Record Cleaning Options - Kind of slowly losing my sanity*

I like their Anti-Static Tiger Cloth | kinetronics. I use it for the final dry with my manual wet cleaning process and its useful for gently swiping a record surface to remove lint. Nice item of the Tiger Cloth is that to remove lint/particles that it picks up, all you have to do is give a good shake/snap and the lint/particles are removed - I have verified with a UV light (Alonefire SV003 10W 365nm UV Flashlight Portable Rechargeable Blacklight for Pet Urine Detector, Resin Curing, Scorpion, Fishing, Minerals with Aluminum Case, Battery Charger, Battery Included - - Amazon.com).

WRT to Thunderon, it's a patented bristle material - an extremely soft acrylic fiber that has been chemically bonded with a layer of copper sulfide. This outer layer becomes a part of the host fiber itself, which precludes the 'flaking' problem experienced by other conductive fibers. You can actually buy two versions - one with goat hair and one that is all Thunderon - Industrial Brushes | USA Wholesale Brush Manufacturer | Gordon Brush®.

 

In the EU/UK distilled water is not that common; but demineralized water is readily available. In the US, it's the opposite. There are some subtle differences, but as far as record cleaning, they both are fine.

 

Finding the perfect ‘right before playing’ dust removal seems like a rabbit hole. I stopped using the carbon fiber brushes because of reports of them shedding shards. The Thunderon I already mentioned. Still using the parastatic side of my Kirmuss brush. Maybe time to look at the Tiger Cloth. I still have an orange cloth with an Ilford logo on it, maybe that’s a Tiger Cloth as a private label item, forgot where that one came from.

 

The Ilford cloth is different - it is chemically treated. The Tiger cloth is very soft but a very tight weave with very fine copper threads interwoven. I have been using the same cloth for about 4-years. The only problem is that the edges are not sealed - so use with the edges folded-in.

 

So, this is going to sound crazy - but I now use a Teflon rod to pick up dust/lint before record play; Amazon.com: Sur-Seal PTFE-0.50x12-RD PTFE Teflon Rod, 1/2" Diameter x 12" : Industrial & Scientific and I wrap about 4-inches with self-sealing silicone tape Amazon.com: Bond It F4 Emergency Self-Fusing Silicone Tape, Repair Plumbing Pipe & Radiator Hose Leak, Electrical Insulation, Permanent Bonding, Waterproof, 1" x 36' x 20mil, Red : Everything Else for a good hold.



So, all I now do, is wipe the Teflon rod down with the Tiger Cloth, and with the record stationary, I just lightly brush the record with the rod. I manually rotate the platter to get all surfaces. Then I wipe the Teflon rod down with the Tiger Cloth to clean the Teflon rod. Quick shake/snap of the Tiger Cloth and its clean.

There is science to why this works, and it has to do with the Triboelectric series, and Teflon is more negative than the vinyl record. So, the wiping of the Teflon rod with the polyester Tiger cloth is just enough to create enough negative charge to attract dust/lint from the record. You can see it in-action with the UV light. It's not perfect - but for records that have been deep cleaned, I have found it good enough for the incidental dust/lint that drops on the record, and the Teflon rod is softer than the record so very little risk of damage to the record. I have been using this now for the last 8-months. And its cheap, and it should last for the next few centuries - at least .

EDIT - let me caveat this by saying I do not have static issues - by design. The platter is grounded, and the DIY mat I use is a three-layer ESD-Vinyl-Mats-Datasheet-3059.pdf (bertech.com). This DIY mat should only be used with a reflex record clamp since there is no label depression. Further details are in Chapter VI of the book.

 

No good conductor should be without! (sort of a hidden meaning here)

 

I’ll be honest… I am truly confused. If people purchase isopropyl alcohol at 99.9%, why would one be concerned with lesser percentages such as 5, 10, or even 50%? Is it dangerous to store a bottle of 99.9% IPA in one’s home? Does it have to be stored in a fridge?

 

Pharmaceutical grade IPA is readily available in 70% & 91% for disinfection and most people have a bottle in their bathroom cabinet. Technical grade is >95% and this is used for cleaning and analyses. They are all flammable. The flashpoint of 91% IPA = about 18C and 100% = about 12C; so not that much different. Storing a pint/liter in one's home in a cabinet away from direct heat, children and pets is safe. DO NOT store IPA in a fridge with food & beverages - IPA is very toxic if accidentally ingested.

The general use of IPA in the home generally involves wetting a small cloth or cotton swab and wiping a small area. This is very different from applying a larger volume to the surface of a record and then vacuuming the surface with an energized device (the blower) that can be operating well above the fluid flashpoint. However, even here, the volume being used is still very low. But always remember the basic fire triangle - you need oxygen (from air), heat (an ignition source) and the fuel which in this case is IPA, but it's not present in a large quantity. And do not position the exhaust from the vacuum RCM blower where it is directed to a flame or hot stove/surface.

But, to put this fire hazard in perspective, nail polish remover that may contain acetone, acetone has a flashpoint of 0F/-18C. And now someone will speak about the days when women smoked while removing their nail polish. It turns out that cigarettes are not an effective ignition source. So, the Hollywood scene where the cigarette is flicked onto the pool gasoline, and it ignites/explodes is fiction (PDF) Investigation of cigarettes as an ignition source for Coleman fuel (researchgate.net).

So, when working with flammable liquids - common sense goes a long way. However, for those reading, filling an ultrasonic tank with liters of a cleaning solution containing 10% IPA or higher is not smart. You now have a large fuel source, the ultrasonic tank many be operating near or above the fluid flashpoint - all you need is a spark and it's going to be a very bad day, and very few industrial ultrasonic tanks are NFPA designed explosion-proof and they are small and not cheap.

Take care,
Neil

 

TYPO - meant to say - and very few industrial ultrasonic tanks are NFPA designed explosion-proof and they are NOT small and not cheap.

 

In the UK both are readily available. For good quality for which the level of residual impurities is stated prices are pretty close.
You can get really cheap demineralised water but (£2 for 5 litres) but it has absolutely no indication as to its purity. I wouldn't!

 

So what was Harold Weiler's solution for how to effectively clean records?

 

In Germany, distilled water bottles usually say "demineralized according to VDE 0510" – not sure if it's actually distilled and demineralzed or if "distilled water" is just a marketing term.

 

Kinetronics sells the Panther cloth, which is like the Tiger cloth but for wet applications. Kinetronics also sells an anti-static cleaning spray (PLC1S). You could spray some of the cleaner on the Panther cloth or directly on the record and run the cloth lightly on the record as it spins for a pre-play clean. I may try this.

Anti-Static Panther Cloth | kinetronics

Precision Optics Cleaning Solution – 1oz Spray Bottle (PLC1S) | kinetronics

Kinetronics conveniently packages these two items together in its Lens and Glass Cleaning Kit:

Lens and Glass Cleaning Kit | kinetronics

Find it for less on Amazon after shipping:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0010CTZ3K/ref=ewc_pr_img_1?smid=A17MC6HOH9AVE6&psc=1

 

There's also this Endust product specifically marketed for cleaning vinyl records.

https://www.amazon.com/Endust-Elect...07MBJ72D7/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

 

I'm still doing things the way I described at the beginning of this thread. Loricraft PRC-4 then Degritter. Maybe 3 or 4 disks a day if I'm playing ones that haven't already been cleaned.
Wondering if it might be wiser to try using plain DW in the Degritter. The disks have already been scrubbed with detergent/IPA/DW on the Loricraft, so I'm not sure if I add much more with the Degritter fluid. No doubt there are traces of detergent left after vacuuming on the Loricraft. The other thing I'm going to do is to change the Degritter's tank water after 20 disks rather than 30. It's not that I am unhappy with my results, but rather just simplifying the process.
Good to hear you are experiencing the expected effects, Andrew. It really is the biggest difference.

 

Here is the SDS - SDS-16495-6oz-Vinyl-Record-Cleaner-May-2017.pdf (endustforelectronics.com).

 

FWIW - the PCS solution is alcohol based so it should dry w/o residue - although it's no longer sold in the EU PLC Precision Cleaning Solution - 16 Stück 29 ml - Kinetronics

 

If it says 'demineralised' it is not distilled. Demineralised water is produced by passing it through (usually) resins that promote ionic exchange. 'Distilled' water is just that, water that has been boiled and the steam cooled and collected.
Demineralisation tends to leave biological components (including viruses) intact and is a cheaper process, even if it is just as expensive at the point of sale.

 

How do you like the Endust product? At least it's marketed explicitly for cleaning vinyl records.

 

I use the water from the RO water filter at home for cleaning.

 

THE WEAR AND CARE OF RECORDS AND STYLI, by Harold D. Weiler, 1954

Page 54: "Cleaning records has been a highly controversial subject since the invention of the phonograph. When the average person bothers to clean records it is usually done as shown in Figure37. The record is wiped with a slightly damp cloth on the assumption that the cloth will pick up the dust and the dampness will eliminate the electrostatic charge. This method of cleaning does accomplish these functions to some extent. But so does a whale oil lamp give light. What actually does occur is; the cloth picks up some of the dust and grit. The remainder, however, is ground into the grooves by the rubbing action. The dampness of the cloth does reduce the electro-static charge, but only temporarily, since it quickly builds up again as the record dries. However, any attempt to clean records is commendable and even a poor cleaning is better than none."

Page 55: "Ordinary household soap would provide this cleansing action after a fashion, but due to the fatty substances which would remain in the record grooves it should not be used for this purpose. However, chemicals have recently been discovered which are far superior to soap in providing the submicroscopic cleansing action that is required. The author recently received a sample of one of these and tested it thoroughly. The obvious results of its use were a considerable reduction in the noise level, and records which even looked clean to the naked eye. Further examination of the treated record under a microscope showed that the grooves actually were immaculately clean. Clean grooves, as we have found, result in greatly reduced record and stylus wear.".

Given the context and year of the paper, I suspect "far superior to soap" was probably a mild surfactant water-based solution used in a standard wet cleaning/DIW rinse process.

 

To reduce cost, most demineralized water is likely prepared by taking freshwater and first passing through a reverse-osmosis filter (which removes organics, and most salts) and then a demineralizer. Otherwise, the demineralizer resin is depleted very quickly. But large demineralizer columns can be recycled by regenerating with a strong acid backwash to restore the hydronium ions and a strong base backwash to restore the hydroxide ions.

 

After reading the SDS not something I would use. Otherwise, when t comes to record cleaning, I take marketing claims with a grain of salt.

 

I must be lucky because I have very few records with enough noise to justify a rcm or ultrasonic.
Most are original 70's pressings and even the ones with light scuffs and scratches play fine.
If I do get a bad one, I chuck it and buy another copy.
If they do need cleaning I just use a goats hair brush and cleaning solution.
If I bought a rcm, I know I wouldn't use it much so isn't worth the expense to me.
I would rather spend the money on mint condition records that don't need cleaning.

 

iSonic looks to have just released a new Ultrasonic Vinyl Record Cleaner. The CS6.1-Pro ... this one seems to have been built specifically for cleaning records. (Where as the other ones were sort of a hodgepodge of parts? )

A few specs:

• supersized 80W stack transducer that uses 48K
• high temperature warning at 104F/40C
• 10 LPs at a time
• $915

Anyone familiar with his unit? @pacvr @Agitater ?

More of the same thing or is this a a true upgrade to their other offerings? Or is there something better in it's price range of $915?



This would pretty much be the upper end of my budget.