Pano,
It was just pointed out on the Blowtorch thread that alcohol may over time leach the plasticizer's out of the vinyl. Has anyone seen any evidence of this so far? Micro-pitting of the surface is spoken of though this may be a normal aging process of vinyl and out-gassing of any plasticizer added.
It was just pointed out on the Blowtorch thread that alcohol may over time leach the plasticizer's out of the vinyl. Has anyone seen any evidence of this so far? Micro-pitting of the surface is spoken of though this may be a normal aging process of vinyl and out-gassing of any plasticizer added.
Pano,
I am not a chemist so I can't honestly answer the question and that is why I asked if anyone has seen any evidence of this. I have not looked at the formulation of vinyl used in records to verify that there really is any plasticizer even in the formulation, that may be a bogus statement in whole. Sy could know something about this, I would have to go to one of my plastic material sources to look at this. I never molded vinyl so it is out of my purview of information.
ps. It wouldn't be used as a lubricant I wouldn't think. It would be used to keep the vinyl from becoming very stiff or brittle but as I said I don't know vinyl chemistry.
I am not a chemist so I can't honestly answer the question and that is why I asked if anyone has seen any evidence of this. I have not looked at the formulation of vinyl used in records to verify that there really is any plasticizer even in the formulation, that may be a bogus statement in whole. Sy could know something about this, I would have to go to one of my plastic material sources to look at this. I never molded vinyl so it is out of my purview of information.
ps. It wouldn't be used as a lubricant I wouldn't think. It would be used to keep the vinyl from becoming very stiff or brittle but as I said I don't know vinyl chemistry.
Within reason, alcohol should not be a problem
My opinion: At reasonable concentrations, say 10% or less, alcohol should not pose a problem in record cleaning fluids. We're talking minutes of exposure in typical usage, and BB's formula, for example, is far below 10%. On the other hand, I would not leave a record soaking in an alcohol bath for an extended period. We should avoid alcohol preparations with additives that might leave a residue – the purer the better, but the alcohol itself leaves no residue. In my opinion, if low-level exposure to alcohol damages vinyl at all, it is negligible and outweighed by the improvement to cleaning that the alcohol might offer. Of course, alcohol on lacquer 78s is another matter.
Several of the most respected commercially available record cleaning fluids as well as many common home-brews contain alcohol. Thousands of people use these, but I'm not aware of any reports that these have damaged records in a measurable way. I've read warnings against "micropits" from alcohol and from ultrasonic cleaning as well. But these seem to come from people who don't use the material or process in question and never have. For example, I've never read a report of an actual observation of a micropit, let alone seen a posted image of one.
Still, some people prefer to avoid alcohol, and that's OK. I recently tried Alconox w and w/o alcohol, and didn't find a major difference either way. If that result holds with whichever surfactant/detergent I settle on, I'll omit the alcohol.
My opinion: At reasonable concentrations, say 10% or less, alcohol should not pose a problem in record cleaning fluids. We're talking minutes of exposure in typical usage, and BB's formula, for example, is far below 10%. On the other hand, I would not leave a record soaking in an alcohol bath for an extended period. We should avoid alcohol preparations with additives that might leave a residue – the purer the better, but the alcohol itself leaves no residue. In my opinion, if low-level exposure to alcohol damages vinyl at all, it is negligible and outweighed by the improvement to cleaning that the alcohol might offer. Of course, alcohol on lacquer 78s is another matter.
Several of the most respected commercially available record cleaning fluids as well as many common home-brews contain alcohol. Thousands of people use these, but I'm not aware of any reports that these have damaged records in a measurable way. I've read warnings against "micropits" from alcohol and from ultrasonic cleaning as well. But these seem to come from people who don't use the material or process in question and never have. For example, I've never read a report of an actual observation of a micropit, let alone seen a posted image of one.
Still, some people prefer to avoid alcohol, and that's OK. I recently tried Alconox w and w/o alcohol, and didn't find a major difference either way. If that result holds with whichever surfactant/detergent I settle on, I'll omit the alcohol.
Agreed. I think we are better off without either of these glycols or any other sticky, viscous lubricants on our records. Clean, good-quality vinyl is very quiet without added lubricants. Proper cleaning, with or without ultrasound, only makes it quieter in my experience.
By the way, due to its sweet taste and high toxicity, EG is implicated in the early deaths of household pets and other critters, so PG-based automotive antifreeze products are available, such as Prestone Low Tox. PG is FDA approved as safe, and is ubiquitous in processed foods and many household products.
Why would posters on a thread dedicated to a particular (very fine-sounding) preamp know anything about what is and is not good for vinyl?
If you leave IPA pooled on the LP surface for 24 hours or so ... maybe it will do some damage to the vinyl? Used as part of a record-cleaning fluid, and resting on the surface of the LP for a max of 2 minutes before it gets sucked off - absolutely not.
I have used 30-50% IPA in my RCM fluid for 25 years - and there is no "damage" that I can hear.
Regards,
Andy
Andyr,
Because some of those people are recording engineers and chemists and PhD's in physics and such. I happen to be a person who has had a plastics molding company, so I asked if anyone has seen this affect. I didn't answer this myself as I haven't looked up the chemical makeup of the vinyl used in production of albums. Do you know for sure if there are plastisizer'r used in the formula, I don't but could find out. I accept your opinion that you have never seen an effect, I believe that. Doesn't mean there is no effect, but if you can't hear it and your albums are fine that is great. I know one other person on the site here that I will ask directly as I know he like me is and was in the plastics industry if there could be a long term problem. I doubted it myself but someone brought it up, so I asked for confirmation by anyone who could provide that information, nothing more. Just because they are not on this thread does not discount the information about the interaction of chemicals and vinyl albums.
Because some of those people are recording engineers and chemists and PhD's in physics and such. I happen to be a person who has had a plastics molding company, so I asked if anyone has seen this affect. I didn't answer this myself as I haven't looked up the chemical makeup of the vinyl used in production of albums. Do you know for sure if there are plastisizer'r used in the formula, I don't but could find out. I accept your opinion that you have never seen an effect, I believe that. Doesn't mean there is no effect, but if you can't hear it and your albums are fine that is great. I know one other person on the site here that I will ask directly as I know he like me is and was in the plastics industry if there could be a long term problem. I doubted it myself but someone brought it up, so I asked for confirmation by anyone who could provide that information, nothing more. Just because they are not on this thread does not discount the information about the interaction of chemicals and vinyl albums.
Agreed. Dilute solutions are the key.
The lubricants for record vinyl are internal (waxes and fatty esters), not externally applied. If a surface layer is stripped off, more migrate to the surface.
Andyr,
And there is your answer and I know that Sy knows what he speaks of. And he was on the other thread so perhaps that answers your question why we could talk about what is going on here and answer without being a part of the thread here. Ask the right questions of the right people and you can get an informed answer.
And there is your answer and I know that Sy knows what he speaks of. And he was on the other thread so perhaps that answers your question why we could talk about what is going on here and answer without being a part of the thread here. Ask the right questions of the right people and you can get an informed answer.
DIY Ultrasonics
Hi Ketchup and Bibio (awesome user names by the way),
To be most effective, transducers are attached to the bottom of the tank. You're essentially creating an ultrasonic speaker radiating upward. You want the bottom of the tank to resonate and project the sonic waves into the liquid in the tank.
Transducers are either attached with high grade epoxy that can withstand the energy transmission and vibration, or in extreme work environments they may be vacuum-brazed to the tank. Mass loading needs to be correct for efficient energy transmission into the liquid.
80-100 watts per gallon of tank capacity is the proper design power. For the size tanks we're talking about (6 quarts or so), three 50-watt transducers is optimal. Using multiple transducers allows more even distribution of energy into the cleaning liquid throughout the tank.
While I think it would be very cool to build one's own Ultrasonic machine from scratch, reading about other people's attempts quickly dissuaded me from doing this. Here is a link to an earlier post I wrote in response to this question:
DIY Ultrasonics?
Will be curious to know if you guys embark on such an effort.
Cheers,
B B
Hi Ketchup and Bibio (awesome user names by the way),
To be most effective, transducers are attached to the bottom of the tank. You're essentially creating an ultrasonic speaker radiating upward. You want the bottom of the tank to resonate and project the sonic waves into the liquid in the tank.
Transducers are either attached with high grade epoxy that can withstand the energy transmission and vibration, or in extreme work environments they may be vacuum-brazed to the tank. Mass loading needs to be correct for efficient energy transmission into the liquid.
80-100 watts per gallon of tank capacity is the proper design power. For the size tanks we're talking about (6 quarts or so), three 50-watt transducers is optimal. Using multiple transducers allows more even distribution of energy into the cleaning liquid throughout the tank.
While I think it would be very cool to build one's own Ultrasonic machine from scratch, reading about other people's attempts quickly dissuaded me from doing this. Here is a link to an earlier post I wrote in response to this question:
DIY Ultrasonics?
Will be curious to know if you guys embark on such an effort.
Cheers,
B B
Last edited:
Brad,
How would a standing wave generation of the ultra sonic waves have a better affect than the random action of the ultrasonic waves themselves. Would you need to have a phased array to accomplish anything like you are talking which seems to be steering the waves in a directed pattern of motion across the surfaces?
How would a standing wave generation of the ultra sonic waves have a better affect than the random action of the ultrasonic waves themselves. Would you need to have a phased array to accomplish anything like you are talking which seems to be steering the waves in a directed pattern of motion across the surfaces?
I guess I don't visualize the ultrasonic energy as random, unless somehow it becomes chaotic (which isn't really random either but looks like it ).
I'm seeing standing waves forming quickly, and then slowly sweeping those so the compressions and rarefactions shift slightly at a given location on the LP under cleaning. This, potentially, in order to avoid having to move the disc itself.
I'd add that I have a personal and nearly immediate interest in this, as I have been excavating ancient and sometimes very dirty LPs of late and using my budget Nitty Gritty machine to mixed results.
). I'm seeing standing waves forming quickly, and then slowly sweeping those so the compressions and rarefactions shift slightly at a given location on the LP under cleaning. This, potentially, in order to avoid having to move the disc itself.
I'd add that I have a personal and nearly immediate interest in this, as I have been excavating ancient and sometimes very dirty LPs of late and using my budget Nitty Gritty machine to mixed results.
Last edited:
Sweep Freq
Hi Brad,
The nature of the transducers is that their frequency response is fairly narrow, maybe 2-3khz either side of the resonant frequency. So frequency sweeping is not really effective in these devices. The efficiency and power delivered drops off quickly if you deviate from the resonant frequency.
I would contend that it's not needed anyway since we're moving the object being cleaned ----the LP---- through the fluid in the tank. Any standing wave issues are handled by that movement of the object. In addition, by using higher frequency transducers (60 or 80 khz instead of 40khz), you can also minimize this potential issue. Fact is, swept frequency ultrasonic cleaners are not much more than marketing and sales hype, really. To their credit, Zenith Ultrasonics explains this on their website.
Cheers,
B B
Hi Brad,
The nature of the transducers is that their frequency response is fairly narrow, maybe 2-3khz either side of the resonant frequency. So frequency sweeping is not really effective in these devices. The efficiency and power delivered drops off quickly if you deviate from the resonant frequency.
I would contend that it's not needed anyway since we're moving the object being cleaned ----the LP---- through the fluid in the tank. Any standing wave issues are handled by that movement of the object. In addition, by using higher frequency transducers (60 or 80 khz instead of 40khz), you can also minimize this potential issue. Fact is, swept frequency ultrasonic cleaners are not much more than marketing and sales hype, really. To their credit, Zenith Ultrasonics explains this on their website.
Cheers,
B B
I had supposed something like that. But (see above) I'm looking for a strategy that obviates the need to move the record.
Brad,
Then it would seem the solution to not moving the record would be that the entire disk be submerged and something placed over the label on both sides and held through the center hole that would protect the label like a silicone disk on each side. You would need more solution and a higher amplitude I would think for the added volume you would have in the tank.
Then it would seem the solution to not moving the record would be that the entire disk be submerged and something placed over the label on both sides and held through the center hole that would protect the label like a silicone disk on each side. You would need more solution and a higher amplitude I would think for the added volume you would have in the tank.