a vacuum to pull out the water and final contaminate.

I'm not trying to change the book. But I see people advocating the use of gosh awful expensive equipment to clean. Some using a Loricraft as a rinse/dry. Why not just presoak records in a bath with some formulation of surfactants.
No ultrasonic. Then use a Loricraft or other vacuum to apply the friction and pull out the contaminants.

Lastly, is using a spin clean as agitation to remove surfactants dangerous as any missed debris can be forced into or score the soft vinyl. Is there any way to use a brush safely.

 

[Neil.Antin]

Hello Neil,
I have a question. In general terms, it seems some sort of friction is needed to break tension on the surface of the vinyl to allow the stuck particles to be removed.

Bristles are to large to fit in the groove so people are using ultrasonic to create agitation which is friction. Ultrasonic is expensive and loud. Hearing protecrion is required.

Loricraft and other vacuums seem to use air as the form of friction. But its a very short duration of time the fluid has to be in contact with the debris while under the influence of the friction.

Why not water jets to dislodge debris. Sure water can cut steel, but a "tuned" stream of water in a bath with long emmerson to me seems like it would also clean well. Then a vacuum to pull out the water and final contaminate.

I'm not trying to change the book. But I see people advocating the use of gosh awful expensive equipment to clean. Some using a Loricraft as a rinse/dry. Why not just presoak records in a bath with some formulation of surfactants.
No ultrasonic. Then use a Loricraft or other vacuum to apply the friction and pull out the contaminants.

Lastly, is using a spin clean as agitation to remove surfactants dangerous as any missed debris can be forced into or score the soft vinyl. Is there any way to use a brush safely.

WRT particles, there are different types of forces (physical & electrical) that hold a particle to the surface. Develop enough force(s) and the particle can be removed from the surface. When a fluid which has mass is agitated so that it has velocity, a fluid force is developed. There are any number of ways to develop the 'shear' force required to displace/remove particles assisted with chemistry.

My book Chapter V details an inexpensive manual cleaning procedure using a brush which I later in Chapter XII describe the why:

"XII.3 The U.S. Navy determined ...that fluid agitation was critical to any water-based cleaning process, and that for pipe cleaning a minimum fluid velocity of 3 feet per second with goal of 6 feet per second was required. Additionally, for optimum performance, flushing forwards and backwards was also required for systems that had any irregular geometries. Fluid motion past a sharp irregularity would mostly bypass the backward side. The U.S. Navy also determined that ... the deciding factor... was the shear force developed by the fluid velocity on the surface being cleaned. The use of water dropping from a faucet and flowing across the record surface for the first rinse to remove loose debris, the second rinse to remove the pre-cleaner and its debris and the third rinse to remove the final cleaner and its debris should approximate a near equivalent shear force. This will allow the rinse water assisted with the Record Doctor™ Clean Sweep Brush to penetrate the record grooves to remove/flush-away the cleaning solutions, debris released by the cleaning solutions, and finally any remaining very small loosened particulate."

"XII.4 The Record Doctor™ Clean Sweep Brush 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 necessary to deeply scrub/clean/flush the groove."

My book wrt to vacuum RCM states: "XIII.1 A key difference between the manual cleaning procedure of CHAPTER V. MANUAL CLEANING PROCESS: and vacuum-RCM, is the difference in cleaner concentration/ volume and rinse water volume that can be used. The manual clean procedure of CHAPTER V. MANUAL CLEANING PROCESS: has almost no limits. Any excess cleaner just drips off into a sink and there is a near infinite source of tap-water for initial rinsing. In comparison, vacuum-RCM have inherent design limits to the amount of cleaning agent and rinse water that can be applied otherwise the unit can be flooded and damaged. Additionally, because of limits with the amount of rinse water that can be applied, lower cleaner concentrations are preferred to control foam and get better rinse efficiency."

I have worked with a few people over at the VPI site implementing the same chemistry specified in the manual process but at lower concentration using the same brush so for vacuum-RCM its pre-clean Alconox™ Liquinox™ @0.5%, rinse DIW, final clean Dow™ Tergitol™ @0.05%, rinse DIW, and then dry. For pre-clean you can use an enzyme cleaner instead or as an additional step. Enzyme cleaners need to soak to work, but they are generally used for specific types of biological soils such as human blood, excrement, tissue and similar making them very effective for cleaning surgical instruments after use and before sterilization.

Your concept of a water jet is used in industry - they are called 'parts washers' and the cost/sophistication can equal an ultrasonic tank cleaner. But parts-washer still use chemistry (and the chemistry is non-foaming; generally am alkaline cleaner) because the fluid velocity necessary to use water alone becomes damaging. Otherwise, the concept of water spray is the basis of the Gem Dandy Hydraulic LP Cleaning Apparatus MKII (hifigem.com). I have not used this device, but the cleaning solution and some brushing is recommended.

The Spin Clean has the benefit of a bath of fluid - but if you do not keep the bath clean; you end up just cleaning a record in dirty solution. The benefit of the book's manual procedure and vacuum-RCM is that you are always applying fresh cleaner and fresh rinse water. A risk with vacuum-RCM such as VPI is keeping the vacuum brush(s) surface clean. The Loricraft with the thread avoids this risk. Ultrasonics are mostly hands-off and the large bath size somewhat dilutes contaminants - but you need to manage the bath - which means either filtering the bath or frequent refresh of the bath.

WRT to the increasing cost of record cleaning equipment - my book pretty much summarizes that: "XII.13 The final chapters of this document will discuss machine assisted cleaning methods: vacuum record cleaning machines (RCM) and ultrasonic cleaning machines (UCM). It’s important to consider that machines are generally developed for two primary reasons – reduce labor and improve process efficiency. Process efficiency can mean faster (higher throughput) and/or higher probability of achieving quality or achieving a quality that manual labor cannot produce. Manual cleaning in the appropriate environment with appropriate controls can achieve impressive levels of cleanliness, but the labor, skill, time and probability of success generally make it impractical for manufacturing environments. But for the home audio enthusiast; depending on your attention to details, adopting machine assisted cleaning may or may not yield a cleaner record. However, the ease of use and convenience provided by machines can be very enticing and cannot be denied."

Hope this answers your questions,

Neil

 

[tima]

Feel free to ask questions, I will do my best to answer, but Tim this is your thread. If you feel that I am interfering, my apologies, and I will withdraw.

While there are different ways to clean a record, the general direction of this thread is about building a competent record cleaning system with ultrasonic tanks and using my journey to do that as an example. Thanks for contributing, Neil - of course you are welcome.

 

[tima]

You may be better off with Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.015% which would be 3X the critical micelle concentration. (EDIT - note that the 0.2 micron absolute filter you are using will remove bacteria)

I gather that Tergitol 15-S-9 foams less (or not at all?) than ILFOTOL? While I've been satisfied with the results from ILFOTOL, I'm willing to consider to consider alternatives.

I probably could find this info, but I'll ask since you are here: do you know the lifespan of Tergitol 15-S-19 or ILFOTOL in a distilled water solution as well as on the shelf?

Thanks.

 

[Neil.Antin]

I gather that Tergitol 15-S-9 foams less (or not at all?) than ILFOTOL? While I've been satisfied with the results from ILFOTOL, I'm willing to consider to consider alternatives.

I probably could find this info, but I'll ask since you are here: do you know the lifespan of Tergitol 15-S-19 or ILFOTOL in a distilled water solution as well as on the shelf?

Thanks.

Tim,

Tergitol 15-S-9 will foam but by the experience with the Degritter less than the ILFOTOL. Just about all water soluble surfactants will foam; but some/many more than others. Surfactants have a property called foam height (in mm) that is measured generally at 0.1% initially and then 5 min later.

One of problems with the ILFOTOL is that the older MSDS that showed the composition indicate it as 1-5% nonionic surfactant. That is a very wide range.

As far as shelf life, most chemical companies will specify 2-yrs. But, this is very conservative. Tergitol 15-S-9 (which is 100%) should stored in its closed container at room temp should last many many years.

As far as once diluted - the ILFOTOL is delivered at least 20:1 diluted, and the small amount of antibacterial additive make it shelf stable. But, any of these once diluted down to open UT tank use at <0.05% active, should be stable enough for at least 30-days - what you are cleaning is not full of active bacteria. Over time, drag-out, evaporative losses and functioning will decrease the concentration but clarity and how well it 'wets' the record are good indicators. Otherwise, the build-up of TDS should be the driver to refresh the tank.

Neil

 

[Folsom]

Hello Neil,
I have a question. In general terms, it seems some sort of friction is needed to break tension on the surface of the vinyl to allow the stuck particles to be removed.

Bristles are to large to fit in the groove so people are using ultrasonic to create agitation which is friction. Ultrasonic is expensive and loud. Hearing protecrion is required.

Loricraft and other vacuums seem to use air as the form of friction. But its a very short duration of time the fluid has to be in contact with the debris while under the influence of the friction.

Why not water jets to dislodge debris. Sure water can cut steel, but a "tuned" stream of water in a bath with long emmerson to me seems like it would also clean well. Then a vacuum to pull out the water and final contaminate.

I'm not trying to change the book. But I see people advocating the use of gosh awful expensive equipment to clean. Some using a Loricraft as a rinse/dry. Why not just presoak records in a bath with some formulation of surfactants.
No ultrasonic. Then use a Loricraft or other vacuum to apply the friction and pull out the contaminants.

Lastly, is using a spin clean as agitation to remove surfactants dangerous as any missed debris can be forced into or score the soft vinyl. Is there any way to use a brush safely.

Look at Gem Dandy. It works but seems to be very messy.

 

[tima]

One of problems with the ILFOTOL is that the older MSDS that showed the composition indicate it as 1-5% nonionic surfactant. That is a very wide range.

Yes, thank you Neil. It appears there are several revisions to the safety data sheet for Ilfoto. Could you please cite the one you are using for the above statement. Would you please point me to where on the data sheet that it shows the percentage of nonionic surfactant.

Attached is the data sheet (technical information) from the current ilfordphoto.com Web site. ILFOTOL is on page 3.

From it I read this wrt to lifespan:
ILFOTOL concentrate will keep for:-
3 years in full airtight bottles
12 months in half full tightly capped bottles.

For those following along: also attached is PDF where I gathered information on wetting agents and surfactants generally. Sources include Wikipedia and Britannica.com

I ordered a pint of Tergitoal-15-S-9 from the link referenced in my post #284.

 

[dminches]

I have been using the Tergitol that Neil recommended and haven’t found that it foams much at all. Now that I have added a rinse cycle I am not seeing any accumulation in the rinse tank. When I refresh my wash tank solution I may try a little more just to see if it changes anything. Right now I am using 15-18 drops in my 3 gallon tank.

 

[Neil.Antin]

Yes, thank you Neil. It appears there are several revisions to the safety data sheet for Ilfoto. Could you please cite the one you are using for the above statement. Would you please point me to where on the data sheet that it shows the percentage of nonionic surfactant.

Attached is the data sheet (technical information) from the current ilfordphoto.com Web site. ILFOTOL is on page 3.

From it I read this wrt to lifespan:
ILFOTOL concentrate will keep for:-
3 years in full airtight bottles
12 months in half full tightly capped bottles.

For those following along: also attached is PDF where I gathered information on wetting agents and surfactants generally. Sources include Wikipedia and Britannica.com

I ordered a pint of Tergitoal-15-S-9 from the link referenced in my post #284.

Tim:

Here is an MSDS for ILFORD ILFOTOL that shows the composition - ilfotol_en_ghs_e15.pdf (ilfordphoto.com).

Note that there has been a recent change in how companies report data for the safety data sheet. The term MSDS is gone, replaced by SDS, and only hazardous ingredients need be reported, and this is in accordance with the adoption of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), Eighth revised edition, Copyright © United Nations, 2019, GHS (Rev.8) (2019) | UNECE. So recent SDSs often no longer report all ingredients.

Companies will always be conservative with shelf life because of liability and warranty concerns.

 

[Neil.Antin]

I have been using the Tergitol that Neil recommended and haven’t found that it foams much at all. Now that I have added a rinse cycle I am not seeing any accumulation in the rinse tank. When I refresh my wash tank solution I may try a little more just to see if it changes anything. Right now I am using 15-18 drops in my 3 gallon tank.

What you are using is about 1-ml per 11,000 ml = about 90 ppm. This is close to 2X the critical micelle concentration (CMC) which is 100 ppm. This will get the full wetting ability of the Tergitol 15-S-9, but not much detergency. Increasing to about 1.5 to 2 ml will get you closer to 3X the CMC ~150 ppm. You may want to try 25-30 drops; or I have found these disposable pipettes to be convenient and very cheap - 100pcs Plastic Disposable Transfer Pipettes - 3ml Plastic Calibrated Graduated Eye Dropper Suitable for Lip Gloss Transfer Essential Oils Science Laboratory Experiment: Amazon.com: Industrial & Scientific

 

[Kingrex]

Look at Gem Dandy. It works but seems to be very messy.

I'm actually going to ditch all these expensive machines. I'm leaning towards getting 2 spin clean. One I will plumb with my pump filter setup. The other will be my rinse. I may create a conical spindle to go in a cordless drill to throw off some of the detergent water before the rinse. Then vacuum dry. I dont see the need to invest $4k minimum and more like $7k to build up an ultrasonic system.

I am super grateful for Timas work. All the research into cleaning formula is over the top important. For use in any machine. And the inspiration to try something other than a boxed solution is a breath of fresh air to me. I really doubt the store bought units work as well as what Tima and others here are doing. For me personally, I just don't want to spend that money. I feel validation that a good old brush is actually doing an excellent job of cleaning. But I totally get the ultrasonic in that is speeds it up and adds consistency. And I think a filter pump system plumbed into a spin clean takes hand washing to a whole new level.

 

[Folsom]

It doesn't have to cost $4k. @Kingrex

This cleaner. $830 (I wouldn't use the very back and forward spots)
Pump + filter + etc $100~
Tub for rinse? $10? or Squeaky Clean RCM $125 (The guy sent me a smaller piece that fits under just the label, for support so it doesn't get water all over the other side of record)
Misc $10-30? (spray bottle or something)

I recant my previous thoughts on vacuum to dry, it's best to air dry the very last bit. I vacuum the large amounts off, then put them in rack.

And I admit I spent $180 on the work bench because I love adjustable height etc.





But what you're talking about should be able to work. Why not use the Gem Dandy setup? Rinse distilled, then vacuum, air dry. (you may need an inline filter to that faucet) . The system when used right is known to be VERY good, if not better than ultrasonic. I think you'll like this video. Hell, it's so good I'm tempted to go with it.

 

[tima]

Tim:

Here is an MSDS for ILFORD ILFOTOL that shows the composition - ilfotol_en_ghs_e15.pdf (ilfordphoto.com).

Note that there has been a recent change in how companies report data for the safety data sheet. The term MSDS is gone, replaced by SDS, and only hazardous ingredients need be reported, and this is in accordance with the adoption of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), Eighth revised edition, Copyright © United Nations, 2019, GHS (Rev.8) (2019) | UNECE. So recent SDSs often no longer report all ingredients.

Companies will always be conservative with shelf life because of liability and warranty concerns.

Thanks, Neil.
Okay, I see it now:
C12-15 Alcohol ethoxylate 1-5%

 

[Neil.Antin]

Thanks, Neil.
Okay, I see it now:
C12-15 Alcohol ethoxylate 1-5%

Tim,

One item to add, the version of the ILFOTOL MSDS I linked was the 1st time I saw the actual concentration of the bio-inhibitor listed - others that I have seen list it as <1%. With the bio-inhibitor at only 0.014% (Reaction mass of 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazoline-3-one [EC no.247-500-7] and 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one [EC no. 220-239-6] (3:1)) when you dilute down to use in your UT tank, you essentially have no benefit of bio-inhibitor (generally known as CMIT). CMIT needs to be about 10-15 ppm to be effective (~0.001%). The dilution factor in your tank is over 100:1 so the amount of CMIT is <1.4 ppm.

Neil

 

[Kingrex]

Neil, what is this book you published . Is it available to the public. How do I get a copy. I want to read your section on hand washing.

 

[Kingrex]

It doesn't have to cost $4k. @Kingrex

This cleaner. $830 (I wouldn't use the very back and forward spots)
Pump + filter + etc $100~
Tub for rinse? $10? or Squeaky Clean RCM $125 (The guy sent me a smaller piece that fits under just the label, for support so it doesn't get water all over the other side of record)
Misc $10-30? (spray bottle or something)

I recant my previous thoughts on vacuum to dry, it's best to air dry the very last bit. I vacuum the large amounts off, then put them in rack.

And I admit I spent $180 on the work bench because I love adjustable height etc.





But what you're talking about should be able to work. Why not use the Gem Dandy setup? Rinse distilled, then vacuum, air dry. (you may need an inline filter to that faucet) . The system when used right is known to be VERY good, if not better than ultrasonic. I think you'll like this video. Hell, it's so good I'm tempted to go with it.

The Isonic is not near the quaity of machine you guys are working with. An effective ultrasonic with an effective filter looks to be $4K. Tima has figured out a top notch setup. There is no doubt its way better than most any other out there.

I already have a filter system. Its only 1 micron. But I believe its good enough for the spin clean if I rinse afterwards.

I can still use my cheap ultrasonic as a prewash and soak. Maybe I'm adding a step. But if I were to start from scratch, I think a good scrub box with a good filter would be very effective. I have been hand washing for years. And it seemed to work just fine. What alluded me was the cleaning solution formula. As well as the knowledge and confidence to air dry. Or put another way. The confidence to know the final product is so clean, water spots from air drying are not going to be an issue.

I have a vacuum that seems to work well. I feel it will suck any well saturated contamination from the groove that are not dislodged by washing.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Since my name has been bantered about quite a bit, and in the interest of 'adding' to the discussion, I decided to join the forum.

As far as ultrasonics - quoting from my book (and the primary reference is the 500+ page book Particle Adhesion and Removal 2015):

XIV.1.a The basic principle is that ultrasonic sound waves can produce bubbles that will grow until they collapse and the associated event is termed ‘cavitation’ as illustrated Figure 45. The energy associated with cavitation is known by any motor boat owner who has experienced propeller pitting/wear from cavitation, and the same phenomenon can be experienced with centrifugal pumps. For ultrasonics there is a minimum power (wattage) necessary to produce cavitation. The higher the frequency, the more power is required. The minimum power required at 40 kHz is reported between 0.3 and 0.5 W/cm² (per transducer radiating surface). As the UCM tank volume increases, less power, measured as W/gal or W/cm³ is required to maintain cavitation throughout the tank. A very small 0.5-gal/1.9-L 40-kHz tank may require 125 W/gal while a 12.75-L/3.4-gal 40-kHz tank may only require 80 W/gal; noting that as the ultrasonic kHz increases so does the power required. There is a limit to increasing power above which no additional benefit is obtained.

XIV.1.b The lower the ultrasonic frequency, the larger the bubble that is created. A 40 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 75 microns diameter. These are not going to get into the record groove. A 120 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 20 microns and these can get into the groove. But the larger bubble can produce more energy when it collapses/implodes (cavitation) so there is fluid agitation around the collapsing event that can provide cleaning. How violently the bubble collapse is determined by the amount of power provided by the ultrasonic transducers. A low power 40 kHz unit may be safe for soft metal such as jewelry, while a 40 kHz high power unit may not. The smaller bubble by its size is limited to how violent it can collapse. A high powered 120 kHz unit has less potential for damage than a high powered 40 kHz. As the frequency increases well above 250 kHz, cavitation pretty much disappears replaced by ‘acoustic streaming’. The fluid velocity produced by the acoustic streaming is what then does the cleaning; and the target velocities are not much different than those developed for pipe/tube flushing addressed CHAPTER XI. DISCUSSION OF CLEANLINESS CRITERIA:.

XIV.1.c Further complicating the effectiveness of ultrasonics is the fluid boundary layer. The fluid flow at the record (or any) surface develops a static layer that is separate from the bulk fluid that is moving. The boundary layer thickness is dependent on the ultrasonic frequency (high kHz = thinner boundary layer), acoustic energy, and fluid properties (viscosity & density). To get the most effective cleaning, the cleaning process has to penetrate the boundary layer to remove the soil and particles that are contained within it. This concept is also applicable to pipe flushing and was addressed CHAPTER XI. DISCUSSION OF CLEANLINESS CRITERIA:. At 40-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 5 microns, while at 120-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 2 microns.

XIV.1.d So, fundamentally, following the logic, lower frequency units (40 kHz) are good for larger soil surfaces and particles while higher frequency units (80-132 kHz) are better at removing smaller particles as illustrated Figure 46.

View attachment 79974

Also, add to this (from an exchange I had with Tim) - during what is called the ultrasonic rarefaction phase, the pressure drops below the fluid vapor pressure and essentially the fluid boils creating a bubble and over a period of rarefaction/compression cycles the bubble that is formed grows until the surrounding hydraulic pressure violently collapses it. The cavitation bubble duration is very short - about 4 milliseconds - check this video starting at about time 6:20 https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ul ... %3DHDRSC3; There should be no evidence of bubbles, but there will be a visual disturbance in the fluid unless there is air in the water which will be released and that is the whole concept of degas; air bubbles absorb the UT energy and essentially prevent cavitation.

Yes, its a lot of info and of course there is a lot of debate as to "What's the best". To that I will only say there are different methods/processes that can achieve a 'clean record'; and the devil is in the details.

Welcome to WBF, Neil! Thank you for joining us!

 

[Neil.Antin]

Neil, what is this book you published . Is it available to the public. How do I get a copy. I want to read your section on hand washing.

Here is the link that will download the book - its free; Vinyl Record Manual Cleaning Process (thevinylpress.com). If you want a little background Bill Hart with the VinylPress who is my 'editor & publisher' and hosts the book wrote a quick article Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-2nd Edition - The Vinyl Press.

Couple of quick items:

-The manual procedure is detailed Chapters II, III & V. Its very detailed written in mil-standard format so there is no misunderstanding. But the actual procedure only takes 6-8 minute/record. If you read the book and get to Chapter XIV on UT cleaning you should see some of results of the work Tim has done as well as the results of work we did with putting together his latest filter/pump system.

-The VinylStack label protector is no longer for sale. The Groovemaster is available - The Clear Choice For Cleaner Sound® (groovmaster.com). There are cheaper knock-offs to the Groovdmaster but they are only 1/3 the thickness.

-The link to buy the Alconox Liquinox is Amazon.com: Alconox - 1232-1 1232 Liquinox Anionic Critical Cleaning Liquid Detergent, 1 quart Bottle: Industrial & Scientific.

If you decide to use the manual procedure - let me know and I fill you in on an additional pre-clean step that I now use after the 1% Alconox (and before the final clean Tergritol) that can make a difference on some records. Lets just take this a step at time, and I do not want to take advantage of Tim's post.

Good luck,
Neil

 

[Folsom]

The Isonic is not near the quaity of machine you guys are working with. An effective ultrasonic with an effective filter looks to be $4K. Tima has figured out a top notch setup. There is no doubt its way better than most any other out there.

I already have a filter system. Its only 1 micron. But I believe its good enough for the spin clean if I rinse afterwards.

I can still use my cheap ultrasonic as a prewash and soak. Maybe I'm adding a step. But if I were to start from scratch, I think a good scrub box with a good filter would be very effective. I have been hand washing for years. And it seemed to work just fine. What alluded me was the cleaning solution formula. As well as the knowledge and confidence to air dry. Or put another way. The confidence to know the final product is so clean, water spots from air drying are not going to be an issue.

I have a vacuum that seems to work well. I feel it will suck any well saturated contamination from the groove that are not dislodged by washing.

IMO SpinCleans aren’t really any more effective than a brush. I think that they might be a nice format for doing a rinse however.

Distilled water shouldn’t have anything in it to leave water spots.