Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records
By Neil Antin
(The attached article has been superseded by a Third Edition, which can be downloaded by clicking the button below).
Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records by Neil Antin applies processes and methodologies developed by the U.S. Navy for precision cleaning of critical systems—such as oxygen systems on submarines—to the much more prosaic task of cleaning vinyl LPs. Mr. Antin’s work, documented in the paper attached here as a download, is not presented as some extraordinary way to clean an LP that will render all other cleaning methods obsolete; to the contrary, Neil details a very basic, economical manual cleaning process and takes us through each step of his record cleaning process with the sort of detail and rigor usually associated with mil-spec technical manuals.
Much of what is packed into the more than 80 pages of this paper explains the “why” of cleaning methods, a lot of it familiar, some of it not. Neil explains mostly in lay terms what is occurring during each step to the materials, the chemistry and how those affect the results.
One benefit of applying a “mil-spec” mentality to the record cleaning process is that we can largely eliminate the anecdotal or subjective; instead, the methods outlined by Mr. Antin are anchored in previously proven methods that are repeatable. Neil then challenges us with two existential questions: “What is clean?” and “When is a record clean?”
I was not familiar with Naval Systems Sea Command (“NAVSEA”) where Neil worked for more than three decades, but it is the organization responsible for procuring, engineering, maintaining and supporting the entire US naval fleet. That’s not just a lot of hardware. The ships and submarines are designed to last for 30+ years and the systems involved are truly “critical”: national security is involved and human lives depend on complex devices operating under extreme conditions. Cleaning and maintaining such systems to deliver consistently reliable performance in these conditions involves a level of quality and safety that are part of the culture. See generally, https://www.navsea.navy.mil
During his career there, Mr. Antin served as the NavSea technical authority for a number of precision cleaning and testing processes that are described in the brief biographical section of his paper, below.
Mr. Antin is also an audiophile and this paper had its origins in Neil’s decision to apply what he knew about precision cleaning processes to his own record collection. The paper presented here represents the first published version of his analysis. There is a huge amount of information packed into these pages, pulling data from the technical papers of the likes of RCA, NASA, NAVSEA, the EPA and other sources. It is simply beyond the capability and resources of most businesses to do the research and tests and generate the kind of data afforded by large scale industry and the military.
Interestingly, when LPs were a mainstream medium and were manufactured on a large scale by big corporations with a vested interest in the quality and marketplace success of their products, there was a considerable amount of research and development that was generally accessible to others in the industry through conventions, published papers and various trade organizations. The astute reader will notice that among the many references on which Mr. Antin relies is Harold Weiler’s booklet, “The Wear and Care of Records and Styli,” that was the touchstone for Mike Bodell’s recent article on stylus wear.
Some of Neil’s observations may seem intuitive- others may run counter to the accepted wisdom. But rather than present a set of conclusions with some supporting data to justify a particular product or result, Neil instead invites the reader to join him in examining each step of the process, involving the manual cleaning of an LP, to learn what is taking place. This is the “why” of it —what is happening on a mechanical, chemical and cleanliness level at each step.
Apart from identifying some basic and relatively inexpensive equipment and chemistry that is generally available to the DIY record cleaning crowd, there are, to be sure, a few surprises, but if the objective is to achieve a level of cleanliness that would meet “mil-spec” standards, this is the closest I think you’ll come. (I read my share of AES papers from the archive when the record industry was publishing findings and some of them touched on these issues but none, to my recollection, are as comprehensive this paper).
The second half of the paper, the discussion or rationale, isn’t necessarily an easy read. It is chock full of information that may require time and thinking to digest. There is the not so mundane understanding of water quality. There are various interactions between different types of cleaning chemicals. There are material compatibility issues between the various chemicals and the vinyl itself. And of course, part of record cleaning isn’t just to have the cleaning agent bind with the contaminants, but to effectively remove those contaminants, including any residual cleaning agent that may remain on the surface or in the grooves, once the cleaning agents have done their job.
Neil discusses visual techniques that can be used to evaluate how effectively particulate matter and residual matter, including the cleaning agents, have been removed.
The methods outlined in Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records can be readily adapted for use with conventional vacuum record cleaning machines, as well as to DIY ultrasonic cleaning methods, as Neil explains.
There are suggestions for filtering the air intake air on vacuum machines to minimize contamination if you use a vacuum record cleaning machine, like a VPI. There are also some valuable insights on filtering water- something that has become a norm in DIY ultrasonic record cleaning area.
Though the attached paper does not purport to offer any magic solutions or “silver bullets” that can lead to sonic bliss in one simple step, it provides valuable information even for those who are not inclined to “do it themselves” and prefer to rely on commercially available record cleaning equipment and chemistry.
Some readers may want a simple solution that doesn’t involve time and effort. This, I think, contributed to the initial acceptance of purpose-built ultrasonic cleaning machines for LPs. Those devices sold pretty well in the marketplace shortly after their introduction despite the high price tag—largely, I think, because they required only minimal effort, beyond loading a record and pushing a button. However, a lot of attention is now being paid to DIY ultrasonic cleaning, not just as a cost saving measure, but in an attempt to improve on the processes used in the commercial, made for records ultrasonic cleaners.
Some of the techniques in the paper can be adapted fairly simply by those not inclined to devote hours of time and effort to improving or changing their record cleaning processes.
Whether you adopt his simple manual cleaning process, or study this paper in depth and adopt some or all of the approaches outlined, there is considerable value in understanding the “why,” which tells us much about the “how.” And in that respect, Mr. Antin’s paper, though it may seem daunting, is ultimately a very practical guide to both the “how” and “why” of effective record cleaning, leaving you with some latitude to make informed choices about how you want to approach these processes and apply them to your own cleaning methods.
I’ve long held the view that record cleaning is more about method than it is the particular equipment; Neil’s work not only seems to bear that out but explains why methods like pre-cleaning, agitation and rinse steps contribute to better results.
I learned a vast amount about the chemistry and the effectiveness of various steps in the cleaning process in the course of reading this paper in preparation for its publication. Whatever your degree of interest in learning more about the process of cleaning records effectively, I think you’ll find a lot to consider in reading Neil’s paper. My thanks to Neil Antin for his Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records, which constitutes an invaluable contribution to field. The paper, in its entirety, can be downloaded below.
Bill Hart
Austin, TX.
May, 2020
feature image: fabian jung
Hi Neil,
First, congratulations on the publication of your paper here at TVP. I’ve seen your posts and commentary on various audio Web sites and think it is great you have aggregated your knowledge about cleaning records into a single well-organized document. Thank you for publishing it.
I’ve published write-ups here at Bill’s site about my own experiences with putting together a record cleaning system and thus share your enthusiasm for the topic of cleaning vinyl records. I came to this as an audiophile rather than through a career so my background is nowhere as extensive. I’ve done some amateur research on the subject and very much appreciate the time you put into your documentation. If you care to engage on this topic that is appreciated.
My own approach is different than yours. One of my goals was to reduce the time it takes to clean records while getting records cleaned to my satisfaction. Your grading of cleanliness was fascinating to read. As an amateur I use what I call the Ellington Test: if the record sounds clean it is clean. Thus I assess my own efforts and experiments using that perhaps simplistic gauge.
Your discussion of possible solution formulations is helpful and intersting. In my Elmasonic p120h ultrasonic tank I use the following solution: ~12.75 liters distilled water, ~312 ml 99.9% pure IPA (0.24%) and ~16 ml Ilford Ilfotol (0.00125%). The water is heated to ~28° C and can rise to ~30° C due to the cavitation energy put into the tank during the cleaning process. I run 5-6 records on a rotisserie in that solution, 10 minutes at 37kHz and 10 minutes at 80kHz. I then air dry the records on their rotisserie spindle. While that is effective to my needs, I’d very much appreciate any comments you care to share on the solution. I am aware of the flammable character of IPA.
I sought to avoid a rinse step thus my focus is on solution purity which I assess with a TDS meter. With a fresh tank of solution, I see a reading of 0000 – 0001 total dissolved solids. The tank solution is pumped (~1.7gpm) through a 0.35 micron filter (nominal – Flomax FM-0.35-975) ) during the 20 minute cleaning process. At the end of a cleaning cycle, when records are removed from solution, my goal is for the solution to indicate no more than 0005 ppm total dissolved solids. My thinking is that whatever solids are on the record when pulled from the tank will dry on the record, so if the solution is kept clean, a record will be that clean when solution evaporates. What do you think of that approach?
Thanks for the tip on the Hydronix AR filters.
I’ll limit my questions. Your paper touched on so many interesting aspects of record cleaning that I need to read it again and take notes.
Thanks again,
Tim Aucremann
cf. https://thevinylpress.com/timas-diy-rcm-follow-up-2-compelling-changes-improved-results/
Tima,
First – the TDS is unlikely to show much, the water, the ILFORD and the IPA are all nonionic, so any increase is from the record, or more likely from the absorption of CO2 from the air that will slightly acidify the solution. Additionally, not sure what TDS meter you are using, but accuracy can be an issue. If you are using one with only one scale and that scale reads 0-2000 ppm, and it is 2% accurate, the 2% is for Full Scale. So, the accuracy is (2000)(0.02) = +/- 40 ppm. The TDS meter I mentioned in the paper Section XIII has various scales, so the accuracy is Full Scale for each scale.
The amount of IPA is 312 mL/12,750 mL = 0.024 = 2.4% solution. The vapors are flammable; and a UT and a rotating disc is going to setup the conditions for vapor to form. The fire risk is low, but the consequences could be really bad. The 2.4% IPA will reduce the water surface tension, but only to about 60 dynes/cm – see Section VII of the paper.
The ILFORD ILFOTO at 16 mL/12.750 mL = 1.25 mL/L. But the ILFORD ILFOTO is only 5% active ingredient, so the active ingredient concentration is (1.25 mL/L)/20 = 0.0625 mL/L = 62.5 ppm which is the absolute lowest to reach the product critical micelle concentration = so a fresh tank will have a surface tension of about 30 dynes/cm, which is good for wetting but there will be no micelles for surfactant cleaning.
Overall, what you are using is not a bad wetting solution – and not bad for final cleaning, and with so little NVR – 62.5 ppm from the ILFORD ILFOTO – will dry with little NVR on the record. Not sure how much the IPA is working – it will compete with the ILFORD ILFOTO and as I said the vapors are flammable. I am not going to get into what mix you might want to try; I am not getting into formulating. If you wanted a recommendation, I would say delete the IPA, and try increasing the ILFORD to 50 mL/12.75L, and add a rinse step with a wash bottle (would use only a few mL/record). The higher ILFORD concentration will get some micelles to form to get some cleaning beyond just wetting, and the quick DIW rinse will minimize leaving NVR on the record.
The pump flow may be pretty high for that tank size. The current thoughts are that flow can effect UT performance, but the stacked arrangement will present some peculiar flow. The flow will always the path of least resistance so the flow between the records could be low. The pump is 7.73 lpm so the tank half-life is (0.693)(12.75)/(7.73 lpm) = 1.14 min. The tank will fully filter if operated for the 20 minute cycle, and the 0.35 micron nominal filter should remove most particles >5 microns, but there is no spec-sheet for the filter. But the UT cycle time is pretty high – but that time may be a function of the record stacking. The records on the outside are likely getting better cleaning than the inside records; and for the inside records, the debris that is released from one record ‘may’ get pushed to another. However, without any surfactant micelles, you are somewhat forced into a high tank flow rate/turn-over to keep the particulate level low (micelles will help to keep particulate in solution), but as I said above, TDS is not going to be a good indicator for NVR.
Hope this helps.
Best Regards,
Neil
Neil,
Thank you taking the time to look at what I’m doing with my record cleaning practice. Your articles and above comments are appreciated and cause me to evaluate what I’m doing with it in more detail.
With regard to using a TDS meter, I started with this to keep an eye on filter effectiveness and solution condition. I understand the IPA and Ilfotol are nonionic and assumed an increase in TDS ppm is largely from material coming off the records.
Your point about TDS meter accuracy across the meter’s full scale is helpful. I looked on Amazon at the Extech EC410 model you mention; it has many nice features but user comments suggest problems with getting the unit to calibrate and poor manufacturer interface. Is there another brand or model that you like?
I had not known enough to make a distinction between non-volatile residue (NVR) and particulates along with the inability of a TDS meter to measure NVR. I’m guessing that the NVR you mention in this discussion refers to the cleaning material that has not evaporated and remains on a record. I’m guessing that those and NVR non-solubllzied particulate in the solution are not detected by the TDS meter. I’m guessing the latter can, in part, be removed by a filter along with non-NVR particulates in the solution. Does that sound right?
It would seem NVR remaining on a record is partly a function of the chemicals used in solution, in my case IPA and Ilfotol. I’m guessing that measuring non-volatile residue left on a record seems highly impractical or expensive and is perhaps best addressed by using chemicals that have low residual properties. I also imagine that implosion from ultrasonic vacuum bubbles can play a role in removing NVR from a record. I thought pure IPA will, with time, evaporate without leaving a residue. I welcomed learning from you that Ilfotol will dry with little NVR on the record.
Here are my first takeaways from your comments and excellent paper: As you mentioned, I will experiement with using more Ilfotol and perhaps less IPA. I plan to install a 2-micron Hydronix AR0020SF1 AR Series filter. And I’d like to find a TDS meter with higher resolution and higher accuracy. Whether these will yield audible improvement from cleaned records I don’t know, but as a hobbyist I am interested to improve my DIY RCM.
Any comments are most welcome! And thanks again.
Fwiw, I posted a link to your TVP article on the WBF audio forum.
Best,
Tim
Tim,
Let me try to better explain NVR. For the purpose of a record, NVR is any residue that is either on the record or will remain on the record after all solutions have dried/evaporated. NVR can be insoluble particulate that can be removed by filtration or it can be soluble matter that cannot be removed with normal filtration. As far as insoluble NVR; i.e particulate, I recommended the Pentek filter housing that can monitored filter pressure drop. As the filter loads with particulate, the pressure drop across the filter increases. The filter spec will state the allowable filter pressure drop; the Hydronix AR specs 35.6 psid.
Solubilized matter can be solubilized salts that contribute to TDS, or they may be nonionic surfactant, or soluble contaminates in the IPA that do not contribute to TDS. Either way, solubilized NVR is not removed by the particulate/sediment filter so monitoring TDS to determine when to replace the filter is not correct. Note that IPA will have NVR, and reagent grade 99.9% IPA NVR is 10 ppm, but you dilute it almost 50:1 with DIW whose NVR is <2.5 ppm. But for the solution you currently use the total soluble NVR = 62.5 ppm from the LFORD as you currently use, plus the DIW that is ~2.5 ppm, plus the IPA diluted about 50:1 (10 ppm/50), so the total is 62.5 ppm + 2.5 ppm +0.2 ppm = 65.2 ppm; which is the same as 65.2 mg/L. If you followed what I discussed in Section XI Table VI, if we assume 5 mL dries on the surface then (62.5 mg/L)(0.00.5) = 0.326 mg/ft^2 which is very little. If you increase the ILFORD to 50 mL, and you do no rinse, the NVR left on the record from the cleaning solution is a direct ratio (50 mL/16 mL)(0.326 mg/ft^2) = 1.01 mg/ft^2 which as far as I am concerned is a bit high. But it you just do a simple rinse, that is 2/3 (67)% effective, then the residue left by the cleaning solution ILFORD used at 50 mL/tank = (1.01 mg/ft^2)(1-0.67) = 0.333 mg/ft^2 – essentially no different then what you have now, but the detergency is now significantly improved.
There is a lot of discussion about cavitation, and that is how the UCM works, but some of the reported number such as 10,000 psi are theoretical only; actually numbers are much, much lower, and the particle size has a significant influence. Large particles have large surface area that can have for want of better term craters that can trap air that can dampen the cavitation energy and this is one of the reason particle size removal can be frequency related. The complications increase because different types of particles (different material composition) have different affinity for the surface they are attached. Its not simple, and this does even address acoustic streaming which can cause fluid flow and this s a whole other variable – they are still studying
WRT to TDS, at the price range of the Extech unit, they are all essentially the same device such as this device that is sold under many different names with similar customer comments – some like it; some hate it, https://www.traceable.com/4366-traceable-conductivity-tds-pen.html#product_tabs_Instructions. So, at this point I no have recommendation since beyond this the cost jumps because you are now with lab-units, and they generally read conductivity as micro siemens which introduces another set of units that can be confusing – micro siemens = 1/resistivity that is listed Section VII, Table III.
One of the problems when trying to extend tank bath, is how much soluble matter is being removed from the record, because this cannot be filtered out. You can add a demineralizer to remove soluble salts (i.e. TDS), but there are a number of limitations as I wrote in Section XIII. But, if you only use the UCM, to clean Generally Clean record, then most of what is removed should be particulate that is filterable. If you take a sample of the clean UCM bath water and then store that in a clean-clear glass sample jar such as https://www.amazon.com/Karter-Scientific-Reagent-Bottle-56x100mm/dp/B006UKI8DK/ref=pd_bxgy_3/147-8564833-3995320?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B006UKI8DK&pd_rd_r=f68944be-1d8a-4f07-a608-fdedfd14eee5&pd_rd_w=Ij5AQ&pd_rd_wg=jBesr&pf_rd_p=4e3f7fc3-00c8-46a6-a4db-8457e6319578&pf_rd_r=JSY4Z9WXMWH41MWET9QS&psc=1&refRID=JSY4Z9WXMWH41MWET9QS, and then periodically compare after cleaning some # of record batches. When the used sample shows some cloudiness (do not wait till you see it in the tank) change out the bath. But, unless the filter pressure drop is high, no reason to replace the filter – it should last many tank-baths.
Hope this helps,
Neil
Neil,
Your comments on NVR help me further clarify my understanding of the cleaning process. Thank you for explaining further.
With regard to filter monitoring … I already use a 10″ Pentek 158116 clear cannister, so it would be easy to switch out to the Pentek 3G 10″ 150574 cannister (~$40) and Pentek 143549 differential pressure gauge (~$52) although I’ll need different hose barbs as the 150574 take 3/4″ fittings. Fwiw, Pentek offers the 154622 3G cannister cap only w/ meter mount that may fit on my existing cannister but the price differential is only $2.
When I changed tank solution I was doing something similar to your comparison of clean vs dirty tank water described in the final paragraph above. ( https://thevinylpress.com/record-cleaning-timas-diy-ultrasonic-rcm-followup-1/ ) Your method standardizes clean solution (keeping it in a jar) to allow for a comparison at any time, which I like.
As regards NVR – first, thanks for doing the math specific to my scenario. I see the trade-off between Ilfotol detergency and higher NVR. What I do not know is how much solution-chemical-originated NVR actual becomes residue on a record that adheres through a dual-frequency ultrasonic cleaning cycle to remain on the record when it dries – and what audible impact that has. I am curious about the ability of a chemical such as Ilfotol to attach to a record that is undergoing cavitation implosion. The issue of NVR on a record prior to its cleaning would ‘seem’ of greater concern, but I suspect that varies record by record. As you say, it’s not simple.
I’ll look at other TDS meters, but yes, as you say, in the ~$80 – $150 price range, they all look very similar though there are variations in how they are programmed.
Once I’m finished with modifications to my DIY RCM I’ll leave a note here and perhaps write a fourth article about those.
I very much appreciate learning from your paper and your willingness to interact on the topic. Discussions of record cleaning in audio forums range all over the place and we are fortunate to have a professional lend their expertise and experience to that discussion. Thank you again for your help.
Best,
Tim
Tim,
If you do not rinse with DIW after cleaning, you will leave NVR from the cleaner. Recall a couple of items:
1. From para XI.3.f, my quick and dirty calculation shows that when you view a record, 40% of the surface area is not visible, and the 40% you cannot see is the most important part – its the groove surface area.
2. From Section VIII, hopefully you took away that with the surfactants being used, the surface tension of the cleaner is less than the record critical surface tension, so the contact angle will be <15deg, and closer to 0deg. Combine that with the oil loving tail of the surfactant, and it wants to bind with that record. And, ultrasonics with the pressure from the bubble implosion, is effectively explosively bonding the surfactant to the record surface (PS/explosive bonding is commonly used for metal cladding).
3. From para XI.9, I discuss where even an ultrasonic DIW rinse was not enough to remove the film from using an overly concentrated surfactant.
The final DIW rinse step with some agitation offer the surfactant film (which is oil-loving tail-down on the record, and water loving head up) with an environment that will extract the surfactant film from the record. Here is only theory – but if the surfactant concentration is too high, then the density of the surfactant (tail down/head-up) is so high (an analogy could be fabric denier) that water alone will not extract it, but an alkaline environment will, which is my best scientific explanation for para XI.9. If the final cleaner NVR is not too high, then the surfactant on the record will not be so tightly packed and a simple rinse will be enough to remove. But, for my manual method, uses both flowing water and mechanical agitation, those can pretty much break any surfactant film, so I am not as restricted by the surfactant concentration as you are.
Will a very thin nonionic surfactant (hydrocarbon) film affect audio playback, maybe. It is an oily contaminant, it will initially act as a lubricant on the surface, but the stylus will likely plow up some into a non-uniform distribution. But, the vapor pressure is so low (high boiling point) that it is not going to evaporate any time soon, so over time it will microscopically collect the dusts that are a natural consequence of play. This 'sludge' (which will not be uniform) may affect stylus wear and could act as drag to the stylus which depending on the capabilities and resolution of your system may be detected as changes in timing. However, if all that forms is dust, the stylus will move through it with ease – an analogy could be the difference between wet snow and very dry power.
Hope this helps,
Stay Well,
Neil
Neil,
I learn from you with each reply. This is fascinating information. I appreciate your patience going through it with me.
First, allow me to make one small suggestion; this is not a criticism. If it is possible with Adobe, create an index for navigating your paper while using it. I’ve seen this done where a tree-diagram appears in a left-hand column along with the document. This allows one to click on the tree and jump to the relevant section in the document. Given the forward and backward references sprinkled across 85 pages, a clickable index even to the section level could be helpful.
I better understand your point about deposition and removal of NVR that comes from the cleaner, and your suggested method of rinsing with DIW water along with agitation to remove it. That is similar to what I did when I cleaned records horizontally using my Loricraft PRC-3 as a working platform and vacuum. Then I tried a variety of cleaners, mostly using AIVS enzymes or Lloyd Walker’s Prelude system. I wrote about that experience in a 2011 review. ( http://www.theaudiobeat.com/equipment/aivs_products.htm )
I found that manual approach quite effective although it was very time consuming and somewhat messy. From there I went to an AudioDesk Systeme desktop machine that uses rotating brushes and a single cavitator. That was convenient and worked okay but had its limitations.
My goal is optimizing throughput and listening to clean records and that goal led me to building my current DIY system.
Among the many things I learn from you and your paper is that optimal or maximal cleaning may not occur without a final rinse with brushing to remove much of the NVR film left by the cleaner chemicals.
While being satisfied with my DIY system and methodology, I ask myself how could a rinse step integrate within it. My first thought is the manual effort involved in removing a record from its rotisserie spindle, mounting it on something like the VinylStack label protector (step 2a of your Section V) and proceeding to the final rinses as you show in Steps 7 & 8 of Section V. Then remove the record protector apparatus and place the record in a dish rack to dry. Since I clean 5-6 records at a time, even without cloth drying, that introduces considerable time and record handling. I expect the manual rinse step could at least double, possibly triple, the time I spend now. And yes, produce a cleaner record.
I haven’t put enough thought into it for determing an alternative approach to rinsing. I’m guessing that placing a spindle full of records onto a secord rotisserie in a second ultrasonic tank holding distilled water may not be adequate to achieve a 67% reduction in NVR. But that is speculation on my part.
Do you have any thoughts on that or other alternatives toward automated rinsing?
Fwiw, at present I rarely see any ‘sludge’ build up on the stylus. Granted different stylii go deeper into the groove than others. I typically use a cartridge with a Shibata or line-contact stylus shape.
Thank you very much for your willingness to share your expertise. I hope our dialog recorded here will be of interest and assistance to others.
Best,
Tim
Tim,
Regarding rinsing, the 67% assumed that you would only use a wash bottle (see Table I) and do the best you could. If you used a second, then this would mimic what I discuss in para XI.8, and you should achieve >90%. The key is that the final cleaner concentration is not that high, so an ultrasonic rinse in DIW will be very effective. The 2nd ultrasonic rinse tank does not need to be exotic – go cheap.
As far as the Adobe tree, I am very familiar. However, while I have MS Office Pro, I do not have Adobe Pro, so for now, I will just file away the comment for the future. A lot depends on what happens in the future – does the document live or does it just fade away. Only time will tell.
When you say you ‘see’ no gunk on the stylus, is that unassisted or under magnification? I can look at my stylus and see nothing, yet when after dropping into the gel cleaner, I can sometimes see debris on the gel. So, what forms/collects on the stylus unless gross is mostly invisible. The ‘oil’ film from surfactant residue will also be almost clear, so its gunk will may not be visible, and even under magnification may be difficult to detect – and I somewhat address this in Section XI.1.
Stay Well,
Neil
Neil,
Use of a second ultrasonic tank for rinsing is an option I see as a practical possibility if I use an identical rotisserie (Kuzma RD.) That allows taking a spindle of records out of one tank and placing it in another, records intact. That is easy to do, quick, and reduces record handling. The drawback is cost. Yes I agree about using an inexpensive single frequency US tank for that. I’m guessing one toward the higher end of the common frequencies (say 80kHz) could be better for rinsing.
What is unclear to me is whether rinse removed NVR is filterable and to what extent filtering the rinse makes sense. I am not a chemist and only know about surfactant composition from your paper. If there is oil in the NVR film I’m guessing it could be captured by a filter if the residue is not too small. If the rinse removed NVR is entirely or partially soluble, at what point does rinse removed NVR become too concentrated in the rinse tank. No sense in ‘re-depositing’ residue.
on the record.
In the context of my DIY system it should be straightforward to direct one or the other tank’s output to my pump using a Y valve and simply switch the filter output hose to the tank in use.
With regard to stylus examination, yes I use a bright LED light and a 20X loupe mounted on a stand to examine the stylus after every side. ( https://www.audioaficionado.org/picture.php?albumid=140&pictureid=4311 not sure if that server will yield the jpg. )
In my judgement your publication will indeed live on. I believe it is a valuable resource for any vinylist who wants to clean their records. It is clearly written (which I really appreciate), meticulous and comprehensive in its coverage of many topics related to its subject. Yes, it is dense and jargon rch for folks like me who are not of a scientific bent, but with patience it yields its rewards. Your friendly willingness to engage in our discussion helped expedite my own learning. As Bill Hart pointed out to me, the value of works like yours is recognized over time.
Best,
Tim
Tim,
Thanks for the feedback on how you inspect the stylus; its good info.
Soluble NVR such as surfactant or a low concentration emulsion formed by the surfactant micelle is generally not filterable with normal filters such as absolute 0.1 micron. In Section VII, I address the basic size of the micelle-oil as being about 10X greater than the base micelle.
However, if you are only rinsing ~5-mL of surfactant per side (10 mL total), then that 10 mL is diluted by the total volume of the UT rinse water; and if its say 10,000 mL, the dilution factor is 1000. If using 50 mL ILFORD, this will yield 195 ppm in the clean tank, but dilute it by 1000, and the rinse tank surfactant concentration will increase by 195/1000 = 0.2 ppm for each record. If we take your original 16 mL ILFORD that was 62.5 ppm, then a simple calculation would be 62.5 ppm/0.2 ppm (per record), and it would take 312 records before the rinse tank would reach a surfactant level equal to what you were first doing with just 16 mL ILFORD/bath. Realistically, very fine particulate would build-up before surfactant carry-over contaminated the rinse bath. So, you could use a sediment filter for the rinse tank to extend its life. However, after all is said and done, what’s cheaper, pumps/filters or just installing your own demineralized water or RO system; and I tried to do the life cycle cost in Section XIII.
As far as the document, if it lives, then I will need to consider improving the accessibility – at the very least, I will add bookmarks for all chapters, Tables & Figures that I can do with MSWord and that will carryover into Adobe without the buy the Pro version and the monthly fee.
Take Care,
Neil
Thank you Neil. Your responses are always clear and on target.
I am intrigued by the D.I. Rinse Pro 50 System for generating DI water. For the record rinse stage it appears a reasonable alternative to a pump and filter. The D.I. Pro 50 could yield over 500 rinse tanks worth of DI water which should be good for cleaning 2500+ records. Cut that in half if filling both tanks. I like that the resin is replaceable if more DI water is needed. ( https://dirinse.com/product/d-i-rinse-pro-50-unit/ )
I am having difficulty locating the Hydronix AR0020SF1 0.1 micron absolute filter. I ordered a couple @ $45ea from one vendor who took my money and then said they were on back order and they didn’t know when they could fulfill the order. The distributor referred me to another vendor who had them in stock for twice the price. So I’m still snooping around for a 0.1 micron (or thereabouts) absolute filter. If such is only available at ~$90ea, that makes the D.I. Rinse system more appealing!
I did acquire a Pentek 150574 3/4″ #10 housing along with the Pentek 143549 Differential Pressure Gauge. I like the idea of having a 2nd opinion on filter lifespan, especially for a pricey filter.
At some point I’ll probably get a cheap ultrasonic tank and another rotisserie. To be honest going into our conversations I was very sceptical about the need for rinsing given my system’s design intent to avoid it, yet you convinced. me. I remain satisfied with my current ‘rinseless’ approach in terms of playing records that sound clean but this (cleaning records) is a hobby within a hobby and I am intrigued about taking my process another step.
I do want to ask if it is permissable to quote from your paper, of course with explicit section/paragraph attribution along URL reference to its availability here at TVP?
Thank you again. You are doing great service to the audiophile community interested in cleaning records. I firmly believe this extends and promotes the viability of the vinyl medium.
Best,
Tim
Tim,
Not sure what filter you are trying to purchase, but the one I addressed in the paper was a 0.2 micron absolute, Hydronix with AR0020SF1 being the part number for the 10″ version with DOE, and this site sells it, https://www.freshwatersystems.com/products/hydronix-ar0020sf1-ar-series-10-filter. If they are the problem, this is an equal cartridge Flow-Max® HP Series Filter Cartridges part number FPP-0.2-975-DOE, and is sold here https://www.toboaenergy.com/product/flow-max-fpp-0-2-975-doe-pleated-filter-cartridge/ and is also sold here (the same that shows selling the Hydronix) https://www.freshwatersystems.com/products/2-5-x-9-75-flowmax-hp-with-doe-end-cap-0-2-micron. Call and verify they have iin-stock.
For the Pentek 143549 Differential Pressure Gauge keep in mind that is reads up to about 12 psid max which is less than the rating for the 0.2 micron absolute filter, so for this filter operate the filter until the needle is at the very end of the red.
As far as quoting from the document, you may find that difficult since it should not allow you to copy and paste. But you are free to summarize and then reference the paper para # and include the link to the document here at The Vinyl Paper for readers to download. Bill Hart was very gracious to provide his site to access/download the paper, and any reference needs to direct it back to his site, this article and the source.
Take care,
Neil
Neil,
Yes, the Hydronix AR0020SF1 is the one I am looking for per your suggestion. Yes, Freshwatersystems was the problem vendor, although I have had no issues buying from them previously. Where I am having difficulty is finding an appropriate filter rated absolute which, best I can tell from both sites you mention, the FlowMax FPP-0.2-975-DOE is not rated absolute.
I did find the Evoqua FCWNF10S1, 0.1 Micron, Code F ($70) which looks a lot like the Hydronix AR0020SF1. (https://www.evoquaadvantage.com/product/Products/Browse-by-Product-Type/Cartridge-Filters/Polysulfone-Absolute/FCWN-Code-F-Filters/Absolute-Rated-Filter-Evoqua-FCWNF10S1-0-1-Micron-Code-F). Evoqua also has the Evoqua FCWNF09S05 absolute rated to 0.05 microns ($85).
I found the CW05, 1/2 Micron absolute (99.97%) sediment filter from an outfit named filters4h2o.
They give neither brand nor datasheet. ( https://www.filters4h2o.com/Sediment%20Filters.htm ) The site itself is a bit sketchy, imo the price (4 for $25) is too low.
Then there is the Parker Clariflow-G (25-10110-001-11-G) 0.1 micron absolute. ( https://ph.parker.com/us/en/clariflow-g-pleated-membrane-filter-cartridge-general-grade-hydrophilic-pes-membrane). This looks like a nice filter from Parker-Hannifin. I have no price.
I have not contacted any of the above and continue to google with various search parameters. There are quite a few filter vendors and fewer manufacturer sites.
Thanks for the tip on the pressure differential gauge.
And thanks for permission to reference. I’m all for proper attribution.
Best,
Tim
Tim,
If you review the FlowMax FPP-0.2-975-DOE cut sheet, media.wattswater.com/Flow-MaxHPCartridge.pdf, you will see that it is rated 99.98% efficient at 0.2 micron. If you review the Hydronix AR0020SF1 cut sheet you will see it is rated >99.9% efficient at 0.2 micron. The FlowMax filter is absolute rated, and costs 99.95% efficient at 0.1micron, so the absolute identifier is correct.
The Evoqua FCWNF10S1 0.1 micron rating will have a pressure drop essentially the same as the 0.2 micron FlowMax. But, as flow increases, the filter pressure drop changes fast, the Evoqua 0.1 micron at 5 gpm is 3 psid, while the FlowMax at 5 gpm is 2.5 psid. Given this difference, how these filters load – how quickly the pressure drop increases as they load with particulate will likely be different. The Evoqua FCWNF10S1 has a higher allowable pressure drop (80 psid vs 35 psid), but it becomes overkill for your install. You would need to plumb, valve and install a higher range differential pressure gauge to monitor and make use of the high allowable filter pressure drop and this assumes you have the pump for it and you begin to get pretty close to the maximum pressure rating of the plastic housing (but stainless steel housing are available). However, overall the Evoqua FCWNF10S1, 0.1 Micron, Code F is a good filter and the company appears to be well represented.
Parker Cuno absolute filters are good filters, but they are not real big on selling to the general public, and given the other two above not much need to pursue.
However, at this level, my recommendation is not to buy any filter that does not have a full cut sheet addressing filter efficiency and pressure drop.
Take care,
Neil
Tim,
Not sure what happened by my last post, part of it got garbled, so let me fix this.
If you review the FlowMax FPP-0.2-975-DOE cut sheet, media.wattswater.com/Flow-MaxHPCartridge.pdf, you will see that it is rated 99.98% efficient at 0.2 micron. If you review the Hydronix AR0020SF1 cut sheet you will see it is rated >99.9% efficient at 0.2 micron. So the FlowMax filter is absolute rated, and cost is 99.9% efficiency at 0.1 micron would be expected, so the absolute identifier is correct. The 0.2 micron is the same cost as the 0.1 micron.
The Evoqua FCWNF10S1 0.1 micron rating at 2 gpm will have a pressure drop essentially the same as the 0.2 micron FlowMax. But, as flow increases, the filter pressure drop changes fast, the Evoqua 0.1 micron at 5 gpm is 3 psid, while the FlowMax at 5 gpm is 2.5 psid. Given this difference, how these filters load – how quickly the pressure drop increases as they load with particulate will likely be different. The Evoqua FCWNF10S2 0.2 micron should behave similar to the FlowMax 0.2 micron. The Evoqua FCWN filter design has a higher allowable pressure drop (80 psid vs 35 psid), but it becomes overkill for your install. You would need to plumb, valve and install a higher range differential pressure gauge to monitor and make use of the high allowable filter pressure drop and this assumes you have the pump for it (pump develops enough pressure head – but flow will drop – it follows the pump curve)and you begin to get pretty close to the maximum pressure rating of the plastic housing (but stainless steel housing are available). It comes down to how much $$$ do you want to spend. However, for your Pentek filter housing the Evoqua FCWNF10S1, 0.1 Micron, or the Evoqua FCWNF10S2, 0.2 micron Type F (DOE) will be good filters and the company appears to be well represented.
Parker Cuno absolute filters are good filters, but they are not real big on selling to the general public, and given the other two filters above not much need to pursue.
However, at this level, my recommendation is not to buy any filter that does not have a full cut sheet addressing filter efficiency and pressure drop. But, note that the FlowMax efficiency raring as reported is the most accurate. But, the Evoqua FCWNF10S1/S2 are absolute rated filters and good for the price.
Take care,
Neil
Tim, for some reason, the site blocking some of my comments; its blocking a hyperlink to the Evoqua FCWNF10S1 cut sheet. The above is close, the 1st para 2nd sentence and later should read close the this.
So the FlowMax filter is absolute rated, and cost is less than $50. The Evoqua FCWNF10S1 is a good filter and costs about $70. The cut sheet says its 100% efficient at its rating and I would be skeptical, but 99.9% efficiency at 0.1 micron would be expected, so the absolute identifier is correct. The 0.2 micron is the same cost as the 0.1 micron.
Neil
Neil,
You wrote: “If you review the FlowMax FPP-0.2-975-DOE cut sheet, media.wattswater.com/Flow-MaxHPCartridge.pdf, you will see that it is rated 99.98% efficient at 0.2 micron.” Yes, I see that and understand why that filter can be considered absolute rather than nominal. I got hung up looking for the word “absolute” in the specs, which it did not. I ordered 2 from freshwatersystems.com to try. ( https://www.freshwatersystems.com/products/2-5-x-9-75-flowmax-hp-with-doe-end-cap-0-2-micron )
Thanks for your comments on pressure drop for the Flowmax and Evoqua.
And I agree with you that having a data sheet for a filter is a prerequisite for it to be considered. Thanks to you I have a better idea what to look for in a filter.
Now, pending arrival of the Flowmax filters, I have the parts to put one into my system with the gauge. I will start with fresh solution and go with your 50ml Ilfotol suggestion without the IPA.
It will be interesting to learn if these simple, relatively inexpensive changes yield a positive audible difference. I’d be kinda surprised if it did, but I’ve been surprised before!
A more significant step could come if/when I decide to add a rinse tank and another Kuzma RD rotisserie. Since I will have an extra filter cannister and extra filters (those currently in use: Flow Max FM-0.35-975 0.35 micron nominal) it would be easy to include such with my current pump. (But I have not forgotten generating my own DI water.) This would be (thanks to you Neil) an evolution to the approach where I started in 2017, while keeping a similar workflow and throughput.
How much time would you estimate for running 5-6 records through an ultrasonic rinse?
Best,
Tim
PS – I’ll try posting the link to the Evoqua FCWNF10S1 data sheet (PDF)
https://evoquaadvantage.com/images/Documents/EvoquaFCWN.pdf
Tim,
Obviously you have no problems posting hyperlinks. My problem may have to do with my using MS Edge browser – they have been pushing a lot of changes recently.
As far as whether you will hear a change – that all depends on what type of contaminants are on the record. If only very small particles, then going to 50 mL ILFORD would likely have little effect. However if there is some larger particles/organic film, then there may be a difference. If you reclean a record – you want to listen to see if there was change or no change.
However, I do caution that unless you are going to do just a rudimentary rinse (squeeze bottle with DIW), then 50 mL may be too much. If you are not going to do any rinse, then at the very least reduce fhe IPA to <2% for safety, and then just bump up the ILFORD to 32 mL.
Are you familiar with the VinylStack thevinylstack.com/ultrasonic-cleaning/ultra-sonic-spin-record-cleaning-kit/, it only costs $260, and the rotisserie speed is adjustable with a slow speed possible (you can buy two for less than half the price of the Kuzma). Otherwise, for rinse time, the duration I specified in MIL-STD-1330D is not less then 30-seconds. So if we assume that only 33% of the record is wet at any time, the rinse time would not be be less than 1.5-minutes (for one full rotation); and a good time given the record stack arrangement would probably be 3-5 minutes rotation time.
Good luck,
Neil
Tim,
Let me apologize for not taking a look at your pump Little Giant 1-AA-OM //littlegiant.com/media/131034/995166.pdf. When you open the cut-sheet let me explain the pump curve. All centrifugal pumps follow the same characteristic pump curve, high flow at low head, low flow at high head. But, keep this in mind, that pump is rated 110 gph at 1-ft head = 0.433 psi. At 7-ft head (3 psi) the pump flow is 0 gph. This pump is not good for your filter application. The filter and plastic hoses are going to develop 1.5 to 2.0 psi (3.5 to to 4.6 ft) head to start; you may get 60 gph (1 gpm); that’s it. This pump will dead-head (no flow) before that filter is even the least bit actually dirty. Sorry, you need a new pump.
Also, sorry, I just noticed that you are located HK, and lets see if we can find a pump for 220VAC and 50Hz, but you must be using a transformer to operate the Little Giant pump. You can look for a new pump yourself, and I will also take a look. If you stay with a centrifugal pump you want about 2 gpm (120 gph) at ~2 psi (~5 ft) and 1 gph at `10 psi (~24 ft). An alternate that I discuss in Section XIII is a diaphragm pump that is what is called a positive displacement pump, and its flow rate changes very little with pressure drop so it does not follow the centrifugal pump laws. But when dead headed can develop very high pressure which is what I discussed in Section XIII. Sorry, for all this, but welcome to the world of piping – I did it for over 40-yrs.
Take care,
Neil
Neil,
I’ve used the free Firefox browser in my professional career in IT since it first came out. I prefer it to Chrome and (the now defunct?) Internet Explorer. Never tried MS Edge. Browser choice tends to be personal or whatever comes with the operating system.
Yes, I’m aware of the VinylStack line of products and considered those when I put together my first system. Kuzma Ltd. makes top quality products and yes the Kuzma RD is definitely more expensive. Since I’m already ‘invested’ I prefer to keep to one system; it will be simple to move a spindle-full of records from one rotisserie to another of the same kind. My first article on building my original system describes the Kuzma RD with pictures of its assembly. ( https://thevinylpress.com/timas-diy-rcm/ )
I too was thinking about the quantity of Ilfotol. Using 32ml will double what I use now and I like the idea of an incremental approach. Also going from 2.4% to 2.0% or slightly less IPA. My original formula came from experimenting to a result and I have no problem experimenting further with a rationale behind that.
Aural evaluation has been my guide. I do understand that the less NVR the less likely additional particulates stick to the record post-cleaning so there is a chance the record stays cleaner over time.
Thanks again for all your help!
Best,
Tim
Neil,
Vinyl Press did not show me your 6:46pm June 5 post until after I wrote my reply above. I will get back with you on your pump comments (thank you) but wanted to say I am in the USA. Not sure what put me in HK.
Best,
Tim
Tim,
I mis-read one of your comments to ‘Chris” who is the one that likely lives in HK. You living USA makes things a little easier.
Quick check shows this to be probably the smallest centrifugal pump with enough pump head, //littlegiant.com/media/131422/996287_Pony_Pump_Series.pdf. However the initial flow will be ~5 gpm which is way too much for that tank. That much flow rate will cause enough tank agitation to effect ultrasonic cavitation.
The Aquatec diaphragm series 5800 pump appear to be the best for this solution. However, they have so many different variations //aquatec.com/documents/index.html, that trying to find one you can actually buy is no simple task. Some of these have 130 psi capability which you should not use, otherwise they have a 70 psi model, but you still should have an overpressure shutoff that is close to the filter cartridge raring (35 pis) which they show, but no one sells (60 psi shutoff is common and would be OK). But, another wrinkle, is that these pumps are generally used in RO systems and they use push-on connections with a higher rated plastic pipe. They show the option for a simple threaded connection, but they do not appear readily stocked. Oh, they also sell these in 12V versions for the RV community.
There are other vendors for these low flow (~1 gpm) diaphragm, but you need to be careful that the pump has a near continuous rating. For you application, with a pump head that will likely not exceed 20 psi, the Aquatec are rated for continuous operation. Also, if you search, you will come across different terms like pressure boost which is not what you want, you want transfer-distribution.
I am hoping you may begin to understand why small tank filtration to do it right, is not simple. In industrial settings were the tank is 10+ gallon, there are many more options with centrifugal pumps.
More to follow…
Take care,
Neil
PS/The fire hazard with any flammable vapor is that unless designed as sealed, the device electrical contacts can produce very small electrical arcs; and that is an ignition source – the UT generators can also have high temp electrical components. And, here is the irony, the risk of arcing or component overheat increases as the device ages because of wear and tear. So, this insidious scenario sets-up; the user becomes confident because nothing has previously happened; not realizing that after some period of time the risk of an event suddenly increases – its the fundamental bathtub reliability curve, there is the infant mortality and then the risk of failure increases after some time generally called the mean time before failure (MTBF).
Neil,
Well … yikes! The world of pumps. I bought my Little Giant 1-AA-OM based on what I read on a DIY forum when I started with a small 5 micron filter. It has served well and I changed filters simply based on time / nbr of records cleaned and the look of the filter. I understand a new filter as we’ve discussed changes the circumstances and I should look to maximize the filter lifespan which requires a new pump.
What I had not understood previously was the head being impacted by the filter and tubing. I figured as long as I wasn’t asking the pump to go higher than 1-foot,, that t would be okay. I understood your description of the Little Giant 1-AA-OM curve. Thanks for your explanation.
I looked at the Aquatec site and yes they have a dizzying array of pump products. On the data sheets I looked at they don’t provide a curve or talk in terms of head, only GPM and PSI in their Performance Data section. Where I haven’t gained expertise is understanding the relationship / translation across different measurements. I now know that head converts to PSI and vice versa.
You wrote: ” If you stay with a centrifugal pump you want about 2 gpm (120 gph) at ~2 psi (~5 ft) and 1 gph at `10 psi (~24 ft).”
What I don’t understand is how to state specs for a search or to understand performance data in terms of the specs you give in the above sentence. Looking at the 5800 and 7800 Series (which have ports for barb fittings) at Aquatec, I saw PSI ranges from 10 (23 Head) – 70 (161.5 head) but nothing with a 2 GPM rating. I’m probably just confused.
Can you say a bit more about reading data sheet specifications, or what to look for in terms of the specs you suggest?
Thank you for educating me!
Best,
Tim
Tim,
Slight change in plans, a pump I can recommend that is widely available at reasonable cost (prices vary) and well supported – Shurflo Model 8020-513-236. The cut sheet with details can be found here: //www.pumpagents.com/pdf/ShurfloPumps/8020-513-236.pdf. The pump has PORTS: 3/8″-18 NPT Female, so you can easily purchase fittings with barb connections for hoses. The pump comes with a 120VAC 3-prong plug (there are other versions 8000- that do not). The pump while rated intermittent will from the cut-sheet easily run continuous at the pressure you will see for your application. Do not install the pump in a container that restricts air flow otherwise the motor will shutdown on over-temp. A good picture of the pump is here //www.toboaenergy.com/product/shurflo-8020-513-236-115vac-power_cord_positive-displacement-pump-60psi/. I am not familiar with how loud the pump will be, but there is some indication that it should be reasonable quiet.
Good Luck,
Neil
Tim,
If you look back at my 1st comment wrt to your pump – please recall this “An alternate that I discuss in Section XIII is a diaphragm pump that is what is called a positive displacement pump, and its flow rate changes very little with pressure drop so it does not follow the centrifugal pump laws. But when dead headed can develop very high pressure which is what I discussed in Section XIII.:
So the spec sheet for the Shurflo (like the Aquatec) which is a diaphragm pump/positive displacement pump will not show a pump curve since it is essentially a near vertical line; they just list the pump head (psi) and corresponding flow.
Take care,
Neil
Neil,
I can’t thank you enough for finding a pump to reccomend. It would likely take me a day or more of looking through the seemingly endless variety of pump models offerings – mostly because I”m still learning to read the specs/datasheet and many instances require a PDF download to obtain one. First I started researching the differences between centrifugal and diaphragm (positive discplacement) pumps. (cf. https://www.castlepumps.com/info-hub/positive-displacement-vs-centrifugal-pumps/ )
I was looking at the Aquatec 5800 and 7800 series; as you noted these are type diaphragm. The 58X1 and 58X2 look kinda similar to the ShurFlo 8020-513-236. The Aquatec GPM does not vay quite as much as the head increases – or so I gauged. (cf. http://aquatec.com/documents/index.html). Most of those Aquatec require a transformer.
The ShurFlo 8020-513-236 looks fine and has the right fittings for hose barbs. That model has an adjustable shut off range (40-60PSI) with the default at 60 PSI. Yes, as you note it is rated for intermittant use with a thermal breaker opening when the case temp reaches 203° F. The temperature rise chart it can run for 90 minutes at 60 PSI and not break 125° F so, if I understand correctly, that should do fine based on how I operate my system when cleaning. Fwiw, the ShurFlo data sheet does include both a PSI/GPM chart and a curve. Now to check vendors for having the product in stock.
I understand more about pumps than I did before we had this conversation. One gap in my knowledge is, given a cannister, filter and hoses, how to assess the pump requirements.
Speaking of hose barbs leads me to a question about hose size. Currently I run 3/8″ from tank to pump and then 1/4″ from pump to filter and out. I’m thinking about switching to 3/8″ throughout. Do you have thoughts on that?
Again, thank you for the recommendation.
Best,
Tim
Tim,
1. The cannister is not going to present much pressure drop at the ~1 gpm flow.
2. If you look back at the filter cut sheet, you will see a chart that shows cartridge Initial pressure drop per 10” cartridge vs flow. At ~ 1gpm the pressure drop will be ~1.3 psi.
3. DO NOT USE 1/4″ HOSE!!! Please use 5/16″ or 3/8″ hose – please see this chart //www.dultmeier.com/technical-library/hose-friction-loss.php. The pressure drop is psi/100-ft. If we assume you have 5-feet of hose total (from the pump outlet), for just a quick safe analysis, we double that to account for fittings, bends, etc. So, 10-ft equivalent 5/16″ will yield a pressure drop of (10/100)*(20 psi) = 2 psi.
4. You will pumping from where the pump is located (next to the tank) up to the top of the UT tank, that can added up to 2-feet lift which is equal to 0.87 psi.
4. The initial pressure discharge pressure for your ‘new’ system will be 1.3 psi from filter + 2 psi from hose and fittings + 0.87 psi for the discharge lift = ~4.2 psi. For your system, when the DP indicator on the filter housing is all the way at the end of the red, the filter DP will be ~13 psi, so the pump discharge head will be 13 psi + 2 psi + 0.9 psi + ~15 psi. At 15 psi, you can run that pump all day, every day and never ovheat.
5. The hose/fittings at the pump suction are not part of the above but they can matter. The Shurflo 8020-513-236 cut sheet states the following – Self-Priming Up To 10.0 Ft. Vertical. You can mount this pump above the tank – but you then need to account for the suction lift and pressure drop in the hose/fitting and make sure its well less than 10 ft equivalent – in this type of install, you generally increase the suction hose diameter to reduce the pressure drop.
Good Luck,
Neil
Neil,
Thank you for helping me read a filter data sheet. Although the diagram is small, I blew it up in Adobe to see the pressure drop per 10″ cartridge as you described.
I’m switching to 3/8″ ID tubing and appropriate hose barbs.
You wrote: “For your system, when the DP indicator on the filter housing is all the way at the end of the red, the filter DP will be ~13 psi, so the pump discharge head will be 13 psi + 2 psi + 0.9 psi + ~15 psi. At 15 psi, you can run that pump all day, every day and never ovheat.” If I understand correctly, that should be = ~15psi or =~16psi. But maybe I don’t.
I might mount/hang the cannister on a stud ~6 inches higher than it is sitting in the plastic wash tub that contains the tank and pump, and move the pump from near the drain to the other side of the tank. This to make room for (the possibility of) another tank. I guesstimate that adds another 18″ -24″ of tubing. Based on the chart at the dultmeier.com site you referenced (thank you) that could yield a pressure drop of ~1psi for hose and fittings. The 3/8″ tubing makes quite a difference vs the 5/16″. With the additional tubing, if I’m understanding correctly the pump discharge head when the filter is loaded will be ~15psi. And as you noted, no heat worries about running the pump for a couple hours.
The pump, hose barbs and tubing should arrive tomorrow. The cannister, gauge and filters are on hand. So by sometime this weeked I should have the new filter system operational! I might want to put an on-off switch on the pump at some point. This time – thanks to you – I will actually know why I have the components of that system that I do! I will apprise you of how it turns out.
I still have lots of records to clean. A huge “thank you” for helping me. I will try to spread the word about your document and this thread.
Best,
Tim
Tim,
Couple items for the pump – download the installation manual //www.pentair.com/content/dam/extranet/flow/manuals/shurflo/industrial/911-459.pdf and note a few items:
1. DO NOT use to pump flammable liquids. Never operate the pump in an explosive environment. Arcing from the motor brushes or switch, or excessive heat from an improperly cycled motor, may cause an explosion.
2. SHURFLO does not recommend the use of metal fittings or rigid pipe to plumb the inlet/outlet ports.
3. You will need to mount the pump to a surface – the pump will vibrate. You may be able to use your current box, but may sure the cover is off to have free air exchange for motor cooling; or just mount to the top.
4. For your application with no shutoff valve anywhere in the pump outlet, the pump will run upon application of power. Not knowing your current installation these switches are very convenient //www.amazon.com/BindMaster-Grounded-Single-Adapter-Indicator/dp/B01M7V6U2Q/ref=pd_lpo_60_t_2/139-5928644-3328032?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B01M7V6U2Q&pd_rd_r=3f2a991c-922f-4d9b-a875-98e713e84bcd&pd_rd_w=zDMP8&pd_rd_wg=WK5ia&pf_rd_p=7b36d496-f366-4631-94d3-61b87b52511b&pf_rd_r=NZR42TQFN6HDA845GYHK&psc=1&refRID=NZR42TQFN6HDA845GYHK.
5. For your application, the filter housing with its water volume will act as an accumulator and should removed any pulsations from the pump. You do not need a suction strainer the filter at the discharge will keep the water way clean enough. Note – the filter must be at the pump discharge just as you currently have; you cannot install that filter in the pump suction (too much pressure drop).
6. In the installation manual it talks about SHURFLO Service Bulletin #1031, its not available. You should not need to adjust the shut-off pressure. For you application, once the pump is running it should not cycle. But if for any reason, the filter should foul restricting flow, the pump shut off pressure of 60 psig is well below the filter housing rating. Keep in mind these pumps often used (12V) in RVs for the water supply. The pump turns on automatically when the faucet is opened (pressure drops) and then turns off when the faucet is closed (pressure increases to shutoff point).
7. I am pretty sure this pump is going to be noisier than your current – its the trade off for cost/performance.
Good Luck
Neil
Tim,
Regarding your one observation, yes it was ~16 psi, just a typo. I tend to show how I got my numbers just in case there is a typo, that someone else will pickup. In a real environment I would always someone else check my work (regardless of my title) as 2nd check. But, in these forums, that does not exist, so we owe it to ourselves to look out for one another.
And in that vein, ILFORD is not 50% less than Tergitol; its actually 10X more expensive. ILFORD is a 5% solution, Tergitol is essentially 100%.
Good Luck, let me know how it works out.
Neil
Neil,
Ah, I see you were reading my thread on WBF! I was talking about a straight price comparison in purchasing a bottle of one versus the other. Yes given concentration you are correct.
I like that you show your work – that’s how I learn!
Thanks for the pointer to the PDF manual for the pump. The site I was using gave me the data sheet only but referred to it as a manual.
The paper manual that came with the pump has more information. I had to use the paper manual’s own part number to locate the correct PDF copy here: https://www.pentair.com/content/dam/extranet/flow/manuals/shurflo/industrial/911-314.pdf
The paper manual says to use 3/8″ to 1/2″ tubing. I plan to use 3/8 ID X 3/8 NPT Nylon hose barbs on pump. One can spend a long time looking at hose barbs. I could not find a non-metal 3/8″ NPT with 1/2″ barb – but there could be one out there.
The Shurflo 8020-513-236 pump is quite robust and much heavier than my Little Giant hot drink dispenser pump. Yes I need to mount it on something. It won’t fit in my housing although the mounting feet are roughly 2-1/8″ x 3-1/8″. I haven’t checked the housing lid yet but probably will use a board and some cork and rubber feet to mitigate vibration (if there is any.)
Thank you for the switch suggestion – the one you found should work fine.
Best,
Tim
Tim,
After reading your site – a few items to consider:
1. All new systems when they are first commissioned (assembled) need to be cleaned. There will be residue from the various manufacturing processes used for the various components. Its always good to run the system for 30-60 minutes (w/o records) with cleaning solution through the filter to the UCM to allow it to clean itself and then dump the solution, and refill. Also, many of the lower cost filters are not thermally bonded (such as absolute filer we recommended) which means they use adhesives to assemble and these can leach especially when first installed
2. The one person with the leaking Little Giant pump – do you think its smart/safe for him to to operating that pump with no protective cover? Noting that the motor stator windings are exposed (and while insulated) if he nicks the insulation – that is bare wire with 120VAC and he is right next to the tank with water and the pump is leaking. If he is injured or heaven forbid killed, you may not be indemnified.
3. This is a cheap China-Made 12VDC permanent magnet motor centrifugal pump that is sealed (magnetic drive) with decent pump performance – http://www.bldcpump.com/downloads/BLDC%20PUMP%20DC40.pdf. The model DC40-1250 is the model to use – you can get them for $30 from Amazon. The pump needs a simple 12VDC/2A wall-wart for power – easy to source. I doubt the pump will actually deliver all of its claims, but it should be as good as the Little Giant pump and being sealed and 12VDC – much safer. Personally I am not a fan of the Chinese product-dumping at crazy low cost – but sometimes you bite your tongue in the name of safety.
4. The person with the leaking pump and TDS problems would probably be better off with clear hoses – the best being Tygon, but any food-grade equivalent should be OK.
5. FWIW; aquariums have multi-level filtration systems that have what they consider a fine-particulate filter pad – the best are only rated 50 micron. So UCM such as the Degritter are probably not using a filter pad rated much better.
6. Please in your discussions let people know that there is a lower cost American made ultrasonic tank manufacture – http://www.sharpertek.com/. They are not the Chinese dumped $200 units, but closer to about $500-600 and can be purchased from eBay with a real warranty and product that more than likely actually performs as prescribed
7. Since I have not heard from you on your new filtration system I can only assume that no news is good news.
Stay well,
Neil
Hi Neil,
Nice to hear from you and thanks for your input re items 1-7.
2. Of course a cover is advisable. I left the fellow a note.
3. Another pump I have suggested to people is the aquarium pump: Sicce Syncra Silent, 0.5 for $40. ( https://www.bulkreefsupply.com/sicce-syncra-silent-0-5-185-gph.html ) Those I know who use it are satisfied with its operation.
4. IIn the past I asked about the Degritter filter rating, but received no response.
6. Thanks for the tip about the Sharpertek tank. Great to have an option Made in the USA. The ones I saw on the low cost end of the scale tended to be too shallow or narrow though I don’t know specs on the various rotisserie heights. Length needs to accomodate a 12″ LP.
7. Yes – I built the new filter and it appears to working quite well per our discussion. Thank you very much for all your help with that.
Filter Canister: Pentek 150574 ~$33
Wrench for Canister: Pentek SW-2 ~$6
Differential Pressure Gauge: Pentek 143549 ~$53
— Green (clean) 0-6 psid; Yellow (change) 6-9 psid; Red (dirty) 9-12 psid
Tubing: 3/8″ ID Heavy Duty Reinforced Vinyl Tubing, BPA Free and Non Toxic
— 25 ft ~ $28
Pump: Shurflo 8020-513-236 (https://www.toboaenergy.com) ~$143
Filter: FlowMax HP (Watts) FPP-0.2-975-DOE 0.2 micron absolute
— https://www.freshwatersystems.com ~ $50
Hose Barb for filter canister: x2 brass Hose Barb ¾” NPT x 3/8” Barb
Hose Barb for Pump: x2 Hose Barb 3/8” NPT x 3/8” Barb
— nylon or plastic not metal per Shurflo
On/Off Switch for Pump: BindMaster 3-Prong Grounded On/Off Switch ~$9.
As you suspected the Shurflo pump is noisier than the Little Giant. I mounted it on a board and raised it up with some cork & rubber feet. It is not enclosed. At first, the gauge was a bit ‘stiff’ reading in the red for the initial 10 minutes of use, then settled into the leftmost green. I ran the pump+filter for 45minutes continuous to stress test it – no problems. After cleaning about 40 records for 20 minutes each, the tank solution reads 002ppm. At this point I consider the new pump+filter a success. For those reading this deep into the thread, there are the parts. Total cost ~#325.
I have not yet acquired a better TDS meter. I still have the D.I. Rinse Pro in the back of my head. And I have not added a rinse tank yet. but I do have the Y-valve barbs! So I’m looking for an inexpensive ultrasonic tank that will work with a Kuzma RD rotisserie. My aim is to move a spindle of records directly from the Elmasonic wash to the rinse tank. Rinse tank Interior dimesions should be roughly similar to those of the Elmasonic p120H: 11.8 ” W x 9.4″ D x 7.9″ H. Eventually I plan to write this up with some pictures.
Thanks again for your follow-up. Good information as always.
Best,
Tim
Tim,
Thanks for the feedback, and taking the time to write-up the detailed part’s list. The pump should last years, and being self-priming with such a high head capacity you have a number of options for location. Given the performance with 40 records, the filter driven by that pump should last a very long time, so while cost seems initially high, the actual life cycle cost may prove to be less.
FWIW – upon review of my last reply I noted that I was in error with the person’s hoses – they were clear after second check of the photo.
Regarding the Sicce Syncra Silent, 0.5, if you check the pump specs – https://media.cdn.bulkreefsupply.com/media/wysiwyg/PDFs/syncra.pdf, you will see that the pump has a maximum head of only 4-ft. The pump will dead-head after just a small-loading of a 0.3 to 0.5 micron nominal rated filter, so using that pump will not get any life from the filter. In comparison, the centrifugal pump I recommended (DC40-1250) has a maximum pump-head of 16-ft.
So you understand, the Sicce Syncra Silent, 0.5 is a 120VAC 60Hz motor that likely using a 2-pole motor has a fixed maximum speed of 3600 rpm. However, the DC40-1250 uses a 12VDC motor that can spin much faster, and there is something called Centrifugal Pump Laws and flow is proportion to speed, double the speed – flow doubles. Double the flow – head increases by the square – factor of four. Double the flow – power increases by the cube – factor of eight. This is why you will not find any 120V centrifugal pumps with low flow/high head. However, remember that the pump you are now using is a diaphragm pump – not a centrifugal pump, so it does not follow centrifugal pump laws and as I previously stated is a positive displacement pump which is why it has the high pressure /head auto-shutoff.
Stay well,
Neil
Hi Neil,
Thanks for your spot on assessment of the Sicce Syncra Silent 0.5.
If I recall correctly, the folks using that pump are doing so with the Hydronix SDC-25-0501 NSF Sediment filter, 2.5” OD by 4-7/8” length; 1 micron particle retention, nominal. That is what I originally used in version 1 of my diy system. That filter goes for ~$3.50 so working life-span may be of less an issue. Of course a better filter requires a pump sutiable to the job.
I do value your suggestion and will pass it along. The first thing people look for is the pump and this will be well received as it is inexpensive and will do the job. Thanks!
If you run across a suitable machine to use as a rinse tank with dimensions similar to: 11.8 ” W x 9.4″ D x 7.9″ H, please let me know.
Best,
Tim
Best,
Tim
Hi again Neil,
I checked out the spec sheet for the BLDC DC40-1250 and read its entry on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/DC40-1250-Brushless-Magnetic-Centrifugal-Submersible/dp/B008F29MYA/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=DC40-1250%2Bpump&qid=1598074313&sr=8-3&th=1
Best I can determine this pump and the BLDC DC40 series work only as submersible. Am I reading this wrong?
Best,
Tim
Tim,
For the DC40-1250 pump shown on the Amazon site it shows a drawing of using the pump non-submersible. The key to this the same as the Little Giant – they are not self-priming. So, to avoid having to prime the pump, you mount the pump well below the tank liquid level and this ensures the pump will have a flooded suction.
The pump you are using is self-priming; and its very forgiving of where you locate it. You could install your pump 3-4 feet above your tank and it should be just fine. I like your pump because its very accommodating of the user skillset. You have to work really hard to get it wrong – when I worked for the Navy we called that “Sailor Proof”. But, they proved on more than occasion to be very creative – enough for me to ask -” what possessed you to do that :)”
Stay well
Neil
Neil,
Yes, I found that graphic and I understand your explanation. There is also the DC40E-1250 version that has threads on the input/output.
https://www.amazon.com/AUBIG-Aquarium-Fountain-Brushless-DC40E-1250/dp/B076PV2C2X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=27OFB2Q2GVI5P&dchild=1&keywords=dc40e-1250&qid=1598155446&sprefix=DC40E-1250%2Caps%2C215&sr=8-1
I don’t know if there is anything that is ‘Audiophile Proof’. 😉
Thank you,
Tim
Neil, your paper is a truly scholarly and useful document. Your emphasis on safety is refreshing and essential. I will abandon IPA on my soon-to-be cleaning operation of 600-800 records accumulated in last two years from friends, neighbors and yard sales as I am getting back into listening to vinyl, mostly classical.
I too want to save time; so here’s my proposed optimal machine-assisted process…
Step 1. Pre-cleaning – Use Spin Clean with distilled water and Liquinox (hopefully same result as hand brushing)
(If record really dirty, additional interim step here of hand brushing to clean record with Kirmuss, Spin Clean or other solution)
Step 2. Clean – put record(s) in 35 khz Kirmuss UCM for 2 minutes with distilled water and Tergitol 15-S-9.
Step 3. Rinse/Dry – put record in 120 khz deGritter UCM for 2 minutes wash/2 minute dry with distilled water only. Final quick wipe dry with antistatic cloth.
I’m counting on the rinse/dry step to remove any residual particles plus any residual coatings from the prior steps. Now I have to figure out how much solution per gallon of distilled water I need for steps 1 and 2.
I’m not too sure of an overall time savings, but I think this method is less risk to records than handling under the faucet and more consistent than hand brushing.
Feedback welcome.
Paul
Bikerpaul,
Bicycles or motorcycles – I am a road cyclist, ride every day 40-65 miles.
OK, back to your questions,
The inherent problem with any machine bath pre-clean is that the follow-on records are exposed to a dirty solution. The one benefit of manual sink or vacuum RCM pre-clean, is that every record is exposed to fresh cleaning solution. Keep in mind that the function of surfactants is to remove and surround soil – so depending on the record initial soil level, the effectiveness of the cleaner is reduced. For the Spin Clean – the Liquinox at 1.0% is recommended.
But, if you wait until the bath is visibly dirty – you likely waited too long. The cleaner is likely exhausted. So, if you are going to use the Spin Clean – the most important step will be post rinse with the Kismuss to minimize contaminating the Degritter final polish bath.
For the final rinse-polish with the Degriter, concur with using only DIW. But, the Degritter filter system is nothing like what was worked-out with Tim addressed above (0.2 micron absolute filter)- and the DIW will need to be changed out much more frequently. Exactly how frequently – I do not know, but if you wait until it is cloudy – you waited too long.
When you work with baths – there is no free-ride. Your fighting bath life. The current one&done UCM all have limited filtration capacity. Which is why I use a simple manual system. Given the UCM equipment you have, I would consider using a fresh batch of Liquinox in the Spin Clean for every record – but mix only with tap-water to save$$$. The Liquinox is designed to work with tap-water. The Kismuss is a pretty large tank and you risk using a lot of DIW if you mix with Tergitol and the cost could escalate quickly if you try to keep the bath clean. There is not much way out of this – other than to install your own DIW system as I address in Section XIII. For the Kismuss consider only DIW and maybe 0.05% Tergitol then final polish with the Degritter with only DIW.
I think Bill Hart probably has one of the best systems – vacuum RCM (Keith Monls) for pre-clean, final clean UCM with only DIW water, final dry with the vacuum RCM.
Overall, I am not sure I helped you – but its how I see it; and this is how I addressed it in Section XIII.
Stay well,
Neil
Bikerpaul,
Having slept on this, some other thoughts:
For General Cleaning:
1. Pre-cleaning with the Kismuss with 0.1% Tergitol 15-S-9.
2. Rinse with Spin Clean containing DIW. The reservoir capacity of the Spin Clean is small enough that replacing every XX records (experience will tell you when) will not be a great cost/burden.
3. Final Clean/Polish/Rinse with the Degritter containing only DIW.
For Exceptionally Dirty Record (Goodwill, etc.)
1. Pre-clean with Spin Clean containing tap-water and 1.0% Liquinox. Dump the fluid, refill with tap-water and rinse. Dump the fluid and refill with DIW and rinse.
2. Proceed with General Cleaning as specified above.
The concept above is to use the Spin Clean as the sacrificial lamb. It contains the least amount of fluid and is the easiest to dump and refill – so use it according[ly]. The UCMs contain a lot of water and are the most time consuming to replace, clean and refill – so you are trying to protect them.
Stay well,
Neil
Thanks Neil. Your suggestion to do the Spin Clean second makes sense – great idea. I think it will even reduce my overall production time in several ways. My biggest challenge now is deciding which records fall in the exceptionally dirty category. I’m still waiting for the the deGritter and some solutions, but will keep you posted in a month or so with some findings.
Keep up the good work.
Paul
Hi Neil,
Here’s the latest now that I have all my gear. BTW, I’m lucky if I ride in a week what you ride in a day. Anyway, similar to your last suggestion, here is what I’m doing…
Step 1. Clean record in a spin clean with spin clean fluid or other cleaner (maybe Liquinox in future).
Step 2. Run 2 records at a time in Kirmuss with 0.1% Turgitol surfactant (15-S-9) for the 40kHz “big-bubble” clean.
Step 3. Rinse in second spin clean device with distilled water only.
Step 4. Run through DeGritter at 3:45 minutes as a 120kHz “small-bubble” thorough final rinse and quick dry (distilled water only). Then put on dry rack.
At some point, I may eliminate the Step 2 Kirmuss, just because it is so large and I don’t have the space. And I’m not sure the 40kHz is really effective compared to the 120kHz. Thanks for your previous feedback; it was very helpful.
Paul
Paul.
Thanks for following up. Your Steps 1 and 2 are mostly pre-clean steps. If Step 1 works well, you will not see much benefit from Step 2 except:
1. How dirty is the record. For exceptionally dirty records, as my paper says you will likely need two pre-clean steps. But for all other records a single pre-clean should work.
2. A 2nd pre-clean step with reduced chemistry can be beneficial depending on the chemistry used in the 1st pre-clean. The Spinclean formula uses a flocculant to precipitate out particles removed, but this does ‘burden/complicate’ the chemistry. So, if using you want to make sure you rinse well.
3. I recently worked with someone who was using two ultrasonic tanks (40kHz and 132 kHz, both from https://www.cleanervinyl.com/) and this is the process that we worked-out (I have adjusted a little bit for you):
Step 1 – 40kHz; use the Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.05 to 0.1%; (for his 6000 mL tank 3-6 mL – no
benefit for >6 mL/0.1%). For his 6000 mL tank he could keep it simple at 60-70 drops. This concentration will develop a wetting solution and micelles that will provided detergency. When you remove the record – give it a few seconds to drain into the tank. As a wetting solution it will drain very quickly – this will minimize carry-over to the 132kHz tank. If you are cleaning exceptionally dirty records – you can substitute Alconox Liquinox (instead of Tergitol) in the 40kHz tank (or use it in a Spinclean as the 1st of two pre-clean steps). For use in a ultrasonic tank, use the Alconox at about 0.5%. The Alconox is a combination of anionic and non-ionic surfactants and is a much more aggressive pre-cleaner than the 0.05 to 0.1% Tergitol 15-S-9. If you use the Alconox – when you remove the records – may sure they drain well (the Alconox has a low surface tension) to minimize carryover to your 132kHz tank. However, there are no compatibility issues with Alconox and Tergitol.
Step 2 – 132kHz; use the Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.01%; for his 6000 mL tank that is 0.6 mL – to keep it simple just use 10 drops. For the 132kHz this is the final polish and the amount of Tergitol 15-S-9 is only to achieve a ‘wetting’ solution. You want the US and low surface tension fluid to do the work – you should not need detergency at this level.
Step 3 – final DIW rinse. This can be a squeeze/spray bottle, a Spinclean or a vacuum-RCM.
I told the other person he has a few options for US Tank bath management for your system – you can set-up your own large DIW system as I address in Section XIII of my paper; and/or you can use a smaller DIW system and install a particulate filter system.
40kHz Bath Management – The 40kHz tank is the one that should get dirty fastest; and if the contaminants are soluble organic these are not easy to filter; so periodic tank replenishment is likely the most efficient; and you would do this based on how cloudy the solution becomes (compare to a clean sample). The water for the 40kHz tank does not need to as purified as the 132kHz tank. The Zerowater System – https://zerowater.com 30-cup unit contains 7000 mL should make perfectly acceptable water for this pre-clean US tank The Zerowater system benefits from using a lot more demineralizer resin than the other brands – PUR and Brita. The Zerowater System cartridges duration are specified here https://zerowater.com/images/tds-chart.png; assuming you have average tap-water you should get 25-40 gallons per cartridge. If you run the numbers for a 30-cup unit, the initial cost is about $1/gallon (based on 40-gallons); but each replacement cartridge is $15 so the follow-on cost drops below the cost of DIW at the local grocery store.
132kHz Bath Management – The 132kHz tank should remove only particulate and very fine particulate; so this tank has the best benefit with using a filter system. Use distilled water for mixing the solution.
Paul since the Degritter has filtration – the info I provided to the other person is not applicable. But, understand the foam filter the Degritter uses is very small and I believe is rated only 60 pores/inch so extended tank use is really not practical. But, this is what I told the other person for his 132 kHz unit:
“An effective filtration system that will last a long time is about $300 after you purchase all the parts and assemble – in a previous post Tim addressed a 0.2 micron absolute filter/pump system that I developed for him. If you go this path, and you are keeping the same bath for many weeks you need to watch out for biologic-growth; but a 0.2 micron absolute filter will remove many bacteria/mold. But, if necessary, and as a I address (Section VII) then you just add a few mL of ILFOTO (to a 6L tank) not for cleaning but as a safe non-interfering anti-bacterial solution. The ILFOTO will mix with the Tergitol just fine, they are both non-ionic surfactants; the ILFOTO is just diluted as-delivered and as an anti-biologic you do not need very much.” You do need to be careful with the ILFOTOL because too much and it will foam.
Paul, you have all the hardware you need, it all comes down to adjusting (hardware & chemistry) what you do for pre-clean.
Using one Spinclean for pre-clean and one Spinclean for the pre-clean DIW rinse is fine.
Use only the 40kHz for pre-clean. (for exceptionally dirty records – you can do the first pre-clean with the two Spinclean units).
Then go to the Degritter which is your final clean step regardless of your pre-clean step(s).
Hope this helps & good luck,
Neil
Thanks Neil. That’s helpful; I plan to tweak accordingly. The distilled water is $0.75 for a 1 gallon bottle at my local Target.
FWIW, I bought an inexpensive meter to read the particulates from time to time. The Step 2 Kirmuss tank seems to be between 5-8 ppm after a batch of records (30-40). The Step 3 spin clean rinse gets to be between 15-20 after 15-20 records at which time I change it. The Step 4 stays pretty low, maybe 4-8 after the same batch of 30-40 records. Of course, Step 1 is the dirtiest and gets changed every dozen records.
Thanks again.
Paul
Paul,
For info: TDS meters measure total dissolved solids and only those TDS that are ionic (have an electrical charge). Technically these are solids that in solution can pass through a filter. So, TDS meters are effective for dissolved mineral salts such as calcium and magnesium; and anionic surfactants (i.e. Alconox) and cationic surfactants (i.e. anti-statics). Non-ionic chemicals such as Tergitol 15-S-9 which is a non-ionic surfactant and alcohol will not be detectable by a TDS meter. A TDS meter will generally not measure insoluble (filterable) particulate that contain no soluble charge. However, DIW exposed to air and especially when agitated (at room temp) will absorb CO2 from the air that will then form carbonic acid in the water raising TDS. Also, some soluble soil films on the record will be ionic (especially any anti-static coatings) and cause the solution TDS to increase. So, using TDS to determine when to change the bath is a good process; but its not really indicating the particles that are floating/suspended in the water.
Best wishes for the Holidays and the New Year,
Neil
Neil
My comments are reasonably late to the party since I only discovered your article a few weeks back. I’m a retired organic chemist with detergent theory training, and I must say I was genuinely impressed with your work! I have looked at different surfactants and methods, but not as close as you have. I’m pretty close to the patent literature and found very little helpful information in the patent literature. I agree with your choice of the initial clean with an ionic surfactant, but still trying to find an excellent foamer to use in conjunction with an ionic surfactant. I’m leaning toward an amine oxide. Thanks again for all your hard work! Your referencing was immaculate.
Sincerely
Doc Bubba