Couplings, bearings, collars, etc.
There's been some interest here of late in using various bearings, couplings, and collars for transmitting power to the rotisserie. Here are some pictures of various parts I purchased back in October along the same lines (still waiting for the deck to come in on which to mount it all).
The configuration in the first picture is not exactly what I will use, but it gives the basic idea. The gearmotor ($24.99) and mounting clamp ($7.99) in the second picture are from servocity.com. This is the 12 VDC motor I mentioned earlier; I also have a speed controller for it. The mounting clamp is a new product offering that fits the motor much better than the old plastic mount ($1.99), and is worth the extra $$ IMO. The flexible coupling ($10 from ugracnc.com) adapts from the 6mm motor spindle to the 1/4" (6.35mm) shaft I chose ($4.98 each) at servocity.com). The spiral cut in the coupling allows it to flex to accommodate minor misalignments between the motor and the shaft. In general, I think ready-made parts such as these are good solutions for people like me who lack the lathes etc. needed to fabricate their own parts.
The third picture shows a 1/4"-bore, roller-bearing pillow block (PB-04, $8.95 at lynxmotion.com) and a one-piece clamping style collar in aluminum (you can get a 4-pack of a similar style collar for $9.47 at Amazon; Ruland CL-4-A). The clamping style are a little nicer than the set screw type, but the difference likely doesn't matter for our use. Take your pick. The roller-bearing pillow block might seem like overkill, but my intended design configuration will stress the supports more than the simple supports shown in the first picture, and I want to minimize friction to extend the low end of motor speeds I can get with the speed controller.
There's been some interest here of late in using various bearings, couplings, and collars for transmitting power to the rotisserie. Here are some pictures of various parts I purchased back in October along the same lines (still waiting for the deck to come in on which to mount it all).
The configuration in the first picture is not exactly what I will use, but it gives the basic idea. The gearmotor ($24.99) and mounting clamp ($7.99) in the second picture are from servocity.com. This is the 12 VDC motor I mentioned earlier; I also have a speed controller for it. The mounting clamp is a new product offering that fits the motor much better than the old plastic mount ($1.99), and is worth the extra $$ IMO. The flexible coupling ($10 from ugracnc.com) adapts from the 6mm motor spindle to the 1/4" (6.35mm) shaft I chose ($4.98 each) at servocity.com). The spiral cut in the coupling allows it to flex to accommodate minor misalignments between the motor and the shaft. In general, I think ready-made parts such as these are good solutions for people like me who lack the lathes etc. needed to fabricate their own parts.
The third picture shows a 1/4"-bore, roller-bearing pillow block (PB-04, $8.95 at lynxmotion.com) and a one-piece clamping style collar in aluminum (you can get a 4-pack of a similar style collar for $9.47 at Amazon; Ruland CL-4-A). The clamping style are a little nicer than the set screw type, but the difference likely doesn't matter for our use. Take your pick. The roller-bearing pillow block might seem like overkill, but my intended design configuration will stress the supports more than the simple supports shown in the first picture, and I want to minimize friction to extend the low end of motor speeds I can get with the speed controller.
Bacteria and filter system maintenance; purified water; enzymatic cleaner?
I've left my system wet for about 10 days and only changed the cleaning bath every few days. I finally opened it all up last night in response to BB's advice. There was no obvious bacterial growth visible to casual inspection, but that doesn't mean it's not there. On the other hand, I'd rather not do this maintenance more often than needed.
I found this technical note on the Alconox web site How to: Monitor Stability of 1% Alconox Solution. Although they claim no microbial growth in dilute Alconox under closed-lid conditions for 3 weeks or more, they confirm that under open-lid conditions bacterial growth might be a concern. They suggest checking for microbial growth by monitoring for a drop in pH and for odor, and with these precautions, it might be possible to use the same solution for up to three weeks. Since in our use we change the bath more frequently than that, it might be sufficient to only dry out the filter when changing the bath solution. If viable, this would be much more convenient and less expensive than a daily ritual.
I just placed an order for an HM digital TDS-3, on BB's suggestion, to compare quality of store-bought water and to monitor my rinse water to know when to change it. In the meantime, I carried out some crude mechanical comparison tests of store-bought distilled water, store-bought RO water, and Audio Intelligence's Ultra-Pure Water (way too expensive in the volumes I need). If done carefully, you can get very accurate measurements of relative water purity by inspecting beading action and the contact angle between a bead surface and a substrate. My tests weren't all that careful, but they showed that my locally available distilled water and RO water were in the same ball park, with a slight edge seeming to go to the RO water. The TDS meter should give a quantitative comparison for these two soon.
The AI Ultra Pure Water is the best by far; no contest based on mechanical performance. I'm not sure whether the TDS meter will have enough resolution to show this difference, because many users report zero TDS with home made DI and store-bought distilled water.
All this has significance for rinsing, especially the final stage where if the extraction is sufficiently gradual and the water is pure enough, it might be possible to have the lps emerge nearly dry. With the water I have now and careful removal I'm almost there, but I'm still left with some beads of water adhering to the lp surface. These take much longer to dry than the rest of the lp surface, and they presumably concentrate whatever impurities are still present as they evaporate. I sometimes touch the beads with the corner of a clean tissue to wick them away to speed drying, but this is tedious and difficult on a stack of 3 records.
Better would be to find an affordable source of ultra purified water. I'm inexperienced with home RODI systems, and don't know whether a reasonably priced system can produce quality similar to the AI water or at least better than what I buy now from the store. Would a system with dual DI stages do better?
----
I did some tests combining a presoak in AI's enzymatic cleaner on one side of an lp with US cleaning in Alconox on both sides. It's difficult to draw definite conclusions without better controls, but there was some evidence that the side with the enzymatic presoak came out better. In any case, I decided to order a box of Tergzayme cleaner (Alconox plus enzymes; good up to 120 F); we'll see what if anything comes of that.
I've left my system wet for about 10 days and only changed the cleaning bath every few days. I finally opened it all up last night in response to BB's advice. There was no obvious bacterial growth visible to casual inspection, but that doesn't mean it's not there. On the other hand, I'd rather not do this maintenance more often than needed.
I found this technical note on the Alconox web site How to: Monitor Stability of 1% Alconox Solution. Although they claim no microbial growth in dilute Alconox under closed-lid conditions for 3 weeks or more, they confirm that under open-lid conditions bacterial growth might be a concern. They suggest checking for microbial growth by monitoring for a drop in pH and for odor, and with these precautions, it might be possible to use the same solution for up to three weeks. Since in our use we change the bath more frequently than that, it might be sufficient to only dry out the filter when changing the bath solution. If viable, this would be much more convenient and less expensive than a daily ritual.
I just placed an order for an HM digital TDS-3, on BB's suggestion, to compare quality of store-bought water and to monitor my rinse water to know when to change it. In the meantime, I carried out some crude mechanical comparison tests of store-bought distilled water, store-bought RO water, and Audio Intelligence's Ultra-Pure Water (way too expensive in the volumes I need). If done carefully, you can get very accurate measurements of relative water purity by inspecting beading action and the contact angle between a bead surface and a substrate. My tests weren't all that careful, but they showed that my locally available distilled water and RO water were in the same ball park, with a slight edge seeming to go to the RO water. The TDS meter should give a quantitative comparison for these two soon.
The AI Ultra Pure Water is the best by far; no contest based on mechanical performance. I'm not sure whether the TDS meter will have enough resolution to show this difference, because many users report zero TDS with home made DI and store-bought distilled water.
All this has significance for rinsing, especially the final stage where if the extraction is sufficiently gradual and the water is pure enough, it might be possible to have the lps emerge nearly dry. With the water I have now and careful removal I'm almost there, but I'm still left with some beads of water adhering to the lp surface. These take much longer to dry than the rest of the lp surface, and they presumably concentrate whatever impurities are still present as they evaporate. I sometimes touch the beads with the corner of a clean tissue to wick them away to speed drying, but this is tedious and difficult on a stack of 3 records.
Better would be to find an affordable source of ultra purified water. I'm inexperienced with home RODI systems, and don't know whether a reasonably priced system can produce quality similar to the AI water or at least better than what I buy now from the store. Would a system with dual DI stages do better?
----
I did some tests combining a presoak in AI's enzymatic cleaner on one side of an lp with US cleaning in Alconox on both sides. It's difficult to draw definite conclusions without better controls, but there was some evidence that the side with the enzymatic presoak came out better. In any case, I decided to order a box of Tergzayme cleaner (Alconox plus enzymes; good up to 120 F); we'll see what if anything comes of that.
Alconox
I have been lurking this thread for a while. I saw where there has been some contact with Duane - the Disk Doctor. Some years ago, I had an online discussion with Duane about Alconox. He recommended against it - especially the dry alconox formulation meant to be fixed up by the user. I disagreed with his conclusions as I never had any problem with Alconox and found it to leave quiet records after cleaning with a VPI machine. I am now on a Loricraft and am alured by the idea of cleaning 6 sides at once
I should add that I recall that part of the objection had to do with the possibility of residue left on the record surface - in those days, I rinsed records sometimes twice so it was not a concern for me.
Mike
I have been lurking this thread for a while. I saw where there has been some contact with Duane - the Disk Doctor. Some years ago, I had an online discussion with Duane about Alconox. He recommended against it - especially the dry alconox formulation meant to be fixed up by the user. I disagreed with his conclusions as I never had any problem with Alconox and found it to leave quiet records after cleaning with a VPI machine. I am now on a Loricraft and am alured by the idea of cleaning 6 sides at once
I should add that I recall that part of the objection had to do with the possibility of residue left on the record surface - in those days, I rinsed records sometimes twice so it was not a concern for me.
Mike
Last edited:
Hello mgreene, and welcome.
Cleaning 6 sides at once does fundamentally change things. Cleaning new acquisitions isn't a bottleneck anymore. Now it's a question of keeping up with all the newly cleaned records. I can't compare to a Loricraft, but in terms of performance, ultrasound is the clear winner over my VPI 16.5 with a three-step cleaning process.
My experience also does not support the Disk Doctor's reservations. I've never had a problem getting the Alconox powder to dissolve completely, even at the full recommended concentration. At the low concentrations and warm bath temperatures I'm using, it's just not an issue. When dissolved and mixed to equivalent concentrations, the manufacturer claims there is no difference between Liquinox and Alconox, so I don't understand the basis for the doctor's criticism of the powder product. Maybe that was just speculation on his part.
In practice, I don't bother premixing, as Alconox recommends. I add a measure of powder directly to the bath while heating with the ultrasound on, and let the machine mix it for me. Used this way, I find the powder form at least as convenient as the liquid, and it stores in less space with a longer shelf life. As for residue, I've never detected any after rinsing, which I think should be beneficial in any case (a point of friendly controversy here). Residue could be a concern if one opts to skip the rinse, but it's not clear that that issue is unique to Alconox vs. other detergents. Everyone on this thread uses low concentrations of their chosen detergent, and that probably mitigates the residue problem --- if there really is one.
The Tergazyme was delivered today, so I can start trials to see if adding protease enzyme to this process brings any significant improvement.
Cleaning 6 sides at once does fundamentally change things. Cleaning new acquisitions isn't a bottleneck anymore. Now it's a question of keeping up with all the newly cleaned records. I can't compare to a Loricraft, but in terms of performance, ultrasound is the clear winner over my VPI 16.5 with a three-step cleaning process.
My experience also does not support the Disk Doctor's reservations. I've never had a problem getting the Alconox powder to dissolve completely, even at the full recommended concentration. At the low concentrations and warm bath temperatures I'm using, it's just not an issue. When dissolved and mixed to equivalent concentrations, the manufacturer claims there is no difference between Liquinox and Alconox, so I don't understand the basis for the doctor's criticism of the powder product. Maybe that was just speculation on his part.
In practice, I don't bother premixing, as Alconox recommends. I add a measure of powder directly to the bath while heating with the ultrasound on, and let the machine mix it for me. Used this way, I find the powder form at least as convenient as the liquid, and it stores in less space with a longer shelf life. As for residue, I've never detected any after rinsing, which I think should be beneficial in any case (a point of friendly controversy here). Residue could be a concern if one opts to skip the rinse, but it's not clear that that issue is unique to Alconox vs. other detergents. Everyone on this thread uses low concentrations of their chosen detergent, and that probably mitigates the residue problem --- if there really is one.
The Tergazyme was delivered today, so I can start trials to see if adding protease enzyme to this process brings any significant improvement.
Hello Ish, thanks for the welcome.
The Tergazyme is a fascinating and welcome discovery. I have to say that Duane is a very nice guy and that although I didnt agree with him, I respected his opinion and valued the fact that he was willing to engage on these matters. I still have a Disk Doctor kit I never used - perhaps some day...
I also have a 16.5 and the Loricraft was definately a step up in every way - including the quietness of cleaned records.
The Tergazyme is a fascinating and welcome discovery. I have to say that Duane is a very nice guy and that although I didnt agree with him, I respected his opinion and valued the fact that he was willing to engage on these matters. I still have a Disk Doctor kit I never used - perhaps some day...
I also have a 16.5 and the Loricraft was definately a step up in every way - including the quietness of cleaned records.
Credit to Duane and ultrasound vs. Loricraft
I haven't had any interaction with Disk Doctor or his products, but I have noticed very positive comments about him here and elsewhere. It's good to have people like him in this industry. I have to assume the disagreement here is an honest one, and nothing more.
There are some reviews of the Audio Desk Systeme Vinyl (ultrasound) Cleaner that compare its performance favorably to Loricraft's. See for example SoundStage! - The Vinyl Word - Audio Desk Systeme Vinyl Cleaner (3/2010), The Audio Desk Systeme Vinyl Cleaner, and Ultra Systems Noise Destroyer Pricesheet.
The diy versions might even outperform the ADS due to the trade-offs between the ADS's fully-automatic, user-proof design and our semi-automatic versions intended for our own use. My understanding is that ADS does not heat the bath (I can imagine the pitfalls of heating in a commercial product --- one expose review describing the machine warping a prized lp and your product is DOA). That, in combination with a much shorter cleaning stage, should reduce the ADS's performance somewhat. The ability to handle a stack of lps allows the diy designs to match or exceed the ADS's throughput without limiting the duration of the cleaning stage. The short overall cycle time probably implies a coarser filter in the ADS. However, its method of filtering while draining the bath into a reservoir would reach complete filtering in one volume change, and this is not true for our recirculating designs. The brushes are another possible plus for the ADS, but the brushes are likely what limits its design to one lp at a time. Any advantage brushes might have has to be weighed against a difference in the duration of ultrasonic cleaning on the order of 10X and the increased throughput of the diy versions.
I haven't had any interaction with Disk Doctor or his products, but I have noticed very positive comments about him here and elsewhere. It's good to have people like him in this industry. I have to assume the disagreement here is an honest one, and nothing more.
There are some reviews of the Audio Desk Systeme Vinyl (ultrasound) Cleaner that compare its performance favorably to Loricraft's. See for example SoundStage! - The Vinyl Word - Audio Desk Systeme Vinyl Cleaner (3/2010), The Audio Desk Systeme Vinyl Cleaner, and Ultra Systems Noise Destroyer Pricesheet.
The diy versions might even outperform the ADS due to the trade-offs between the ADS's fully-automatic, user-proof design and our semi-automatic versions intended for our own use. My understanding is that ADS does not heat the bath (I can imagine the pitfalls of heating in a commercial product --- one expose review describing the machine warping a prized lp and your product is DOA). That, in combination with a much shorter cleaning stage, should reduce the ADS's performance somewhat. The ability to handle a stack of lps allows the diy designs to match or exceed the ADS's throughput without limiting the duration of the cleaning stage. The short overall cycle time probably implies a coarser filter in the ADS. However, its method of filtering while draining the bath into a reservoir would reach complete filtering in one volume change, and this is not true for our recirculating designs. The brushes are another possible plus for the ADS, but the brushes are likely what limits its design to one lp at a time. Any advantage brushes might have has to be weighed against a difference in the duration of ultrasonic cleaning on the order of 10X and the increased throughput of the diy versions.
80KHz German Elmasonic version...
Great posts everyone! Gotta love DIY!
Decided to try my own version using a state of the art German made Elmasonic P60H with both 37 and 80 KHz modes, sweep mode, pulse mode, and an accurate thermostatically controlled heater. Sure it costs more than the cheap 40KHz machines but when i look at what the Audio Desk costs, this is still only a fraction of the cost. Purchased from Tovatech in the US 973-913-9735
Using the Vinyl Stack solution found on Ebay to separate records and protect the labels. Very well made product but fits on a 1/4" spindle only so I am using 1/4" aluminum rod for spindle.
Using a rotisserie to rotate the records < 2RPM.
Made the top frame from 2" aluminum angle brackets.
Holds up to 4 records at a time.
Using distilled water and a few drops of PhotoFlo and JetDry.
Just starting to use it so results are inconclusive so far. However, visually records come out looking cleaner than new and cleaner than after my VPI HW-17F.
Will post more results as i progress.
It would be fantastic if people could record a couple tracks before and after and post them so we can all be the judge of the effectiveness of various cleaning approaches.
Great posts everyone! Gotta love DIY!
Decided to try my own version using a state of the art German made Elmasonic P60H with both 37 and 80 KHz modes, sweep mode, pulse mode, and an accurate thermostatically controlled heater. Sure it costs more than the cheap 40KHz machines but when i look at what the Audio Desk costs, this is still only a fraction of the cost. Purchased from Tovatech in the US 973-913-9735
Using the Vinyl Stack solution found on Ebay to separate records and protect the labels. Very well made product but fits on a 1/4" spindle only so I am using 1/4" aluminum rod for spindle.
Using a rotisserie to rotate the records < 2RPM.
Made the top frame from 2" aluminum angle brackets.
Holds up to 4 records at a time.
Using distilled water and a few drops of PhotoFlo and JetDry.
Just starting to use it so results are inconclusive so far. However, visually records come out looking cleaner than new and cleaner than after my VPI HW-17F.
Will post more results as i progress.
It would be fantastic if people could record a couple tracks before and after and post them so we can all be the judge of the effectiveness of various cleaning approaches.
Aluminum Angle, Arms, Recordings
Hi CB, Your setup looks great! Nice metal work!
My version 2 setup, which is almost complete, is similar in that it uses aluminum angle stock to create a removable frame. I received a number of messages inquiring about a setup that didn't require one to drill holes in the ultrasonic cleaner. I am using 1.5" aluminum angle stock, along with 5/8" channel stock that fits over the lip of the cleaner and helps hold the assembly in place. I am also using rivets, like you, as they are excellent for holding thin metal sheet together. [One of my favorite tools is a hydraulic air rivet tool that works very well and makes riveting a breeze!]
Pictures to follow once I complete the last details.
I have designed both a fixed motor housing setup that one could use with quick-connect spindles, and a movable arm setup on my revised design. I will be going with the modified arm setup for my use. For the pivot, I am using a bracket used for legs on a folding table leg. (See attached photo.) These are very rugged brackets, which easily support the loaded weight of the arm. The brackets also lock in both the upright position and with the arm down. This results in a setup that is a little sturdier than my original PVC pipe based design.
I have been considering posting "before and after" recordings with URC-cleaned LPs. I have the A/D conversion hardware and software to do this, just haven't gotten around to it yet!
B B
Hi CB, Your setup looks great! Nice metal work!
My version 2 setup, which is almost complete, is similar in that it uses aluminum angle stock to create a removable frame. I received a number of messages inquiring about a setup that didn't require one to drill holes in the ultrasonic cleaner. I am using 1.5" aluminum angle stock, along with 5/8" channel stock that fits over the lip of the cleaner and helps hold the assembly in place. I am also using rivets, like you, as they are excellent for holding thin metal sheet together. [One of my favorite tools is a hydraulic air rivet tool that works very well and makes riveting a breeze!]
Pictures to follow once I complete the last details.
I have designed both a fixed motor housing setup that one could use with quick-connect spindles, and a movable arm setup on my revised design. I will be going with the modified arm setup for my use. For the pivot, I am using a bracket used for legs on a folding table leg. (See attached photo.) These are very rugged brackets, which easily support the loaded weight of the arm. The brackets also lock in both the upright position and with the arm down. This results in a setup that is a little sturdier than my original PVC pipe based design.
I have been considering posting "before and after" recordings with URC-cleaned LPs. I have the A/D conversion hardware and software to do this, just haven't gotten around to it yet!
B B
Last edited:
80KHz German Elmasonic version...
Thanks BB,
I had the same design goal ie. no damage to ultrasonic machine. My record cleaner attachment fits snugly in place around the lip of the stock cleaner and lifts off for storage.
1.5" aluminum angle would give you room for more records. 4 records on my machine with 2" angle and the Vinyl Stack spacers is a very tight fit.
I have been recording pre and post cleaning so i can do quick A/B comparison afterward. Will post some soon.
CB
Thanks BB,
I had the same design goal ie. no damage to ultrasonic machine. My record cleaner attachment fits snugly in place around the lip of the stock cleaner and lifts off for storage.
1.5" aluminum angle would give you room for more records. 4 records on my machine with 2" angle and the Vinyl Stack spacers is a very tight fit.
I have been recording pre and post cleaning so i can do quick A/B comparison afterward. Will post some soon.
CB
Loading
My 1.5" aluminum angle doesn't project too far over the lip of the machine, since I'm attaching it to the channel stock that fits over the lip of the cleaning machine.
Regardless, I don't believe you want to try to put more than 4 records in the bath at one time. I'm limiting my setup to 3 at a time. Here is a link to an earlier post I made in this thread about how much surface area you want to try to clean at one time.
URC Loading and Spacing
Cheers,
B B
Hi CB,
My 1.5" aluminum angle doesn't project too far over the lip of the machine, since I'm attaching it to the channel stock that fits over the lip of the cleaning machine.
Regardless, I don't believe you want to try to put more than 4 records in the bath at one time. I'm limiting my setup to 3 at a time. Here is a link to an earlier post I made in this thread about how much surface area you want to try to clean at one time.
URC Loading and Spacing
Cheers,
B B
Design for cleaning + rinsing
Happy new year, everyone.
The polycarbonate parts I ordered in October finally came in, so here are pics of my design. It's complete save for 6 solder connections left undone when my cheapo iron died --- so please excuse the alligator clips and missing enclosure on the electronics. One goal was to make the rotisserie part lift off as a unit with the records in place for easy transfer between the USC machine and two rinse tanks. This led to some similarities with CB's and BB's designs with removable frames, although the implementation is different.
The main components are: 1/2" polycarbonate deck, stationary-mount 12 VDC motor (rear), spindle assembly [adjustable-torque friction hinge, a 1/4"-thick rectangular plate with two roller-bearing pillow blocs, the spindle, and LP spacers with collars], a PWM speed controller, ON-OFF-ON waterproof rocker switch (front right), 12V power jack (right rear), and nitrile foam rubber attachment strips (visible gripping tank top through deck). The friction hinge and rectangular plate are functionally equivalent to BB's PVC pipe assembly. This one normally retails for about $20 but I found it available for $2. When rocked forward, the switch bypasses the speed controller and the motor turns at close to its nominal speed of 3 RPM, a good speed for the first rinse. When rocked backward, the PWM provides continuously variable speed down to a minimum in the range of 15-20 RPH allowing for slower speeds for the cleaning and final rinse stages.
The friction hinge maintains the records in any position, shown here rotating from vertical for loading/unloading LPs, to inclined for drip-dry, to horizontal for rotisserie. The spindle cantilevers from the dual pillow blocks, the motor only provides torque through the flex coupling.
The spindle slides a bit more than an inch in the horizontal position. This provides for disengaging the spindle from the coupling and just enough clearance to avoid interference between the LPs and the coupling and deck surface. The fit in the friction hinge and pillow blocks is sufficient that the spindle reliably engages the coupling when it slides into position --- no fiddling needed. I have thumb screws on order to replace the provided coupling and collar clamp screws for better ease of use.
I cut the foam rubber strips from the same knee-saver mat I used for my spacers. They're shaped to grip the top of the cleaning machine tank and the tops of similarly shaped rinse tanks. There is a groove cut in the rear strip that grips the tank lip to prevent the deck from tipping off the tank when the spindle is in the vertical loading position. In other positions, the center of gravity falls between the two support strips, so there's no risk of tipping. The foam rubber strips also align the mechanism with the tank and provide quieter operation during ultrasonic cleaning. They also allow the deck and LPs to be easily lifted and repositioned to either rinse tank within a few seconds. Rinsing is convenient and only adds a few minutes to the process. As noted in a previous post, the rinse tanks are standard polycarbonate 1/3 size food pans (with lids for storage) readily available from restaurant supply stores or websites.
I grew tired of readjusting the position of my pump, filter and tubing, so I designed this simple stand made of ABS with 12V jack and power switch. The filter housing attaches to the stand with a velcro patch. Vinyl feet reduce noise and prevent the assembly from sliding around.
I'll post more later about my experience using Tergazyme (Alconox + protease) cleaner at full strength. This definitely requires rinsing, but it's well worth consideration based on performance IMO. Some of the newer designs posted here can probably be adapted for rinsing with very little effort.
Happy new year, everyone.
The polycarbonate parts I ordered in October finally came in, so here are pics of my design. It's complete save for 6 solder connections left undone when my cheapo iron died --- so please excuse the alligator clips and missing enclosure on the electronics. One goal was to make the rotisserie part lift off as a unit with the records in place for easy transfer between the USC machine and two rinse tanks. This led to some similarities with CB's and BB's designs with removable frames, although the implementation is different.
The main components are: 1/2" polycarbonate deck, stationary-mount 12 VDC motor (rear), spindle assembly [adjustable-torque friction hinge, a 1/4"-thick rectangular plate with two roller-bearing pillow blocs, the spindle, and LP spacers with collars], a PWM speed controller, ON-OFF-ON waterproof rocker switch (front right), 12V power jack (right rear), and nitrile foam rubber attachment strips (visible gripping tank top through deck). The friction hinge and rectangular plate are functionally equivalent to BB's PVC pipe assembly. This one normally retails for about $20 but I found it available for $2. When rocked forward, the switch bypasses the speed controller and the motor turns at close to its nominal speed of 3 RPM, a good speed for the first rinse. When rocked backward, the PWM provides continuously variable speed down to a minimum in the range of 15-20 RPH allowing for slower speeds for the cleaning and final rinse stages.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The friction hinge maintains the records in any position, shown here rotating from vertical for loading/unloading LPs, to inclined for drip-dry, to horizontal for rotisserie. The spindle cantilevers from the dual pillow blocks, the motor only provides torque through the flex coupling.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The spindle slides a bit more than an inch in the horizontal position. This provides for disengaging the spindle from the coupling and just enough clearance to avoid interference between the LPs and the coupling and deck surface. The fit in the friction hinge and pillow blocks is sufficient that the spindle reliably engages the coupling when it slides into position --- no fiddling needed. I have thumb screws on order to replace the provided coupling and collar clamp screws for better ease of use.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I cut the foam rubber strips from the same knee-saver mat I used for my spacers. They're shaped to grip the top of the cleaning machine tank and the tops of similarly shaped rinse tanks. There is a groove cut in the rear strip that grips the tank lip to prevent the deck from tipping off the tank when the spindle is in the vertical loading position. In other positions, the center of gravity falls between the two support strips, so there's no risk of tipping. The foam rubber strips also align the mechanism with the tank and provide quieter operation during ultrasonic cleaning. They also allow the deck and LPs to be easily lifted and repositioned to either rinse tank within a few seconds. Rinsing is convenient and only adds a few minutes to the process. As noted in a previous post, the rinse tanks are standard polycarbonate 1/3 size food pans (with lids for storage) readily available from restaurant supply stores or websites.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I grew tired of readjusting the position of my pump, filter and tubing, so I designed this simple stand made of ABS with 12V jack and power switch. The filter housing attaches to the stand with a velcro patch. Vinyl feet reduce noise and prevent the assembly from sliding around.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I'll post more later about my experience using Tergazyme (Alconox + protease) cleaner at full strength. This definitely requires rinsing, but it's well worth consideration based on performance IMO. Some of the newer designs posted here can probably be adapted for rinsing with very little effort.
Nice job Ishmail!
Like the 3 angle design for your spindle. Loading and unloading the spindle is cumbersome with the spindle removed since one hand is holding the spindle which only leaves you one hand to load the records. Can you post a closeup picture of your hinge design. How do the records clear the other side of the cleaner when they are swiveled up and down?
Anyone figured out an automatic dryer yet? For now I am just air drying the records while on the spindle with a blow dryer.
Like the 3 angle design for your spindle. Loading and unloading the spindle is cumbersome with the spindle removed since one hand is holding the spindle which only leaves you one hand to load the records. Can you post a closeup picture of your hinge design. How do the records clear the other side of the cleaner when they are swiveled up and down?
Anyone figured out an automatic dryer yet? For now I am just air drying the records while on the spindle with a blow dryer.
Details
Thanks CB.
Here's a detail view of the friction hinge/pillow block assembly:
The stationary part of the hinge sits on a piece cut from the same 1/4" stock as the moveable, rectangular "arm," so the arm lies perfectly flat on the deck in its horizontal position. Coincidentally, this puts the spindle axis at precisely the same elevation as the axes of the motor spindle and flex coupling. I'd planned to shim as needed, but it wasn't necessary. The black screw in the middle adjusts the torque resistance of the friction hinge. This is the same type device as those used to support laptop displays, but this one is marketed, among other uses, to support hatch covers in open positions for ventilation on yachts. It's capacity is much greater than needed in this application, but the adjustable resistance is important. Look for the E6 adjustable torque model from Southco for more information.
Here is a view showing the critical clearance between the top LP and the coupling during rotation to/from the horizontal configuration. It's tight but reliable in this design. The cutout in the deck avoids any interference there. I'm using fairly wide spacing, ~ 1-3/16", between LP surfaces to promote good penetration of the ultrasound wave field. Tighter spacing would make this clearance easier. I glued metal electrical enclosure covers with gaskets to both sides of my foam spacers to create a very stiff and durable sandwich plate structure (see second photo below). I did this primarily to add stiffness, because I thought the flexibility of the foam spacers alone might be a contributing factor to the warping problems I was having earlier. It also provides more generous spacing between the LPs.
For batches of 3 LPs or fewer, its convenient to leave the spindle mounted in the pillow blocks while loading, cleaning, drying and unloading the LPs. For larger batches, it's worth using 2 or 3 spindles as BB recommended earlier, to pipeline loading, cleaning and drying (see second spindle in preceding photo). In this case, it's easy to slip the spindles in or out of the pillow blocks, especially in the vertical position. Just pull gently along the spindle axis. This is best done with one hand for demounting, possibly using the other hand to align the spindle with the top bearing when mounting.
For drying, one possibility I haven't tested yet is to move the assembly onto an empty tank to rotate the LPs while a fan blows on them. I'll report back after I give this a try. One advantage of BB's first design, where the motor is mounted on the moveable arm, is that it's easy to keep the records rotating for drying after they're removed from the bath.
So far, however, I've been using the final rinse as the first step in drying. It's counterintuitive, but true --- you can dry a record by dipping it in water. If all of the surfactant is removed in the first rinse stage, we're left with clean vinyl which is hydrophobic. Using garden variety distilled water in the second rinse, I find that nearly all the water falls off the LP if the rotation and final removal from the bath are sufficiently slow. For LPs in good condition, with few scratches and scuffs, I find no beads left above the grooves on the record surface and air drying without a fan only takes a few minutes. Records in rougher condition tend to retain a few beads, and these take much longer to dry, possibly due to the increased surface tension of distilled water. The beads can be wicked away with a clean bit of tissue, or you can just wait it out.
Thanks CB.
Here's a detail view of the friction hinge/pillow block assembly:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The stationary part of the hinge sits on a piece cut from the same 1/4" stock as the moveable, rectangular "arm," so the arm lies perfectly flat on the deck in its horizontal position. Coincidentally, this puts the spindle axis at precisely the same elevation as the axes of the motor spindle and flex coupling. I'd planned to shim as needed, but it wasn't necessary. The black screw in the middle adjusts the torque resistance of the friction hinge. This is the same type device as those used to support laptop displays, but this one is marketed, among other uses, to support hatch covers in open positions for ventilation on yachts. It's capacity is much greater than needed in this application, but the adjustable resistance is important. Look for the E6 adjustable torque model from Southco for more information.
Here is a view showing the critical clearance between the top LP and the coupling during rotation to/from the horizontal configuration. It's tight but reliable in this design. The cutout in the deck avoids any interference there. I'm using fairly wide spacing, ~ 1-3/16", between LP surfaces to promote good penetration of the ultrasound wave field. Tighter spacing would make this clearance easier. I glued metal electrical enclosure covers with gaskets to both sides of my foam spacers to create a very stiff and durable sandwich plate structure (see second photo below). I did this primarily to add stiffness, because I thought the flexibility of the foam spacers alone might be a contributing factor to the warping problems I was having earlier. It also provides more generous spacing between the LPs.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
For batches of 3 LPs or fewer, its convenient to leave the spindle mounted in the pillow blocks while loading, cleaning, drying and unloading the LPs. For larger batches, it's worth using 2 or 3 spindles as BB recommended earlier, to pipeline loading, cleaning and drying (see second spindle in preceding photo). In this case, it's easy to slip the spindles in or out of the pillow blocks, especially in the vertical position. Just pull gently along the spindle axis. This is best done with one hand for demounting, possibly using the other hand to align the spindle with the top bearing when mounting.
For drying, one possibility I haven't tested yet is to move the assembly onto an empty tank to rotate the LPs while a fan blows on them. I'll report back after I give this a try. One advantage of BB's first design, where the motor is mounted on the moveable arm, is that it's easy to keep the records rotating for drying after they're removed from the bath.
So far, however, I've been using the final rinse as the first step in drying. It's counterintuitive, but true --- you can dry a record by dipping it in water. If all of the surfactant is removed in the first rinse stage, we're left with clean vinyl which is hydrophobic. Using garden variety distilled water in the second rinse, I find that nearly all the water falls off the LP if the rotation and final removal from the bath are sufficiently slow. For LPs in good condition, with few scratches and scuffs, I find no beads left above the grooves on the record surface and air drying without a fan only takes a few minutes. Records in rougher condition tend to retain a few beads, and these take much longer to dry, possibly due to the increased surface tension of distilled water. The beads can be wicked away with a clean bit of tissue, or you can just wait it out.
Not a FAN!!!
Unless you are going to make a miniature clean room (and based upon what I see with your US implementation it just might be in order!) I think a fan would not be a good idea.
Sure there is plenty of stuff floating in the air when you leave the LPs to air dry but concentrating with a fan ...?
Ishmail, what you have done is impressive and impressive looking but you must forgive me in thinking you might have gone too far for what is simply an easy way to clean records.
You should go into the hyper high end turntable business!
Unless you are going to make a miniature clean room (and based upon what I see with your US implementation it just might be in order!) I think a fan would not be a good idea.
Sure there is plenty of stuff floating in the air when you leave the LPs to air dry but concentrating with a fan ...?
Ishmail, what you have done is impressive and impressive looking but you must forgive me in thinking you might have gone too far for what is simply an easy way to clean records.
You should go into the hyper high end turntable business!
Different strokes
Hey, Rick. Thanks for your comment; you might well be right about fans. They often do more harm than good by kicking up settled dust, as people with allergies who have tried fan-driven air filters can attest.
I think all of the designs in this thread are better ways to clean records, not just easier. I suspect they all perform better than the Audio Desk product which seems to have placed greatest emphasis on convenience (defined by short total cycle time, full automation, no heating, etc.) and deemphasized cost as a consideration. Nonetheless, the Audio Desk cleaner still performs better than vacuum cleaning methods --- or so say the reviews --- and might well be a good design solution according to their business plan.
Design always involves trade-offs between cost, ease of construction, ease of use, etc. There's not one best solution; it depends on one's personal or business goals, the tools, materials and skills you have available and so forth. For example, I see the VW bug and some of the more expensive cars as equally great solutions to different design problems. BB's original design, including the decision to skip rinsing, is a great solution for people looking for low cost and simplicity in implementation and use. On the other hand, a $2 pre-engineered friction hinge is also a pretty good solution worth considering by any standard.
Sound quality is my highest priority, ease of use second, and appearance third. When they are not in conflict, as is often the case, I go for all three. I'm cost sensitive, but willing to invest a little more (not very much in this design) to improve a machine I intend to use often over a long period. Another design goal was to build a platform for experimenting with rinsing and different rotation speeds. Depending on what I learn, it's likely the design can be simplified, say by eliminating the speed controller if I settle on specific settings. If I find that rinsing isn't worth it, the machine would still work well for cleaning alone.
I enjoy design in its own right, both the product and the process. The many hours I spent researching, designing and building this project were pure fun. Others might prefer to borrow a design and get to something that works well quickly without all the fuss --- entirely reasonable and BB has done a great service for this group. I'm not at all surprised or offended if my goals don't match everyone else's. If a few readers find aspects of my design useful or just interesting, so much the better. If not, what can I say?
Hey, Rick. Thanks for your comment; you might well be right about fans. They often do more harm than good by kicking up settled dust, as people with allergies who have tried fan-driven air filters can attest.
I think all of the designs in this thread are better ways to clean records, not just easier. I suspect they all perform better than the Audio Desk product which seems to have placed greatest emphasis on convenience (defined by short total cycle time, full automation, no heating, etc.) and deemphasized cost as a consideration. Nonetheless, the Audio Desk cleaner still performs better than vacuum cleaning methods --- or so say the reviews --- and might well be a good design solution according to their business plan.
Design always involves trade-offs between cost, ease of construction, ease of use, etc. There's not one best solution; it depends on one's personal or business goals, the tools, materials and skills you have available and so forth. For example, I see the VW bug and some of the more expensive cars as equally great solutions to different design problems. BB's original design, including the decision to skip rinsing, is a great solution for people looking for low cost and simplicity in implementation and use. On the other hand, a $2 pre-engineered friction hinge is also a pretty good solution worth considering by any standard.
Sound quality is my highest priority, ease of use second, and appearance third. When they are not in conflict, as is often the case, I go for all three. I'm cost sensitive, but willing to invest a little more (not very much in this design) to improve a machine I intend to use often over a long period. Another design goal was to build a platform for experimenting with rinsing and different rotation speeds. Depending on what I learn, it's likely the design can be simplified, say by eliminating the speed controller if I settle on specific settings. If I find that rinsing isn't worth it, the machine would still work well for cleaning alone.
I enjoy design in its own right, both the product and the process. The many hours I spent researching, designing and building this project were pure fun. Others might prefer to borrow a design and get to something that works well quickly without all the fuss --- entirely reasonable and BB has done a great service for this group. I'm not at all surprised or offended if my goals don't match everyone else's. If a few readers find aspects of my design useful or just interesting, so much the better. If not, what can I say?
Stand for loading spindle
Here's a stand for loading/unloading. It uses vertical orientation which I find most convenient. Be sure to finish your drink before using!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
BB's Rotating Arm URC, Version 2
Here is version 2 of my Ultrasonic Record Cleaner (URC) setup. Its operation is similar to my original rotating arm system, which was based on PVC pipe fittings mounted directly to the casing of the ultrasonic cleaning machine.
But this version is stouter---- made from aluminum and steel ---- and the removable frame sits on the same Sonix IV ultrasonic tank without the need for any screw holes drilled into the machine.
I'm using the same 5 rev per hour Synchron motor from Herbach & Rademan, mounted in an electrical box. The steel arm is mounted on an inexpensive, but nifty little folding table leg hinge that locks in both the upright and down position. It's very sturdy and gives me plenty of clearance over the side of the tank in the upright position.
As before, I'm using 9/32" drill rod (to match the size of a standard record player spindle) passing through a sintered bronze flanged bearing in a sintered aluminum pillow block.
The arm sits atop a frame made of 1.5" aluminum angle stock. The frame also incorporates 5/8" u-channel stock that fits nicely over the lip on the sides of the cleaner. Felt has been added to the inside of the channel stock to minimize vibrations. I took the photos of the underside before this was added so you could get an idea of how the frame is riveted together. On the side and end of the frame opposite the hinged arm, I've added a fair bit of steel as counterweighting. This balances the entire frame and allows it to sit very, very firmly in position whether the arm is raised or lowered.
The metal version took a bit more time and effort to build, but I prefer the rigidity and solid feel of this setup vs. my PVC version. My cleaning solution filter and pump will work the same way with this setup.
I made a 45 second video showing how quickly the frame and arm unit can be placed on the cleaning machine and loaded with records. Here is the link:
Video: Setting up BB's Rotating Arm URC Version 2
Cheers,
B B
.
Here is version 2 of my Ultrasonic Record Cleaner (URC) setup. Its operation is similar to my original rotating arm system, which was based on PVC pipe fittings mounted directly to the casing of the ultrasonic cleaning machine.
But this version is stouter---- made from aluminum and steel ---- and the removable frame sits on the same Sonix IV ultrasonic tank without the need for any screw holes drilled into the machine.
I'm using the same 5 rev per hour Synchron motor from Herbach & Rademan, mounted in an electrical box. The steel arm is mounted on an inexpensive, but nifty little folding table leg hinge that locks in both the upright and down position. It's very sturdy and gives me plenty of clearance over the side of the tank in the upright position.
As before, I'm using 9/32" drill rod (to match the size of a standard record player spindle) passing through a sintered bronze flanged bearing in a sintered aluminum pillow block.
The arm sits atop a frame made of 1.5" aluminum angle stock. The frame also incorporates 5/8" u-channel stock that fits nicely over the lip on the sides of the cleaner. Felt has been added to the inside of the channel stock to minimize vibrations. I took the photos of the underside before this was added so you could get an idea of how the frame is riveted together. On the side and end of the frame opposite the hinged arm, I've added a fair bit of steel as counterweighting. This balances the entire frame and allows it to sit very, very firmly in position whether the arm is raised or lowered.
The metal version took a bit more time and effort to build, but I prefer the rigidity and solid feel of this setup vs. my PVC version. My cleaning solution filter and pump will work the same way with this setup.
I made a 45 second video showing how quickly the frame and arm unit can be placed on the cleaning machine and loaded with records. Here is the link:
Video: Setting up BB's Rotating Arm URC Version 2
Cheers,
B B
.
Last edited: