Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Bill Hart, Jan 21, 2022.

  1. lazydawg58

    lazydawg58 Know enough to know how much I don't know

    Location:
    Lillington NC
    So you feel that spray bottle rinse does an acceptable job removing the residue? I'm just wondering if I am better off continuing to rinse with a basin of DIW. I can do either with my setup and I want to do what is most effective. I'd rather it take a little longer and I get all the residue than try and save a couple of minutes per record, finish quicker but have residue that reduces the quality of sound. But if one is as good as the other then saving time would be nice.
     
  2. BadAudioAdvice

    BadAudioAdvice Active Member

    Location:
    Princeton, NJ
    The Squeakyclean spindle doesn't protrude very high from the base. Just enough for the mat, the record, and then a little above that to keep the puck that is used to rotate it secure and centred. For example, if I stack 2 mats (not that you would ever need to do that), the spindle barely protrudes.
     
    lazydawg58 likes this.
  3. BadAudioAdvice

    BadAudioAdvice Active Member

    Location:
    Princeton, NJ
    Neil, I wanted to ask what your thoughts are on using goat hair brushes for wet cleaning?

    In searching the forums, I see that you've been involved in previous discussions, where you've raised a few issues, regarding the stiffness of the bristles, as well as the length of the bristles.

    Here are the two brushes I have on hand (Tonar Wetgoat and Woodgoat), compared to the record doctor (to illustrate the bristle length).

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]


    But if they were to be used wet, what is the risk of damage to the record? Would they penetrate into the grooves?

    Thank you in advance!
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2022
  4. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    Elliot:

    Try this procedure using only the Squeaky Clean vacuum-RCM: The process mimics the process in the book CHAPTER V. MANUAL CLEANING PROCESS: except it substitutes a vacuum-RCM and reduces the Liquimox and Final Cleaner concentration to minimize foam and improve rinse efficiency. If using the same brush for pre and final clean, rinse the record brush separately before any follow-on step to ensure pre-cleaner is not on the brush. In this instance first rinsing with one basin with tap water to remove most of the cleaner and then a quick spray with DIW (collect effluent with your 2nd basin).

    Step 1; Pre-clean with brush & Alconox™ Liquinox™ at 0.5% (5 mL/L) - vacuum but do not fully dry. Depending on the record condition, two pre-clean steps may be required. Although the Alconox™ Liquinox™ will foam, most of the foam is collected in the brush.

    Step 2; Rinse pre-cleaner with DIW & brush - vacuum, but do not fully dry.

    Step 3: Rinse again with DIW but do use the brush - vacuum, but do not fully dry.

    Step 4: Final clean with brush and your Triton X100 -IPA (you should reduce X100 concentration to 0.5%; I do not recall your concentration) - vacuum and do not fully dry. There will be some foam but most of the foam will be in the brush.

    Step 5: Rinse final-cleaner with DIW & brush - vacuum, but do not fully dry.

    Step 6: Final rinse again with DIW but do use the brush - vacuum, and fully dry. When drying be careful of drying too long that can cause static to form.

    Good Luck,
    Neil
     
    lazydawg58 and Andrea_Bellucci like this.
  5. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    According to this, the az1993n17a5.pdf (mnhn.fr) the goat hair bristle thickness is about 14 microns and this will penetrate the groove. The bristle length is very short so it's not going to bend much. Goat hair is absorbent - which may complicate rinsing cleaner from the brush. Can the brush damage the record used wet, the literature would not lead me to believe that other than the short bristle places the handle close to the record. Not sure of how well a goat hair brush will last, and not sure if the bristles ends will breakoff contacting/scrubbing the record. The wood handle is a concern since over time it will degrade from contact with the cleaners.

    In comparison, the Record Doctor™ Clean Sweep Brush with clusters of 0.05 milli-meter (0.002”) wide Nylon bristles (260,000 bristles total) or the OSAGE™ Nylon record brush with 0.004” wide Nylon bristles should not deeply penetrate the record groove. Additionally, Nylon absorbs water and softens during use (but returns to original properties once dry). Furthermore, the bristle width is near equal to the top width of the record groove and when combined with the low surface tension of the Alconox™ Liquinox™, Alconox™ Citranox™ and Dow™ Tergitol™ cleaning solutions form a hydraulic wedge to force the cleaner deep into the groove. The back-and-forth brushing action (bristles bending) then develops the fluid agitation (a combination of shear force & cavitation) necessary to deeply scrub/clean/flush the groove. But, since a new Record Doctor™ Clean Sweep Brush (or OSAGE™ brush) does not deeply penetrate the groove, there will be very little risk of record harm. Also, the brush length allows the bristles easily bend making it easier to use and the length keeps the handle a distance from the record, and the nylon bristle/handle is easily rinsed.

    Let's just say there are two philosophies. One is that to clean the record the brush has to get into the groove; and one that I promote is stay out of the groove with any physical item. Let the chemistry and the fluid agitation do the work.
     
  6. BadAudioAdvice

    BadAudioAdvice Active Member

    Location:
    Princeton, NJ
    I like your approach, I just wanted to see if I could still make use of the brushes I had on hand so that they could each be used at their own station/stage.

    If there is to be a 4th version, the information you shared above regarding goat hair brushes would be great to have in the manual, to explain why one might want to steer clear of them. (similar to how you explain the downsides of carbon fibre brushes etc.)
     
    Andrea_Bellucci and lazydawg58 like this.
  7. BadAudioAdvice

    BadAudioAdvice Active Member

    Location:
    Princeton, NJ
    Neil, thank you again for all your help with this!

    After going through the 3rd edition, and supplementing with forum discussions, I would like to get your advice on my proposed cleaning approach.

    I have on hand an Okki Nokki One, a SqueakyClean (that I am thinking of selling - not sure if having two Vacuum systems would be beneficial to the process) and a Kirmuss Ultrasonic.

    The process that I have in mind takes the first steps from Chapter 5 (exact same chemicals and tools as described):

    1. Protect Label
    2. Pre-Rinse in Sink

    Question:
    When you say lukewarm water in the manual, what is the temperature range?

    3. Pre-Clean with Liquinox
    4. Pre-Clean Rinse

    (repeating pre-clean and rinse if necessary)
    5. Acid-Clean with Citranox
    6. Acid-Clean Rinse


    This is the modification:

    7. Remove Label Protector
    8. Put in Kirmuss Ultrasonic for 5 minutes
    (I'll ask about the chemistry below)
    9. Put record on Okki Nokki, spray with DIW, hold goat hair brush gently against surface for a few rotations.
    10. Vacuum
    11. Spray with DIW (no brush)
    12. Vacuum
    13. Place on Metal Rack for final dry

    Question:
    Regarding the liquid to use in the ultrasonic cleaner, I have the following chemicals on hand: Ilfotol (the 2017 and later formulation), Triton X-100, IPA.
    FYI: My goal at first is to clean approximately (~30-40) in a cleaning session (keeping an eye on temperature of liquid in the ultrasonic bath), however after a cleaning session I will empty and clean the ultrasonic tank.
    What do you recommend as the formulation?

    Question:
    I also have L'Art Du Son and TTVJ Vinyl Zyme Extra Strength cleaners.
    If I wanted to use them up, and incorporate them into the cleaning steps, where would be the best to do that?
    (I recognise that your method as described is a complete method for getting records clean - my rationale for wanting to incorporate these two cleaners is that I would hate to see that money that I spent on them wasted)

    Question:
    Would incorporating two vacuum cleaning systems offer any benefit?

    Question:
    Finally, does my proposed solution seem optimal, with the tools that I have on hand?
     
    Andrea_Bellucci likes this.
  8. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    The book in Chapter XII states: "The incorporation of the acid chemistry does manually what ultrasonics can do with power." So since you are final cleaning with an UCM no reason for the Citranox.

    1. For Ilfotol add 25-30 ml per tank (assuming the tank is about 6.5L)

    2. For the Triton X100 add 2.5 to 3 ml per tank (assuming the tank is 6.5L). Note: The X100 is not as efficient as the nonionic surfactant used in Ilfotol so even though its 100% concentrated, it proportionally needs more.

    3. For IPA, because of liability issues, noting that IPA as little as 10% is flammable and can produce an explosion hazard in a UCM, I do not recommend more than 2.5% which the amount required is dependent on the IPA concentration you using - see the book VIII.8.7 for the equation; just plug in your numbers. One other to note VIII.8.8 Alcohol Evaporative Losses: Ethanol and IPA at low concentrations (<50%) are not azeotropes and can evaporate separately from water...For those that may use Ethanol or IPA at low concentrations in an ultrasonic tank (use only at concentrations that are not flammable); over a period of time, the alcohol will evaporate from the water faster than the water evaporating. Unless the alcohol concentration is monitored (alcohol hydrometers are available), the concentration will drop if the tank bath life is extended. And, be aware of IPA purity - see the book VIII.8.9

    4. Cleaning 30-40 records before bath refresh may not be the best. The bath water will become contaminated with particles and ionic impurities. You can easily monitor the bath with a TDS meter - here is one that has decent accuracy but there are cheaper alternatives if you want Amazon.com: HM Digital 716160 COM-100 WATERPROOF PROFESSIONAL SERIES Combo Meter, 7", White/Purple : Industrial & Scientific. Note that TDS does not measure particles or 'nonionic' surfactant. But any Liquinox carry over will increase TDS as will exposure to air over time. For optimum cleaning for TDS, refresh the bath when TDS reaches 10 ppm. However, you may want to consider a pump/filter system and the book Chapter XIV goes into great detail as well as a parts list for 3-options Table XXIV.

    Not knowing what is in these products, I can make no recommendation.

    Maybe as a convenience. You could use one Vacuum RCM exclusively for pre-cleaning using Liquinox instead of the Record Label Protector; although you can generally get a better pre-clean manually. In your current process the Vacuum-RCM only sees a mostly clean record (some carry over from the UCM) so you do not need to be as careful with keeping its platter clean.

    Good Luck

    Neil
     
    Andrea_Bellucci likes this.
  9. lazydawg58

    lazydawg58 Know enough to know how much I don't know

    Location:
    Lillington NC
    Thanks Neil! I should get the squeaky clean some time next week and that's how I will try and do it but with one additional step in the pre-clean. Call it Step 1A! :agree: I'll spray and vacuum first without using a brush so as to get any surface particles removed and avoid pushing anything down in the grooves. Then I pick up with step 1. I'll double check but I believe I'm using the 0.05% Triton concentration. If not I'll mix up a new batch at that concentration.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2022
  10. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    Elliot,

    My error -missed the decimal point, that should read 0.05%. So, if you have 0.05%, that's good.

    Good catch on Step 1A

    Neil
     
    lazydawg58 likes this.
  11. BadAudioAdvice

    BadAudioAdvice Active Member

    Location:
    Princeton, NJ
    Thank you Neil for the info. A few additional points.

    Generally, I've found that the Ultrasonic doesn't fully clean the records to the level that I'd like. Both from listening after, and from inspection with a microscope.

    That's why I wanted to incorporate both the manual Citranox step and the UCM. (Since in the book you also say that some records may require additional baths in Citranox etc.) Also, this should reduce the amount of particulate in the UCM bath.

    Apologies that my last message was quite long and this question was buried.
    For the pre-rinse step, would I want to target 30C from the tap?

    I have 99% USP IPA, and for the 6L max fill in the iSonic/Kirmuss, to achieve 2.5% it looks like ~150ml.

    Would I be adding both, or just one of the Ilfotol or X100?

    Very valid point about the amount of particulate building up in the tank after cleaning a number of records. Unfortunately, adding the filtration system is current out of scope due to space constraints in the kitchen and being able to quickly put the equipment away.

    As an option, perhaps I could use the Squeaky Clean after the manual Citranox step to get the records even cleaner before going into the UCM bath. I would apply the spray Ilfotol in the concentration listed in IX.6.2, as mentioned in CHAPTER IX.6.

    So my revised cleaning regiment would be:
    1. Protect Label
    2. Pre-Rinse in Sink
    3. Pre-Clean with Liquinox
    4. Pre-Clean Rinse
    5. Acid-Clean with Citranox
    6. Acid-Clean Rinse
    7. Remove Label Protector
    8. Use Squeaky Clean and Spray Ilfotol apply with Goat Hair Brush #1
    9. Vacuum
    10. Put in Kirmuss Ultrasonic for 5 minutes
    11. Put record on Okki Nokki, spray with DIW, hold Goat Hair Brush #2 gently against surface for a few rotations.
    12. Vacuum
    13. Spray with DIW (no brush)
    14. Vacuum
    15. Place on Metal Rack for final dry



    And regarding the IPA evaporation, since my goal is to clean 30 records in a few hours (and then empty the tank), from what I gather online about IPA evaporation rates, this seems like it should be OK.

    Thanks again!
     
  12. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    Lukewarm is generally recognized as 98 to 105 degrees Fahrenheit, 36.5 to 40.5 Celsius

    One or the other, not both.

    If you are not using a brush to clean and assist with rinsing, the benefit of these steps is significantly reduced.

    When cleaning with UCM, the correct time is that which will achieve a whole number of rotations so that record surface is equally exposed. Also, bottom firing UCM are not as efficient for records as say the Degritter with side mounted transducers, so bottom firing generally requires more time for effective cleaning. Five minutes is not much time and you may wish to increase the time.

    Not sure how you are going to accomplish this even if you have multiple people assisting. The Kirmuss clearly states not to operate more than 35-min continuous without securing. Your process has the most amount of mechanical assembly/disassembly/moving steps of any process I have seen. The manual procedure in Chapter V is 11-steps (1st step is just setup) but there is only 1-assemble and 1-dissasemble step. Your process between the label protector (2-steps) the Squeaky Clean vacuum RCM (2-steps insert/flip) the UCM (2-steps insert/remove) and the Okki (2-steps insert/flip) is 8-steps. That is a lot of handling of the record between four different pieces of hardware; which increases risk for cross contamination and damage.

    However, I am only here to advise not to approve/endorse any specific procedure other than what is in the book and as the book says:

    "All cleaning procedures specified herein are presented as only “a” way to clean a record. No claim is made there is only one way to approach the process. All methods/procedures specified here present opportunity for experimenting with different cleaning agents, different cleaning brushes, different drying cloths, and different cleaning equipment."

    Good Luck,

    Neil
     
    Andrea_Bellucci and lazydawg58 like this.
  13. BadAudioAdvice

    BadAudioAdvice Active Member

    Location:
    Princeton, NJ
    As a note to other members who may be looking for information about nitrile gloves, and a hopefully more ethical (in terms of labour, not necessarily impact on the environment) option, I wanted to share what I came across.

    Good information about what are nitrile gloves from the University of Pennsylvania Environmental Health & Radiation Safety:
    Fact Sheet: Disposable Nitrile Gloves in Chemical Labs | PennEHRS
    Note: They include a list of gloves, unfortunately, most are still made in Malaysia.
    e.g. The Kimberly-Clark Nitrile Kimtech™ Purple Nitrile™ Exam Gloves (55082), 5.9 Mil, Ambidextrous, 9.5”, Medium, 100 Nitrile Gloves / Box, 10 Boxes / Case, 1,000 / Case

    Unfortunately, there are a limited number of companies making nitrile gloves in the US.

    SHOWA is one company that makes disposable single-use nitrile gloves made in the USA.
    For cleaning records, you'd want gloves that are powder-free, narrowing the list to models: 6005PF and 7005PF. (I use the search filter, Made in the USA)
    Note: The majority of gloves they offer are made overseas/Malaysia.

    Hopefully that is helpful for anyone looking for Made in USA gloves.

    PS. I have nothing against Malaysia (in fact I have always enjoyed visits there), its just the glove manufacturing is questionable:
    "Top Glove, a Malaysia-based company, is the world’s largest producer of nitrile gloves"
    "July 2020, the US banned rubber glove imports from Top Glove due to reasonable though not conclusive evidence of forced labor—”debt bondage, excessive overtime, abusive working and living conditions, and retention of identity documents,”
    From: A monopoly explains why rubber gloves prices are up in the US
     
    pacvr likes this.
  14. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    Andrea_Bellucci likes this.
  15. BadAudioAdvice

    BadAudioAdvice Active Member

    Location:
    Princeton, NJ
    Word of warning that you'll need to be careful with Amazon on this one - they don't distinguish between the 7005 (made in USA), and the 7500 (made in Malaysia). If you change glove sizes, the model # also changes. I'm not sure which one you'd get even if you tried to select the right model, since the page is advertising the 7500, yet the Large size says 7005.

    How do I know? I am embarrassed to say I didn't look closely enough once I changed the size to Medium, and ended up ordering the 7500 :cry:

    I was going to keep it, since I didn't want to waste the shipping, return etc, but the 7500 had an *extremely* strong perfume odour.
    The perfume odour was so strong that it left a residual smell on my table even after I moved the box of gloves to another location.
     
  16. lazydawg58

    lazydawg58 Know enough to know how much I don't know

    Location:
    Lillington NC
    Update on the Squeaky Clean. I got it in from Canada a couple of days ago. I cleaned 13 albums utilizing Neil's suggestions. These would be the first I've done without using basins in my process. The Squeaky Clean takes a little getting use to. The center label protector / record turner slipped a lot for me so I spun the platter by the outside rim more often than the puck. I pre-cleaned (Liquinox) twice, spray/vacuum first, then spray/brush/vacuum. Then to rinse I sprayed/brushed/vacuumed then repeated without brushing. Followed by a clean (Triton/alcohol/DIW), spray/brush/vacuum. Finishing with a final rinse - spray/brush/vacuum then repeat without brushing.

    When rinsing I started to see a little (very small amount) suds bubbles when I brushed. In those cases I vacuumed and repeated with the brush, then sprayed and vacuumed without brushing. So I'm still not sure if spray rinsing is completely removing all the residue? I'm using a brush dedicated to rinsing only. But after noticing those suds bubbles I rinsed out the brush with tap water followed by spraying it with distilled water. But this didn't seem to change things any. I should say that based on the beading test the records seem to suggest they are free of any remaining solution residue. They bead up well, indicating the surface tension has been restored. Perhaps what I'm seeing is the last little bit and it is removed with the vacuum?

    Another issue with the squeaky clean is the vacuuming doesn't seem to leave the record as dry as when I used the vinyl vac wand. So I'm doing something I've never liked doing, finishing the drying process by wiping the record with a microfiber towel. I'm always concerned that small fibers will be left on the vinyl and all that work will be for not.

    I've played several records and they seem to have cleaned up very well. But I'd hoped that by eliminating the basin rinses I would be able to clean the records a little more quickly. The time is basically the same either way though, about 10 minutes per record.

    At this point I'd say using basins and a vinyl vac wand or using the Squeaky Clean are about equal in time and effectiveness. But perhaps as I get more use to the Squeaky Clean, get my process a little more down pat the time will come down?
     
  17. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    Elliot:

    The few bubbles you see with the first rinse w/brush is normal. The vacuum may be good, but there is still some cleaner in the grooves and when you do the first rinse w/brush you will see some bubbles. These surfactant cleaners will produce foam, and a single drop in 1-pint (500 ml) of water is enough to produce quite a bit of foam if shaken. The 2nd rinse w/o brush dilutes whatever is left to insignificant.

    Take a look at the book Chapter V Steps 11 & 12. The PVA sponge is very effective in remove large drops if required, otherwise, the Kinetronics Tiger Cloth (search for many buying options) is very good for a light surface wipe to spread-out any remaining moisture and put the record into a rack and let it fully dry - it will not take more than a few minutes. While the record(s) is final drying, you are cleaning records. Then when the rack is full, you stop and sleeve/package the clean records. Note that a problem with vacuum drying is over-drying after which you end up with static.

    Note: PVA sponge = PN- 335-0090 - The Super PVA White PVA Sponge Block in plastic storage case The Super PVA Sponge Products (super-cool-products.com), BUT, read the info note in the book Page 44 before buying.

    Neil
     
    lazydawg58 likes this.
  18. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    When any elastomer (rubber or plastic) has a strong odor that is a red-flag. In another life I worked atmosphere control programs for confined space, deep submersibles, and all non-metallics were off-gas tested to check for contaminants/toxins - NASA has a similar program for all manned space craft. Strong odors, especially strong chemical odors can indicate off-gassing of toxic products. A few years back I bought some equipment dampening block that exhibited a very strong chemical odor. After a week left outside to off-gas, no change; I threw them out; not worth the risk.

    The issue with Malaysian glove manufacture appears to have been resolved or at least improved and there are a couple new USA manufacturers getting ready to come-on line before then end of this year; and of course there is always China. While I am partial to USA and EU/UK/AU/Canada manufacturers, but when buying requires one to navigate a maze to get the right product, it becomes cumbersome to say it mildly and I essentially default to the 80/20 Pareto Principle - 80% made USA and EU/UK/AU/Canada.
     
  19. lazydawg58

    lazydawg58 Know enough to know how much I don't know

    Location:
    Lillington NC
    Thanks Neil. It's good to know that those bubbles are normal and that last rinse dilutes it enough for me not to fret about it, or obsess about it going forward!!!!
     
  20. BadAudioAdvice

    BadAudioAdvice Active Member

    Location:
    Princeton, NJ
    I hope you've been enjoying the Squeaky Clean, you might be interested a comparison video that my wife made comparing it against the Okki Nokki One.



    Hopefully the video is interesting since she uses a microscope to compare before and after.

    In hindsight, perhaps she didn't scrub hard enough.

    If you have any feedback on the video, she'd be happy to hear it - its her first one, and is hoping to make more on record cleaning (ultimately working her way up to the full method described in the PACVR manual).
     
    lazydawg58 and Phil Thien like this.
  21. Phil Thien

    Phil Thien Forum Resident

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Great video, as it really demonstrates results both audibly and visually.

    Any details on the microscope she was using? Maybe make/model, and what sort of magnification she was employing in those groove pictures? Maybe she shared this info but I was skipping around a bit as I'm actually supposed to be working (don't tell anyone).
     
  22. BadAudioAdvice

    BadAudioAdvice Active Member

    Location:
    Princeton, NJ
    The one that she was using: ADSM301 Digital microscope

    They quote "up to 260x" - but that is when viewed on a 22 inch monitor.

    I've really struggled to wrap my head around how magnification numbers work with digital microscopes, and what it means practically in terms of how detailed the image can be when looking at the grooves.
     
    Phil Thien likes this.
  23. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    Nice video; here are a few observations:

    1. The LJC home recipe for vacuum record cleaning machines | LondonJazzCollector (wordpress.com) cleaning formula which in-use is 20% IPA (and ~250 ppm nonionic surfactant) is flammable (by NFPA definition) with a flashpoint of about 85F. But the risk with vacuum cleaning unit is mitigated by the very small quantity used – only 2.5 mL per side, but larger quantities could pose a fire hazard. Vacuum motors often run very hot and if too much solution was used, there is some risk (albeit should be low) of igniting the vapors. Any video you post should advise of the risk accordingly; and just about all vacuum-RCM manufacturers will tell you not to use any "flammable' fluid - its a legal liability item.

    2. The LJC cleaning formula is not a very aggressive cleaner - far better for final clean then pre-clean. For pre-cleaning you want a much more aggressive cleaning agent and one that is neutral pH so you do not corrode the vacuum motor/blower. For vacuum RCM, I recommend the Alconox Liquinox at 0.5% (5-ml/1-L) for pre-cleaning. And, as @lazydawg58 does, first wet the record with the Alconox Liquinox and then w/o brushing vacuum - this is to remove the loose stuff on the record versus grinding it into the record with the brush. Then apply again the Alconox Liquinox but this time scrub w/brush.

    3. As you already point out,
    .
    However, it's not about bearing down with the brush - it about scrubbing back & forth quickly to agitate the fluid. To obtain the maximum cleaning performance when brush cleaning (be it manual sink or vacuum-RCM), you have to get the cleaning fluid moving. When working with surfactant cleaning agents, you want to work the fluid enough to see some foam in the brush; and when working with Alconox Liquinox which foams a lot, you want to see a lot foam in the brush. If you are not seeing foam - you are not working the fluid enough to get the best results. Note that from experience with others, the LILFORD ILFOTO should foam at the LJC formula.

    Otherwise, the results are mostly predictable since the same cleaning agent and cleaning process (the operator's use of the brush) were used. The more expensive vacuum-RCM may have a more powerful air flow since the blower is closer to the record. The Squeaky Clean has an outboard wet-dry vac with hose that reduces air flow (just simple flow resistance) and I do not recall if the video specified the exact wet-dry vac unit that was used with the Squeaky Clean. Small 2-3 gal wet/dry vac are not very powerful. This 5-gal SE 62 Wet/Dry Shop Vacuum | STIHL USA is pretty powerful with 127 cfm air flow and 84" H2O suction, but it also $200. But to put this in perspective, I recall a conversation I VPI and they said the suction lift on their VPI Cyclone was like 130". You what they (I) say, the "Devil's in the Details".

    Thanks for sharing,

    Neil
     
    lazydawg58 likes this.
  24. Phil Thien

    Phil Thien Forum Resident

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Hopefully you'll entertain a small tangent.

    As you're aware, I use mostly high-concentrations of alcohol for cleaning. It isn't unusual for me to fill my Spin Clean or Vinyl Styl Deep Groove cleaner with 70% or 91% iso alcohol, and no additional water or detergents.

    Most of what comes off seems to mix with the alcohol, but occasionally I'll see quarter-or-so sized spots on the surface of the alcohol. It is like something comes off the vinyl, doesn't mix with the alcohol and floats to the top. These film spots often look like clouds floating in the alcohol.

    It only happens occasionally, but happened again last night.

    So I guess I wonder, what could be on an album that would exhibit this behavior?
     
  25. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    Salt (water) is insoluble in IPA:



    Some oils are insoluble with IPA

    https://youtu.be/-kWixNXF4b0
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine