Ultrasonic cleaning

tuberculin-

Admittedly, I’m biased simply because I’ve published Neil’s work (@antinn). But I think you don’t fully appreciate what Neil did. When you mention actual application with vacuum RCMs and Ultrasonic, I’ve written extensively on this, from visiting Culpepper (the LOC intake facility) to my own explorations- I currently use a "big" Monks and a KL and have documented and published my "impressions" in terms of results. I’ve also included results-oriented contributions from TIMA, who eventually advanced to multiple tanks and filtering, per Neil. As well as an interesting historical monograph from Mike Bodell on the history of US cleaning of LPs. 

The beauty of Neil’s contributions is the explanation of process and the "why’s" of certain steps. In fairness, I don’t think Neil is dogmatic and neither am I.

As far as Neil himself is concerned, he took feedback from all over the world, more than a 1,000 participants in experimenting with "process," which not only resulted in revisions to the free booklet, but in my estimation, is what it is all about-that is, the results of various methods of cleaning from a huge number of users all over the world.

I was running a lot of records through intake here- upwards of 30-60 copies a month was the norm for a long time. Many highly valuable old pressings.

"Bulk" record cleaning, to me, raises the issue of doing 8-10 or more records in an US bath. That, to my understanding, can defeat the value of US cleaning. My main cleaning machine has been a big ole’ Monks for a while, which I use in conjunction with a KL US machine. I’m always thinking of what comes next due to potential equipment failure (though I bought back up parts for the Monks).

Neil also got feedback from more than a thousand users throughout the world, which, to me, represents "real world" testing in the hands of actual users. To say that he doesn’t have hands-on experience implies that he lacks knowledge (false) or that his recommendations are purely theoretical (also not true based on the feedback of actual users).

I have no need to defend what I publish based on any monetary concerns- it costs me real money for bandwidth and IT support. I do this purely for the advancement of knowledge. If you find it cumbersome for bulk processing, you might look at work flow, since Neil has offered various methods to increase "throughput" that have, in fact, been applied.

I personally clean records in batches. At one point, I’d say 60 LPs a month. Leaving aside around 17 thousand records- not all of which I cleaned- before I moved from NY to Texas.

If you think what Neil is suggesting is too time-consuming for large batch cleaning, Neil can probably provide you with links to those folks who are doing fairly high volume US cleaning. Me-- I’ve slowed down on intake, not for lack of interest, but simply because my focus on all of this has changed to some degree- but (ironically or not), involves archival preservation. music history and technology.

Apologies for length, I did not have time to make this pithy. But I will say (to echo Neil), that you find the right process that works for you (with an understanding of the "why") and proceed from there. I don’t think Neil is dictating that you use one process; just that you are aware of what you are doing in respect to various steps.

Bill Hart

@whart, Bill as always thank-you for the kind words and the acknowledgement and of course your efforts as editor and publisher.

One of the problems with record cleaning is that there are no clearly defined cleanliness criteria.  I address this in some length in Chapter XI but it's very technical.  Absent the criteria, the market is ripe for all forms of exaggerated claims by vendors selling what will be the latest and greatest cleaning agent and/or way to clean a record and the Edisonian technique of trial and error can be screwed by perception and bias.    

Here are 3 different power ratings for a new 40/80/120-kHz UT transducer model #CCH-4039D-120/80/40, PZT-4

35W - China 35W 40k 80k 120k Triple Frequency Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer - China Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer (chinax.com)
50W - 50w 40k And 80k And 120k Triple Frequency Waterproof Ultrasonic Transducer For Cleaner (ultrasoniccleaning-transducer.com)
60W - Aluminum 60w Multi Frequency Ultrasonic Transducer For Cleaning Tank (ultrasoniccleaning-transducer.com).

So, one of the challenges in putting together record clean processes is to understand the user's threshold - how much convenience do they want, how many records do clean?  If you are a power-user, the manual method is not practical.  How much money are they willing to spend - there is a big difference between an Elmasonic P-series UT and an inexpensive Chinese made UT tank.  But I can tailor a 'process' to accommodate the equipment differences.   But designing a process using a multi-frequency 37/80-kHz, high power Elmasonic P-series with multiple operating modes affords options the lower price equipment does not afford and is much easier with a near guaranteed success rate.  The only hick-up was very high throughput users where we had to install a radiator with the filter system to keep the tank temperatures under 100F (the Elmasonic P-series are powerful units).

So what have I learned from working with many people is how to work-around pretty much whatever limitation may be presented - be it the equipment or what cleaning agents are available; and obtain the best results from the equipment they have.  Does better equipment yield a cleaner record, that all depends on the process being used.  A weak UT tank can be overcome by a good pre-clean step; but your throughput can suffer.  Or we can increase the chemistry in the UT tank provided a post rinse is used.  So, after all is said and done, the best cleaning process is the one that is best for you.  

Take care, and best wishes for the Holidays - wishing all peace on earth and good will to all.

Neil

I use a little over 1 gal distilled water with 4 ounces 91% alcohol, 3 ml Triton X-100 and 1/2 ml photoflo in my Vevor US cleaner.

I clean 3 Lp`s at a time starting at 30c and I will go as high as 42c.

Very slow rotation speed. 1 rotation per 10 minutes, 3 rotations in total for the 30 minute run time.

I use a Record Dr vacuum then I put the Lp's into MoFi sleeves.

Does a nice job.

 

We would all do well to read and reread @whart ​​​​@antinn posts and of course tge much and ongoing revisions to the source document they author   publish. Many thanks kind sirs !
 

i use a Degritter with supplied fluid and distilled water w aggressive water change schedule….my next step is a positive pressure satellite grade clean room… 

@scm,

FWIW:

If you compare the two SDSs between Trition X-100  TRITON™ X-100 Surfactant | Dow Inc. and Kodak Photoflo \14315sfp-1msdgenfilesarchivessds_usdefault�07903.pdf (lps.org), the CAS #’s are the same, so that adding Photoflo with Trition X-100 is not much benefit; especially considering that the Photoflo is diluted to 5-10%. Your Trition X-100 concentration of 3-ml/gal will get about 0.08% (+~800-ppm) which is more than enough (~4X the CMC) to get the wetting and all the detergency that Trition X100 can give.

Your 4-ounces of 91% IPA will give you about 2.8% which is a good concentration and can be complimentary with the Triton X-100.

The 0.1-rpm can be too slow for some powerful machines. It can depending on the tank depth, place the record very close to the transducers for too long a period of time which may produce record surface damage - its variable since the record vinyl formulation does vary. But for your Vevor machine it’s obviously not a problem (damage can sometimes be seen as a dulling of the surface).