Received my Degritter yesterday, and I'm about 15 records in. So far so good, but I did notice that after some use, the records come out warm, obviously from machine use. I'm assuming the amount of heat transferred to the LPs is nominal and not enough to warp them. My OCD at its best...
It seems now that the machine has cooled off even after continuous use, thinking that this is the "cooling" software upgrade that was talked about earlier in this thread!
Thanks, will try the 1L bottle test. I will admit that all the sciency stuff is going over my head so I'm just going by trial and error. I upped the dosage to 2.5ml - no foam. I then upped it to the recommended dosage for the amount of fluid in my tank and used 7.5ml - some foam. So perhaps there's a sweet spot amount that I need to find that gives the best cleaning effect and no foam. Or maybe the TergiKleen will simply do the job with no foam and I can move on!
This seems to be a very useful test, thank you. Any amount of Ilfotol resulted in a layer of foam in the water that sits there and doesn't subside at all. I tried the same test with Degritter's own fluid and there was a very thin layer of foam after shaking that immediately dissipated... I guess Ilfotol is off the menu for me.
So, how should one use TergiKleen effectively? Are you saying that adding it to the tank won't work, due to it not being soluble, and that Paul Rigby (Audiophile Man) is correct in his method which is to spray the record surfaces with the TergiKleen before placing in the Degritter?
Thats shame, I was hoping to use same combination of ilfotol and isopropyl. i do know it foams, when you brush it on okki nokki super hard, it foams, a lot.
Thanks, will try the 1L bottle test. I will admit that all the sciency stuff is going over my head so I'm just going by trial and error. I upped the dosage to 2.5ml - no foam. I then upped it to the recommended dosage for the amount of fluid in my tank and used 7.5ml - some foam. So perhaps there's a sweet spot amount that I need to find that gives the best cleaning effect and no foam. Or maybe the TergiKleen will simply do the job with no foam and I can move on! If 2.5mL ILFOTOL did not foam in the tank, then that will work as wetting agent. [(2.5mL)(0.05 NID concentration)/(1400 mL Degritter tank)](100% to get ppm) = 0.0089 = 89 ppm which is enough to get the full wetting potential of ILFOTOL plus a little bit of detergency. The full wetting potential will reduce the surface tension of the water from 72 dynes/cm to about 30 dynes/cm; which is almost a 60% decrease and is great for particle removal and very thin soil film removal. Also, the ILFOTOL has a very small amount of an anti-bacterial that will prevent bacterial growth in the tank if you are running the same tank for extended periods - i.e. weeks.
The TergiKleen is a combination of two nonionic surfactants - one that dissolves in water and one that does not dissolve in water (it mixes as an emulsion). How this chemistry is going to work in an ultrasonic tank is complicated - the water soluble surfactant will decrease the surface tension of the water. Since it is a concentrated product - a mix of 15-20 drops/gallon should drop the surface tension to maybe 50 dyne/cm, good for particle removal but will have no detergency. Some of the water soluble surfactant will bind to the non-water soluble surfactant to make it an emulsion in the water (a fine dispersion of minute droplets of one liquid in another in which it is not soluble) and its purpose is to provide some solubility/removal of oily type contaminants - i.e. recent fingerprints (note that some fingerprints can etch into the vinyl surface and are not be removable - but may be surface only and not effect the groove). The non-water soluble portion of TergiKleen will also act as a defoamer. But the non-water soluble (oil soluble) portion of TergiKleen wants to attach itself to any like material - i.e. the record, the plastic water tank reservoir and the filter. So, the ILFOTOL at 2.5mL/tank will drop the water surface tension lowest and have just enough to surfactant to emulsify (remove) light oily deposits. The Tergikleen will drop the water surface tension but not to as low as the ILFOTOL at 2.5mL/tank. The ILFOTOL at 2.5mL/tank will have enough surfactant to remove light oily deposits, but likely no better than the TergiKleen. However, if what you are cleaning does not have oily deposits then the non-water soluble part of the TergiKleen (which is oil soluble) will want to stick/attach itself to any like material which risks leaving a very small amount of TergiKleen residue on the record, water tank & filter. What else can I tell you but to test both - see which one you like and which one works best with your unit. Keep an eye on the pump (listen for any difference in sound), filter (does the TergiKleen cause it to appear oily) and water reservoir smell and the tank solution clarity. The TergiKleen has no anti-bacterial so if over time the oil-soluble portion coats/accumulates in the water reservoir bacteria 'may' form. Like I said, the TergiKleen with its two very different components can be complicated. Safety Note: Alcohol-Water (i.e. IPA-Water) solutions >2% are flammable - they have a flashpoint temperature. Reach the flashpi0nt temperature, and all you need is an ignition source such as a spark and the the fluid will ignite. At 20% IPA-Water, the vapor has a flashpoint of only 30°C/85°F and at 2% IPA-Water still has a flashpoint of 65°C/149°F. I am pretty sure that Degritter would not approve of using alcohol in their unit which is not designed for use with flammable liquids (nor is any of the benchtop ultrasonic units being sold).
Thanks. Very useful. The TergiKleen arrived yesterday. It not only passes the bottle shake test with no foam (or very quickly dissipating) but it works in the caddy as well and gives a lovely slick surface on the vinyl during cleaning with no foam. I will test to see which I prefer. Audiophile Man's conclusion was that TergiKleen provided the best sounding results compared with Ilfotol. This did occur to me, especially give that the Degritter gets to about 34°C before it's cooling kicks in... I use a 20% mix. They actually do approve of it's use... confirmed with them. But whether or not they have considered the flashpoint issue I do not know.
Thought I should share this. A week or two back, I changed the water. Then I started seeing foams on records I was washing. There were foams even just before the drying cycle started. And I noticed that the amount of noise after cleaning did not decreased as much as before. Then it hit me that I did not degas when I changed the water! I have since changed water again, degas then start washing. Now there're no more or only insignificant amount of foam!
Don't suppose you could calculate the mixture that gives a 36°C flash point? That would keep it under the temp the Degritter ever reaches...
10% IPA has a flashpoint of 41C. However, I strongly suggest you also are consider that alcohol and water-alcohol has explosive limits. Explosive limits are different from flashpoint. Explosive limits are associated with vapor at the right concentration at 25C all that is required is a spark. Its one thing to use water-alcohol solutions for manual cleaning and maybe vacuum-RCM where the applied quantity is just a few mL. But in an ultrasonic tank you have 100's if not 1000's mL of fluid. With an ultrasonic unit three mechanisms are now in play - the heat that speeds up evaporation; the record turning is drawing fluid out that is evaporating and the ultrasonics are agitating the fluid surface and a mist/vapor is often produced. All of this has the potential to setup the necessary conditions to develop flammable AND explosive vapors. At 100% IPA, the lower and upper explosive limits are 2.3 to 13.2%. But, even diluted with water, at 20% water-IPA, the lower and upper explosive limits are 2.3 to 6.3%; and at 10% water-IPA its still 2.3 to 4%. In a common domestic setting it is very unlikely that you will have the high ventilation turn-over rates that are required in medical and industrial settings that prevent the accumulation of flammable/explosive vapors. So, the risk in a domestic setting is higher. The fact that Degritter has approved the use of flammable fluids with a device not designed and approved for such purpose is setting themselves up for a huge liability risk. In the USA, we have the National Electric Code NFPA-70 that establishes the appropriate requirements; and there are equivalent EU IEC requirements. If you want to 'safely' add IPA - keep it less than 2%. Otherwise, I am here only to advise; I am selling nothing and have no agenda. Hopefully you make an informed decision - perform your own risk analysis and accept whatever risk you wish to take.
FWIW - 20% Water-IPA reduces the water surface tension to about 30 dynes/cm - in which case why add the ILFOTOL - belts and suspenders? The TergiKleen will not lower the surface tension less than what the IPA has already done at 20%. You may be seeing the plating of the surfactant on the surface. The surfactant wants to stick to the record and when it does this it can cause this effect - "Surfactant molecules consist of two parts – the head that is water soluble often called hydrophilic (water-loving) and a tail that is oil-soluble often called hydrophobic (water-hating) or lipophilic (oil-loving)". If you have any interest in this - you can download (for free) and read this paper Section VIII for further details; which also discusses the aspects of IPA. https://thevinylpress.com/app/uploads/2020/05/PAC-Vinyl-Records_2020-05-19.pdf.
No, it's just that I'm not a chemist, so I'm simply following recipes others use. The 20/80 mixture with surfactant of choice seems common amongst the vinyl community... Thank you, will do.
Haven't drinking and smoking historically gone pretty much hand in hand? It is hard to reconcile the hazards of IPA + water when people used to put giant punch bowels of alcohol + something else out, and everyone stood around and drank from it while smoking cigarettes.
One important note add the surfactant *after* the degass cycle to avoid excess foam. it is buried in the instruction but cut down on my foam a lot. I have also started using as little as .75 ml of the included solution. Not sure if that is a good amount. I was seeing quite a bit of foam and cut it back to where I only see a little bit. Also i'm wiping with pure 99.9 ipa at a 75/25 solution before putting the records in so some trace amounts that don't evaporate before the cleaning starts are likely making their way into the solution. I'm curious about the Tergikleen as I have some sitting in my drawer.
Yep, drinking from the "chilled" spiked punch bowl. But, I never recall smoking (long since quit) and drinking that spiked punch at 35C/95F. This is about the strongest punch I could quickly find - and it works out to about 20% (40 proof) after mixing Jamaican Rum Punch; and of course once the ice melts, the alcohol concentration drops. FWIW - the flashpoint of ethanol is about 10F higher than IPA, so 20% ethanol has a flashpoint of 36C/97F.
Phil, believe it or not, for some reason, and I have not yet downloaded the test report to understand the concepts - but this report (PDF) Investigation of cigarettes as an ignition source for Coleman fuel states early that "Cigarette ignition of ignitable liquids and gases has been studied previously in the literature. Hollyhead2 and Babrauskas3 provide comprehensive reviews of the subject. It is generally recognized that “cigarettes make poor ignition sources for most ignitable liquids and gases.”. The Hollywood scene where the actor flicks the cigarettes into the pool of gasoline to light it up is unlikely to occur. But, electrical arcs & sparks are something else.
I never smoked but I'd likely agree with that assessment, and I suspect it was fairly common knowledge. Growing up, few used cigarettes to ignite other things, it just seemed rarely done. OTOH, where there were cigarettes there were matches and lighters with resulting open flames, and people around me that drank all manner of neat alcoholic beverages while smoking never seemed to have problems. Of course, they weren't heating their drinks, which is a critical difference.
To get back to the cleaning solution issue, are you guys unhappy with the supplied solution? I had a chemist look at the composition and he was satisfied that it should do a good job at the recommended concentration. I'm just wondering what you folks are looking for?
Let me be clear that I do not use or own the Degritter Record Cleaning product. But what I can read says that its a concentrated "anionic" surfactant that can leave an antistatic coating. Anionic surfactants are the backbone of the general cleaning industry - just about every general purpose soap has anionic surfactants. Anionic surfactants are the aggressive detergent surfactants and tend to foam. While they will decrease surface tension, they tend to need more concentration that the recommended 1-2mL/1200mL which will yield only ~83 to 166 ppm. But the claim that they are anti-static is not right; if anything they are just the opposite. Anionic surfactants have a negative charge and if a coating is left if anything will tend to increase static since the record tribolelectric effect is very negative and attract dust. FWIW - cationic surfactants are not great cleaners, but can be great disinfectants and are positively charged and if a 'coating' is left behind can be very effective anti-stats - the coating attracts moisture from the air to form a water film on the record. I wonder if Degritter accidently miss labeled the product; and the correct label would be "nonionic" surfactant which are very effective surface wetting agents and mild detergents at low concentrations.
I think the problem many of us have had is trying to find the best amount to use. The recommended amount is a rather wide range. In my case, 2ml always results in foam and sometimes contact with the label (especially during "cooling" cycles). Anything less than 1 ml doesn't seem to "clean" well (clean meaning [among other things] more surface noise when playing the LP). Right now I am adding about 1.25 cleaning fluid per tank and it seems to be okay but I tend to clean a record twice in the Heavy mode.