Record cleaning

Re: Record cleaning

Postby hizzy762001 » Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:31 pm

Another question, Neil:

Is Ilfotol as good as Tergitol 15-S-9? I was thinking of ordering some. Tergitol 15-S-9 sounds like a miracle fluid, but it is had to get here in Canada. I would order from Talas.

Thanks!
hizzy762001
Jr. Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:56 am

Re: Record cleaning

Postby theeng » Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:54 pm

hizzy762001 wrote:Another question, Neil:

Is Ilfotol as good as Tergitol 15-S-9? I was thinking of ordering some. Tergitol 15-S-9 sounds like a miracle fluid, but it is had to get here in Canada. I would order from Talas.

Thanks!


Howard,

FYI - I was aware of the article/video by the Audiophileman, he has provided a recent write-up here - https://theaudiophileman.com/surfactant ... ers-guide/ if you are interested - and of all the surfactants he tested he liked Tergikleen the best. He liked ILFOTO but the concentration he used was very low - not enough to achieve detergency; and what would happen if he tested Tergitol 15-S-9 at an appropriate concentration. Note that there many will refer to Tergikleen as Tergitol which can be confusing - the devil is in the details.

Otherwise, below is what I wrote about ILFOTO in my paper, and if you read it you should draw the conclusion that there will be very little performance difference between Tergitol 15-S-9 and ILFOTO. For you it comes down to cost - you can buy ILFOTO https://www.amazon.ca/Ilford-Ilfotol-We ... 291&sr=8-9, but a Liter is not cheap and it is a diluted product as addressed below. The Tergitol 15-S-9 from Talas is ~100% concentrated but it comes down to will they ship to CAD and what will be the shipping (any customs?) cost.

VIII.6 ILFORD-ILFOTOL™: This is a wetting agent that is water mixed with a combination of 1-5% nonionic surfactant and <1% of an antibacterial inhibitor that can extend shelf-life. The latest 2015 MSDS (manufacturers will reformulate products) indicates a nonionic surfactant that by the chemical abstract system (CAS) number 68131-39-5 is likely either Stepan™ BIO-SOFT™ N25-7 or N25-9. These nonionic surfactants are similar to Dow™ Tergitol™ 15-S-7 or 15-S-9 and have similar surface tension and CMC (see Section IX for details). The antibacterial agent by the CAS number 55965-84-9 is widely used in many applications such as metal working fluids, circulating water systems, and paints and is a blend of methylcholoroisothiazolinone (CMIT) and methylisothiazolinone (MIT). ILFORD™ recommends use beginning at 1-part cleaner to 200 parts water yielding a nonionic-surfactant concentration as high as 0.025% which could be near the lowest usable concentration for its intended purpose as a single point of use, photographic wetting agent. The product literature lists no surface tension data, but the Stepan™ BIO-SOFT™ N25-7 or N25-9 ingredient should result in about 30 dynes/cm. Some on the internet recommend for cleaning records to mix 50-mL to 1000 mL, that could yield a nonionic surfactant concentration of as much as 0.25% which is excessive (see Section IX for details). However, internet discussion of adding nonionic surfactant Dow™ Tergitol™ to essentially nonionic surfactant ILFORD-ILFOTOL™ to boost cleaning makes no sense, unless the ILFORD-ILFOTOL™ is diluted too much, or if is being used primarily as a biocide.

IX.5 NOTE: Referencing the discussion in Section VIII, substituting ILFORD-ILFOTOL™ as the final cleaner mixed 20 mL to one-liter should yield about a 0.1% nonionic detergent solution that is near equal to either 0.1% Dow™ Tergitol™ 15-S-7 or Tergitol™ 15-S-9.

Neil
User avatar
theeng
Senior Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:47 am

Re: Record cleaning

Postby hizzy762001 » Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:11 pm

Hi Neil!

I wonder what methodology the audiophile man followed? Is he re-cleaning the same record several times to hear a difference? I think you would hear a difference after several cleanings and I don't think that can be ascribed to any particular quality of a single fluid. If he cleaned a record six times, he should notice something with each cleaning.

I might order the tergitol out of curiosity, but I am happy with the Ilfotol!

I might try LAST for the anti-static qualities. Will let you know my findings :)

Thanks!

Howard
hizzy762001
Jr. Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:56 am

Re: Record cleaning

Postby theeng » Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:12 pm

hizzy762001 wrote:Hi Neil!

I wonder what methodology the audiophile man followed? Is he re-cleaning the same record several times to hear a difference? I think you would hear a difference after several cleanings and I don't think that can be ascribed to any particular quality of a single fluid. If he cleaned a record six times, he should notice something with each cleaning.

I might order the tergitol out of curiosity, but I am happy with the Ilfotol!

I might try LAST for the anti-static qualities. Will let you know my findings :)

Thanks!

Howard


Howard,

To my knowledge the LAST record preservative does not provide any anti-static function. To remove static from a record with a liquid here are the two basic ways:

You can apply a 'wetting' solution such as DIW + 10-15% IPA and once the record is 'wet' the moisture will dissipate any static charge***. But this is not long lasting. This is likely the basis of Discwasher D4 fluid. Cleanrooms use a simple DIW/IPA spray for anti-static (remember that the DIW-IPA solution is flammable). Anytime you wet-clean a record with any wetting agent you will dissipate/remove any static charge. But, I also know there are 'camps' that swear by anti-static 'coatings'.

You can apply a liquid that will leave an anti-static 'coating'. This is how QACs - cationic surfactants work (HEPASTAT 256 being a popular one which is also an alkaline cleaning agent) . They leave a coating that absorbs moisture from the air to maintain a very thin moisture film to keep the record electrically 'dissipative'. The QACs are also disinfectants so the moisture film will not grow mold or bacteria.

But, if you went to all the trouble and cost to wet-clean the record and leave no residue - why then add an anti-static coating/residue? As I previously said in a prior post this thin water film is going to eventually collect particles and diamond/vinyl dust and produce a microscopic abrasive sludge. FYI - there is literature that did testing on what produces record static and the diamond stylus against the record DOES NOT produce static. EDIT: The article with the data is Audio 1978-May, Phonograph Reproduction 1978 James H. Kogen copy here: James H. Kogenhttps://worldradiohistory.com/Arch ... 978-05.pdf.

Neil

***EDIT: The basis for this statement is from this article: Static Charge Removal with IPA Solution Tadahiro Ohmi, Seiji Sudoh, and Hiroyuki Mishima, 1994. They tested the ability for IPA to remove static charge from Teflon (PTFE) which is the most negative triboelectric material (more negative than PVC). They determined that a DIW-IPA mix of 0% to 80% when directly applied would remove all static charge in just a few seconds. From my paper, 20% IPA-DIW has a surface tension of ~30 dynes/cm and this must be enough to 'wet' Teflon with a critical surface tension of 19 dynes/cm - which is half of PVC that is 38 dynes/cm. So, by deductive reasoning, 90%-DIW/10% IPA that has a surface tension of 40 dynes/cm should 'wet' PVC that has a critical surface tension of 38 dynes/cm. HOWEVER, applying this with a nylon brush that if dry wants to develop a static charge on PVC by triboelectric effect is a wild card. It may be better to just use an anti-static cloth like the Kinetronics Tiger Cloth https://www.kinetronics.com/product/ant ... ger-cloth/ lightly wetted with DIW-IPA solution and just lightly swiped on the surface.
User avatar
theeng
Senior Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:47 am

Re: Record cleaning

Postby hizzy762001 » Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:14 pm

Hi Neil!

I have some questions for you about the cleaning process! Hope you could help.

1) Should I scrub my records until I see bubbles? I am using an RCM.
2) Should I let any of the solutions sit on the record? L'art du son suggests letting the fluid sit on a record for a few minutes before vacuuming. Should I be doing this with the Liquinox or the Ilford?
3) How much fluid should I be using on a side? Does it matter if I use more or less?

Thanks again,

Howard
hizzy762001
Jr. Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:56 am

Re: Record cleaning

Postby theeng » Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:15 pm

Howard,

WRT to Item 1: The more/longer/faster you brush/scrub - the more foam that will develop on the brush; but the foam does not develop on the record. The duration/speed of brushing is all dependent on how dirty the record. But, to lift the fine particulate that is in the groove requires a bit of fluid agitation. You are not digging/forcing the brush into the groove - your agitating the fluid that produce foam that lifts particles out of the groove and into the brush - just rinse the rinse the brush of all foam before using for any other purpose such as DIW rinse.

WRT to Item 2: You do not need to let Alconox or ILFOTOL soak. L'art du son suggests letting the fluid sit on a record because it is an enzyme cleaner - and enzyme cleaners function by dissolving target soils (i.e. body type fluids) and need soak time. Neither Alconox, or ILFOTOL nor Tergitol are enzyme cleaners - and function best with agitation. One exception - for very dry/hard deposits - soak for a couple minutes with gentle agitation to soften the deposit - but vacuum/rinse/reapply cleaner to prevent grinding the loosened debris into the record.

WRT to Item 3: You need to apply enough fluid to completely wet the record w/o flooding the vacuum-RCM. On exceptionally dirty record, as zi said above, you will need to apply cleaner multiple times - clean/vacuum at least twice and maybe 3 times. Vacuum-RCM has one disadvantage that to prevent flooding the device - you are limited to how much cleaner can be applies. If I am manually cleaning in a sink with a label protector I can apply cleaner until its dripping from all sides - there is no limit.

Neil
User avatar
theeng
Senior Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:47 am

Re: Record cleaning

Postby Golear » Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:35 pm

What are the good label protectors?

I'm interested in getting them. Two discs (metal so that they don't flex) with thin plastic (cut from gloves used when washing pots and pans) to make the seal?
Golear
Senior Member
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:51 pm

Re: Record cleaning

Postby theeng » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:31 pm

Golear wrote:What are the good label protectors?

I'm interested in getting them. Two discs (metal so that they don't flex) with thin plastic (cut from gloves used when washing pots and pans) to make the seal?


Golear,

I use the Vinylstack (Made USA) which is made from thick HDPE (pretty much impervious to anything) and has O-rings to seal against the record - https://thevinylstack.com/manual-cleani ... one-stack/. I also use the Vinylstack Record Drying Stand for assembly - just my preference and it is well made from thick HDPE - https://thevinylstack.com/view-cart/#!/ ... y=14192076. I prefer the Vinylstack (Made USA) with the thick white HDPE and its handle versus the alternate Groovemaster.

There is also the Groovemaster that is similar and uses clear polycarbonate disks with an O-ring https://www.amazon.com/Groovmaster-Labe ... B00NP0QAOW, and this design appears to now have copy-cats.

FYI - A number of people (I believe Harry does) with DIY Ultrasonic Cleaning Systems use the Vinylstack Ultrasonic Spin https://thevinylstack.com/ultrasonic-cl ... aning-kit/

Neil
User avatar
theeng
Senior Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:47 am

Re: Record cleaning

Postby Golear » Tue Oct 27, 2020 6:33 pm

Many thanks. OK, O-rings would work really well.
Golear
Senior Member
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:51 pm

Re: Record cleaning

Postby theeng » Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:52 pm

Golear wrote:Many thanks. OK, O-rings would work really well.


Yep - after cleanings100's of records - and subjecting to flow water - not one label got wet :D. The O-rings are sized (diameter) to be just outside the label.
User avatar
theeng
Senior Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:47 am

Previous

Return to Harry's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

x