For a 2rpm motor, the LP is out of the bath about 2/3 or that time, or 40 seconds. How many of you really believe an LP fully dries (or even significantly dries) within 40 seconds? I can say that mine don't when hand cleaning with a distilled water rinse, and most people seem to want 30 mins or more drying time before playing.
So is it somehow that the ultrasonic machine and any vibrations transmitted through the LP speed up the drying substantially? Otherwise, I can't make sense of the argument that a higher speed motor that keeps the LP in the water for at least 10 seconds is somehow not as good as a slower (e.g. 5-10 rph) motor.
So is it somehow that the ultrasonic machine and any vibrations transmitted through the LP speed up the drying substantially? Otherwise, I can't make sense of the argument that a higher speed motor that keeps the LP in the water for at least 10 seconds is somehow not as good as a slower (e.g. 5-10 rph) motor.
Thanks BB. I am using a 12RPH motor, so that seems to be within the acceptable range.
I just played one side of an album that I cleaned with my US unit. It seemed to have quite a bit of background noise. . .minor ticks and snaps. I threw it on my Loricraft and cleaned with Disc Doctor and a distilled water rinse. No difference in the background noise.
Not totally scientific, but it certainly eased any concerns I had about the efficacy of the US vs. vacuum.
Now, need to construct a filter unit. . .
How fast do LPs dry with a properly set up URC?
Hi Folks,
Throughout this thread, I've posted videos, graphs and sourced data that I've come across in my research, and actual use of my URC. I share it for the benefit of whomever might be interested. In that spirit, I share a video to address the question of how fast do LPs dry during URC rotation.
I'm an advocate of slow, single rotation use of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner.
Why? Because ultrasonic cleaner manufacturers recommend, on average, about 2 to 4 or 5 minutes of cleaning time.
Furthermore, it's best to conduct this cycle in a single immersion, not several immersions spaced over multiple rotations of the LP.
Why is that? Because if your URC cleaning fluid is formulated correctly, with the right amount of surfactant, cleaning fluid runs off the record as soon as it emerges from the fluid bath. If you haven't had the LP surface in long enough to remove the dirt and oils, they remain on the LP; they will dry and harden again on the surface. LPs are not absorbent, they are a hard, non porous surface. However, with no surfactant, drops of water WILL cling to dust and grooves, as this video shows. But properly formulated cleaning fluid runs right off and the record is dry, also as shown in the video.
The video link is below. Note that with no surfactant, you can see water drops on the record as it spins out of the fluid bath. The droplets absorb into a tissue wiped across the record. With surfactant, there are no visible drops, and the wiped tissue comes off completely dry. LINK:
VIDEO LINK: URC - How fast do LPs Dry?
Cheers,
B B
Hi Folks,
Throughout this thread, I've posted videos, graphs and sourced data that I've come across in my research, and actual use of my URC. I share it for the benefit of whomever might be interested. In that spirit, I share a video to address the question of how fast do LPs dry during URC rotation.
I'm an advocate of slow, single rotation use of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner.
Why? Because ultrasonic cleaner manufacturers recommend, on average, about 2 to 4 or 5 minutes of cleaning time.
Furthermore, it's best to conduct this cycle in a single immersion, not several immersions spaced over multiple rotations of the LP.
Why is that? Because if your URC cleaning fluid is formulated correctly, with the right amount of surfactant, cleaning fluid runs off the record as soon as it emerges from the fluid bath. If you haven't had the LP surface in long enough to remove the dirt and oils, they remain on the LP; they will dry and harden again on the surface. LPs are not absorbent, they are a hard, non porous surface. However, with no surfactant, drops of water WILL cling to dust and grooves, as this video shows. But properly formulated cleaning fluid runs right off and the record is dry, also as shown in the video.
The video link is below. Note that with no surfactant, you can see water drops on the record as it spins out of the fluid bath. The droplets absorb into a tissue wiped across the record. With surfactant, there are no visible drops, and the wiped tissue comes off completely dry. LINK:
VIDEO LINK: URC - How fast do LPs Dry?
Cheers,
B B
Last edited:
Surfactant
Hi Aurora,
Per my parts list here:
BB's URC Parts List Post (v2)
I use DI or Distilled Water up to my fill line in the URC tank (about 150 oz.), add 2.0 to 3 oz. of isopropyl alcohol, and a couple of drops of Kodak Photo Flow (about 1 part in 1500).
Of late, I've been adding isopropyl at the low end of the range and am still getting good cleaning results, with the best runoff from the record. The optimal mix probably depends on the water you're using and perhaps the isopropyl you're using.
Best of luck,
B B
Hi Aurora,
Per my parts list here:
BB's URC Parts List Post (v2)
I use DI or Distilled Water up to my fill line in the URC tank (about 150 oz.), add 2.0 to 3 oz. of isopropyl alcohol, and a couple of drops of Kodak Photo Flow (about 1 part in 1500).
Of late, I've been adding isopropyl at the low end of the range and am still getting good cleaning results, with the best runoff from the record. The optimal mix probably depends on the water you're using and perhaps the isopropyl you're using.
Best of luck,
B B
US Motor + Step Down Transformer
Aurora,
The Crouzet motor for 230V would be build to order. It would probably cost you around $90 US.
A cheaper alternative would be to buy one of the US 120VAC motors from Herbach and Rademan, and buy a step down transformer to power the motor.
The motor doesn't draw much power, so a fairly inexpensive transformer would do the trick. Something like this for example:
Step Down Voltage Convertor
Cheers,
B B
Aurora,
The Crouzet motor for 230V would be build to order. It would probably cost you around $90 US.
A cheaper alternative would be to buy one of the US 120VAC motors from Herbach and Rademan, and buy a step down transformer to power the motor.
The motor doesn't draw much power, so a fairly inexpensive transformer would do the trick. Something like this for example:
Step Down Voltage Convertor
Cheers,
B B
Hey BB, thanks, that's an interesting video, and surely shows how well surfactants can help in keeping water from beading up on the surface. My interest, though, is far more in what's going on deeper inside the grooves, where water tension will have an even greater effect. I'm not saying there's a problem, but I do wonder how much water remains in the grooves despite the surfactant. That is, after all, the bigger concern re: re-depositing gunk.
And...I'm not asking you to prove anything as it's really only a theoretical question for me, and one for which I don't pretend to know the answer. In the end, whatever is removed has a chance to re-deposit, so no matter how long or often the LP is in the bath, the gunk has a chance to re-deposit. The real question for me is, which has a better chance of removing the gunk in the first place? I suspect re-deposited gunk can be removed much more easily than gunk settled deep in the grooves and adhering via oils and other age-old compounds, so I'm less concerned about that.
Edit: I should say that for me, the role of a surfactant is much more important in getting the cleaning action, whatever it is, deep down into the grooves than in drying the LP after cleaning. That's not an empirically grounded opinion, just my supposition based on some loose theoretical ideas.
Last edited:
Since a single immersion is best, then you really only want a little more than half of a revolution, theoretically. Since a good portion of the vinyl is in the solution at start-up, a full revolution will have that portion resubmerged.
It's About Continuous Cleaning Time, not Single Immersion
Hi Peter,
The overarching requirement is to reach a certain minimum, continuous time in the bath, rather than "I will only immerse once."
Say a person considers the minimum effective cleaning time is 3 minutes and is using a 5 rph motor. Much of the LP that starts immersed in the fluid comes out of the bath quickly, in less than 3 minutes, before there is enough time to clean effectively. It dries, and that section needs to immersed again to reach the minimum continuous cleaning time.
So technically, you could do it in just less than 1 rotation, but it's ok to leave the LP in longer. And it's easier to monitor. I use a red mark on my outside spacer to track progress of the cycle and stop after one rotation.
B B
Hi Peter,
The overarching requirement is to reach a certain minimum, continuous time in the bath, rather than "I will only immerse once."
Say a person considers the minimum effective cleaning time is 3 minutes and is using a 5 rph motor. Much of the LP that starts immersed in the fluid comes out of the bath quickly, in less than 3 minutes, before there is enough time to clean effectively. It dries, and that section needs to immersed again to reach the minimum continuous cleaning time.
So technically, you could do it in just less than 1 rotation, but it's ok to leave the LP in longer. And it's easier to monitor. I use a red mark on my outside spacer to track progress of the cycle and stop after one rotation.
B B
Good point. I can tell you've been thinking through this a lot longer than I have.
I have the pump, filter & housing, and only need a fitting or two and that aspect of the URC will be done. BTW, my pump is the same one you have from surpluscenter.com; it's a beaut.
How do you keep dust from depositing on your albums as you remove them from the tank (or do you deal with it after-the-fact)? Dust comes off when you start your cleaning cycle, and some of it floats. When you remove the albums, it sticks to their surface.
I wipe my albums down with a microfiber towel before removing them from the spindle. Just curious as to how others are approaching this. . .
I wipe my albums down with a microfiber towel before removing them from the spindle. Just curious as to how others are approaching this. . .
Yes, I sometimes get floaters that won't be sucked into the filter system and leave a light band of debris at the waterline when I remove the LP from the tank.
What I've taken to doing when that happens is using the output tube from my filter setup to rinse off that band of debris into a waste container I keep nearby. I'll also skim the top of the bath frequently --- you can use a very fine mesh net sold in aquarium stores for this purpose.
B B
Maybe you should try to remove the floating debri in some way so that the water surface is clean when removing the albums. Maybe a suction pump pulling off water from the surface and filtering it and recycling it back ?
What about a double chamber.
Inner chamber overflows to outer chamber from where the liquid is pumped through a filter back to the inner chamber ! That would eliminate muck floating on the surface.
About rotation, I would think that you need a full rotation plus a bit more to ensure that all parts of the disc do get 4 mins or whatever in the cleaning solution. Can we not use stepper motors from old printers to do the rotation ? It can be controlled by a micro controller which can also handle the filter pump. You can then also control rotation speed depending on how dirty the disc is . Maybe the jerk at each step will also help dislodge muck on the disc.
What about a double chamber.
Inner chamber overflows to outer chamber from where the liquid is pumped through a filter back to the inner chamber ! That would eliminate muck floating on the surface.
About rotation, I would think that you need a full rotation plus a bit more to ensure that all parts of the disc do get 4 mins or whatever in the cleaning solution. Can we not use stepper motors from old printers to do the rotation ? It can be controlled by a micro controller which can also handle the filter pump. You can then also control rotation speed depending on how dirty the disc is . Maybe the jerk at each step will also help dislodge muck on the disc.
Last edited:
I was planning on connecting the input line for my pump to the drain valve on the tank, but am now thinking it might should be at the surface, with the filtered water re-entering at the bottom, similar to a swimming pool. My first and only session of cleaning records saw plenty of debris at the bottom of the tank, but with this new thought about scum and skimmers, perhaps that debris would be best left at the bottom and more attention paid to the gunk that might have a chance of clinging to the vinyl as it rotates out of the solution.
Before I chose the one that you list in your parts list, I was looking at pumps similar to the one you link to, but passed on them. The reason was that I was locked in on the idea of having an inlet for the pump which could connect to the drain valve on my machine. But now that I think more on the subject, it may make perfect sense to have the pump at the bottom of the tank, with a tube coming out to a filter and then back to the top of the tank.
Pump Alternative
Peter, on second thought, I don't think submersible is the way to go. Ultrasonic action will eventually eat up the pump and one needs a large external filter anyway.
So as one alternative to the Little Giant pump, I'd suggest using this pump inline:
UP-270 pump
It doesn't need an enclosure, so one would save some money there, but it's a little more expensive than the Little Giant setup.
good luck,
B B
Peter, on second thought, I don't think submersible is the way to go. Ultrasonic action will eventually eat up the pump and one needs a large external filter anyway.
So as one alternative to the Little Giant pump, I'd suggest using this pump inline:
UP-270 pump
It doesn't need an enclosure, so one would save some money there, but it's a little more expensive than the Little Giant setup.
good luck,
B B