Hopefully this reference isn't already incorporated into the current discussions. If so I apologize. In the spirit of detailed info regarding technologies involved in playing LPs, I thoroughly enjoy the overview regarding the mechanics of stylus interactions with record grooves found here: Stereo Lab - Gramophone styli and groove dimensions It gives an excellent overview of groove mechanics as they relate to different types of stylus configurations.
Good heavens I hope not - we will not have the physical space necessary to store the collective knowledge of humanity. However, 'free digital' archives may be in short supply as every method to extract any $$$ from the digital domain continues.
Years ago I read an article outlining some of the problems with digital. Assuming the disc has not degraded (which I think they can do in 10 to 20 years) think of the technology required to read a CD vs an LP or a book! Plus format changes. Try finding a VHS player. lol (I have 2 on reserve.) We have a very delicate civilization.
Great article, thanks! My mind is blown. I have no idea how these tiny diamonds are shaped so precisely and attached to cantilevers so accurately.
What kind of films do you believe make up these residues? Are they bath solution? Are they simply residual surfactant? Are they even liquid?
The ARSC Guide to Audio Preservation, 2015 (2) commissioned for and sponsored by the National Recording Preservation Board of the Library of Congress, states: “Vinyl discs are the most stable physical sound recording format developed to date; they can last 100 years in a controlled environment.” With the recent resurgence of vinyl records, history will likely prove that the durability of the simple vinyl record exceeds 100 years. But, I do recall Cory Greenberg of Stereophile once lamenting about how some day in the distant future someone may stumble upon a LP and be able to play with a pine cone needle. But, this is for physical media.
Many people clean with aqueous cleaners without rinsing. If any of it is left on a record, once the water evaporates its the non-volatile residue; its the surfactants; if its HEPASTAT 256, it will include EDTA, sodium metasilicate; ifs Tergikleen it will include Tergital 15-S-3 that is a hydrocarbon oil; and who knows what else. And just think about those people using a wet brush before every play. If there is surfactant, the oil-loving tail will want to stick to the record, but the water loving head wants to absorb water so it will be just partially solubilized. But all of this combining with the minute particles to effectively form sludge. In the technical paper THE WEAR AND CARE OF RECORDS AND STYLI, by Harold D. Weiler, 1954 states “Many methods have been devised and improvised to combat the problem of dust on records and to reduce its effect on wear and reproduction. However, none of these methods were ever completely effective, and they all passed into oblivion with one exception, the cleaning pad. Unfortunately, this device is in general use in 1954, despite the fact that it does not clean records! A record pad can actually damage records by scratching them and grinding microscopic particles of dust and grit into the grooves. In addition to causing excessive wear of records and styli, these dust particles also increase the noise level of the record. Since the particles of dust and grit are often as large as the recorded impressions in the record groove which create the sound, they will affect the stylus movement, causing random impulses which are translated as noise. This increase in noise level due to dust and grit is the biggest contributing factor to the hissing sound commonly and mistakenly referred to as "needle scratch”. My contention is once the record is well cleaned, STAY THE HECK OUT OF THE GROOVE; more often than not, you are going to do more harm than good as was echoed 67 yrs ago. The only thing that belongs in the groove is the stylus; and there are simple maintenance of cleanliness practices that I use that do just that.
The first paragraph sums up what I did pre Degritter. The last paragraph begs the question, what should we do about surface dust? I've been doing a sweep with a carbon bristle brush. Is this a bad idea? Is it better to leave the dust on?
NASA did a brush test and of all the brushes they tested, carbon fiber was the worst in removing dust which is also my experience. Carbon fiber is stronger than steel along the shaft; but cross-wise, its very brittle - give that some thought. I have a Thunderon brush that I now use only to dust the platter mat, but its of limited use. I use a fingerprint brush to dust the turntable, but not for the record -fiberglass bristles are too fragile for record. For the record I just use the Kinetronics Anti-Static Tiger cloth Anti-Static Tiger Cloth | kinetronics,. Its very soft and its anti-static and I use it just to lightly swipe the surface to remove surface dust/lint. The cloth does mot hold dust tightly, so you can just shake it out to remove dust/lint that it picks up. One item - the cloth edges are not finished so fold to keep the edges from record, but being orange any threads from the cloth are easy to see - I cut a piece from the main piece for easier use. But, keep in mind I use a UV light so I can see exactly what I am trying to remove which is not much.
Every time I read this thread I leave with more questions than I had. I am enjoying 5 drops of Tergikleen in my Degritter. Less foam. Sounds pretty good. Don't ruin this for me!
LS 54 tests have started. As an aside, I've started distilling my own water. The stuff I'm buying is relatively expensive and takes time to arrive, sometimes leaving me without any water. It measures 0 PPM. The stuff I'm distilling is ready in a few hours and measures 1-2 PPM. Good enough?? Certainly very convenient and works out cheaper than buying... Did 4 sequential washes (2.5% IPA - 5 drops LS 54), sampled on the computer and compared. I thought I could hear improvements between 1st and 4th with casual listening, but I couldn't blind test them, suggesting one wash was actually enough for the record. I did, however, do an enzyme soak and then a fifth wash which dropped the noise floor a blind-testable amount. Now not sure whether to enzyme soak before or after the first ultrasonic? I noticed the Degritter get ever so slightly foamy after the 5th wash/dry, suggesting transfer of chemicals to the water. Also, the records in the Degritter started showing some sheeting after the fourth wash. So I'm going to have to change the water quite regularly there I think. There was no foam in the Kirmuss during cleaning, although there were some surface bubbles when I prepared the mixture, which were completely gone by the time I finished. Tomorrow I'll test 1.5ml of LS 54 for added detergency and see how that goes. One I'm finished comparing multiple washes I'll put some fresh water in the Degritter and do a heavy water clean to see if I can detect any LS 54 residue left on the record. But looking (and sounding) very good so far for LS 54.
There are low cost water distillers such as Pure Water Distiller,4L Distilling Water Machine for Home,Distilled Water Making Machine with Collection Bottle,Stainless Steel Water Purifier Filter to Make Clean Water for Home Office Use【UK Stock】: Amazon.co.uk: Kitchen & Home. It says 1L/hr; and is 750W; and there is the period acid cleaning to remove the TDS. I have not done a cost analysis. Here is an option for you - ZeroWater 23 Cup Water Dispenser with Advanced 5 Stage Filter, 0 TDS, NSF Certified, Reduces Fluoride, Chlorine, Lead and Chromium, Water Quality Meter + Water Filter Cartridge Included, 5.4 litres: Amazon.co.uk: Kitchen & Home $44.99 + ZeroWater Replacement Water Filter Cartridges | 5 Stage Filtration System Reduces Fluoride, Chlorine, Lead and Chromium, 4 x Filter Bundle: Amazon.co.uk: Kitchen & Home $49.99UK; both with free shipping. Of all the purified water pitcher/filters, the ZeroWater filter contains the most amount of demineralizer. Each filter can produce from 40-gals with very low TDS tap-water (<50 ppm) to about 8-gals with very high TDS tap-water (>400 ppm). The filter at four for $50UK and a 23-cup/5.4-liter pitcher with one filter is $45UK. Assuming your tap water has a TDS of 150 ppm, each filter should produce about 30-gals of purified water; and the initial cost of purified water would be ($45/30-gals) = $1.50/gal. Follow-on cost based on the four-filter replacement cost would be ($50/120-gals) = $0.42UK/gal. Not knowing what you are paying for distilled/demineralized water - this may be a convenient option for you. You have other options to the ZeroWater pitcher. You can assemble your own demineralizer water system - people who wash their own cars often have these; examples such as Vyair 0618 High Pressure Reinforced Resin Vessel for Water Deionization (Black) (7 Litre) (HozeLock Fittings) Filled with Premium Quality Mixed Bed MB-115 Ion Exchange Virgin DI Resin: Amazon.co.uk: Kitchen & Home where resin (beads) is replaceable - its a bit messy. Or you have something more compact AquaHouse DI Car Wash water filter, Pure water for Spot: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics that use replacement cartridges AquaHouse DI Car Wash Replacement filter for AquaHouse: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics. I have not done cost analysis of how these larger units in the UK compare to the Zerowater, but for USA versions, the water cost can drop to about $0.05/gallon over the long term.
5 drops = (5-drops/15-drops/mL)/7400 mL = 0.0045% = 45 ppm. Enough for wetting - and you should see that; and may just a bit of detergency. -If the Degritter is showing some wetting, the LS54 concentration in the 1400 mL tank could be as low as 5 ppm (=0.0005% = 5 mg/L); so the Degritter contains 7 mg of LS54. Therefore, assuming 5 record; each record is contributing about 1-ppm (= 1 mg/L); or 1.4 mg/record of LS54. -The solution that is being carried-over from the Kirmuss is 0.0045% LS54. -So, the weight of the water being carried over by each record is (1.4 mg)/(0.000045) = 31 grams of fluid with density =water. 31 grams water = 31 mL/record When I first did the numbers, I could not believe that so much water was being carried over; so I redid the analysis two different ways, and no matter how I analyze, it says that each record is carrying over 31 mL which does not seem right. If this was true - you should see a rise in the fluid surface after 5 records - that would be 150 mL or about 10% of the UT tank volume. This says that either you are using BIG drops, or there is residue in the Kirmuss that being cleaned off and is being carried over, or there is residue in the Degritter that as the surface tension is being reduced is slowly being released into the solution. For now - I recommend staying the course as they say, and monitoring to see how it goes. In precision cleaning - and make no mistake that is what you are now doing, the cleanliness of the hardware is every bit as important as the final cleanliness of the item being cleaned. Twenty-five years ago when I implemented precision aqueous cleaning at all of our Naval Shipyards, repair activities and vendors, this was the daily drill - Deja-Vu
Using a pipette for drops. But drop size unknown. I have various syringes available for more accurate measurements. I hear you. Am now in experimental mode with LS 54. It'll all come together soon enough
@pacvr 1.5ml LS 54 in the Kirmuss tank is no good. It leaves a slick on the record which doesn't slough off at all. Putting that in the Degritter immediately sheets the entire record during washing. Need to find a good balance between 5 drops and 1.5ml which gives some detergency without transferring too much, too quickly, to the Degritter.
1.5 mL = 45-drops equivalent; that's a big difference from 5-drops. 1.5 mL/7400 mL = 0.02% = 200 ppm; for LS54 that is pretty concentrated as you have noticed. 5-drops = 45 ppm. I would recommend increasing the concentration in not more than 5-drop increments. So, the next try would be 10-drops. At 10-drops you would be at 90 ppm and you will get detergency.
Since I routinely measure 38ml IPA, I say, no way a wet record holds 31ml. As mentioned, there would be a significant tank increase unless the dry process balances this out. However, if that's the case, we should see a much faster loss of water from the Degritter due to the drying process in normal use. I use a rubber tipped dropper for my surfactant but I measured it's drops/ml and it's 25 drops/ml and not the 15 to 20 suggested by pacvr. Have you measured your pipette?
Thanks. I was just maxing out your earlier recommendations. You mentioned 1-1.5ml, so I went for 1.5 to see what happened. I'll start from the other direction tomorrow. I'm going to work in mL as I can use the syringe for swift and accurate amounts - not a fan of the pipette.
I have checked and about the 'maximum' amount of fluid the record can hold on one side is maybe 5 mL. For your pipette, that's a good check - I use the 15-20 as just a general rule of thumb. But, if it is 25-drops/mL; in your case with Tergitol 15-S-9 and 2-drops/1400 mL; the concentration is (2/25)/(1400) = 0.0057% = 57 ppm. This just reaches the critical micelle concentration (CMC) of Tergitol 15-S-9 which is 52 ppm. You get the lowest possible surface tension and full wetting as you state, but no detergency; and for final clean with the Degritter w/o rinse; that is what you want to minimize any audible residue. Math error, 1.5 mL = 23-drops equivalent at 15-drops = 1 mL. But if its as @AArchie says 25-drops/mL, then 5-drops in the Kirmuss 7400 mL is (5/25)/(7400) = 0.0027% LS54 = 27 ppm. If this shows full wetting, then the CMC of the LS54 may be as specified by BASF at 0.0010% = 10 ppm. At 27 ppm, you would be 2.7X CMC and getting some detergency (not much). Double it (10-drops) and at 54 ppm, you will 5X CMC which is good for machine cleaning. But, at 200 ppm, you are 20X CMC which you show as being excessive for machine cleaning. FWIW - you can use 20X CMC when hand cleaning but with lots of rinse water.
Ok, so given the correction I made in my last post, let me give you some recommendations based on mL. Something to consider is to prepare a diluted solution of LS54 (w/distilled water) - that may make the additions easier. -Using 100% LS54, to get a 25 ppm (0.0025%) solution in the Kirmuss 7400 mL = (0.000025)(7400) = 0.185 mL; For ease round-up to 0.2 mL = (0.2/7400) = 27 ppm -Using 100% LS54, to get a 50 ppm (0.0050%) solution in the Kirmuss 7400 mL = (0.00005)(7400) = 0.37 mL; For ease round-up to 0.4 mL = (0.4/7400) = 54 ppm -Using 100% LS54, to get a 75 ppm (0.0075%) solution in the Kirmuss 7400 mL = (0.000075)(7400) = 0.555 mL; For ease round-up to 0.6 mL = (0.6/7400) = 81 ppm If you prepare a 10% LS54 solution; the amounts above to add are 10X; so its then 2, 4, & 6 mL. If you prepare a 20% LS54 solution; the amounts above to add are 5X, so its 1, 2, & 3 mL.
Interesting. When I made up my tank this morning I added a slight bit more by wiping off the outside of the dropper and sucking up water from the tank to rinse out the dropper. I don't feel comfortable being right on the edge since I think I fill my tank a bit more than 1400ml. Between 2 and 3 drops seems a good place. Honestly, it's hard to resist putting more than that in. 2 drops seems like such an insignificant amount.
