More on bath temperature
I also had a problem with heat, but it involved warping, not melting. The short story is that serious permanent warping – to the point of making an LP unplayable even with a peripheral ring – can occur at temperatures below 120 degrees. The key difference with BB's and others' positive results appears to be slow, even rotation vs. 1/4-turn rotations. So this is a warning to people trying manual rotation while waiting to get their rotisserie operational, but might be of interest as a note of caution to others as well.
(Lengthy) details follow.
I purchased a chef's thermometer to monitor temperature, and had planned to not exceed 120 degrees F. However, I didn't realize how fast the temp would go up after reaching that target, and started an 8-minute cleaning cycle when the bath reached 120 without turning off the heat. Like Rick, I also used 1/4-turn rotations with 2-minutes at rest in between. Unfortunately, the first time I tried heat, I also tried 3 records at the same time and wrecked 3 records in one go. I didn't notice a problem until I removed the lps from the bath and saw visible warping. When I checked the temp, it had risen above 150 during the 8-minute cycle. I hoped that the warping would go away as the records cooled, but no. The warping was mostly in the outer bands of the record. The outer bands are unplayable, even with a ring clamp, with the inner bands still playable.
I tried again with a single lp at 110 degrees. This time, I shut off the heater before I immersed the lp when the bath reached the target temp. I used the same schedule of four 1/4-turn rotations. The temp stayed pretty constant during the process. Surprisingly, the single lp also warped at this lower temperature. Somewhat less severe warping than the previous run, but still enough to trash the record.
Then followed a period of self-flagellation, followed by a longer period trying to figure out why this happened (at a temperature below what others report as safe). The obvious difference was the slow continuous rotation by motor and the large-increments of manual rotation I used, but why does this matter?
I came up with the following explanation. The warping appears to be the result of buckling in the heated portion of the outer bands which go into compression as their natural tendency to expand is restricted by the cooler parts above the waterline. With slow continuous rotation, the extent of the heated part is roughly constant at less than half the circumference, leaving more than half the outer circumference at cooler temps to provide support against buckling. With a sudden 1/4-turn rotation, there is a time when the heated region extends well over half the circumference. If this unsupported length for 90 degree rotations is roughly double the corresponding length for continuous rotation, it would drop the critical buckling stress by something like a factor of 4. Another contributing factor might be that the peak rates of heating/cooling at any point on the record is much higher than would be obtained with slow constant-speed rotation.
Whether my explanation is correct or not, I tried a couple of single-lp runs this weekend at the same 110-degree bath temperature. I still rotated manually, but tried to approximate slow continuous rotation as best I could. The rate worked out to be roughly 2 complete rotations over 8 minutes (1/4 rpm). This time I obtained no permanent buckling. I did see some milder temporary deformation into a bowl shape after rinsing with distilled water on one side on my VPI 16.5, but this deformation disappeared after rinsing the second side. Apparently, the record was not completely cooled when I began the rinse.
So my conclusions on bath temp are:
• Temperatures in the range of 110 - 120 degrees are not necessarily safe against permanent warping. At these temperatures, the particular motion of the lp through the bath can make the difference between a great result and a ruined record.
• It might be wise to work at an even lower temperature to be extra conservative for particularly valuable lps.
• If there is no reliable means to maintain a desired constant temperature, turn off the heat before inserting the lps. The temperature will not change much in 10 minutes (probably due to the thermal mass of over a gallon of water plus the heat added by US excitation).
I also had a problem with heat, but it involved warping, not melting. The short story is that serious permanent warping – to the point of making an LP unplayable even with a peripheral ring – can occur at temperatures below 120 degrees. The key difference with BB's and others' positive results appears to be slow, even rotation vs. 1/4-turn rotations. So this is a warning to people trying manual rotation while waiting to get their rotisserie operational, but might be of interest as a note of caution to others as well.
(Lengthy) details follow.
I purchased a chef's thermometer to monitor temperature, and had planned to not exceed 120 degrees F. However, I didn't realize how fast the temp would go up after reaching that target, and started an 8-minute cleaning cycle when the bath reached 120 without turning off the heat. Like Rick, I also used 1/4-turn rotations with 2-minutes at rest in between. Unfortunately, the first time I tried heat, I also tried 3 records at the same time and wrecked 3 records in one go. I didn't notice a problem until I removed the lps from the bath and saw visible warping. When I checked the temp, it had risen above 150 during the 8-minute cycle. I hoped that the warping would go away as the records cooled, but no. The warping was mostly in the outer bands of the record. The outer bands are unplayable, even with a ring clamp, with the inner bands still playable.
I tried again with a single lp at 110 degrees. This time, I shut off the heater before I immersed the lp when the bath reached the target temp. I used the same schedule of four 1/4-turn rotations. The temp stayed pretty constant during the process. Surprisingly, the single lp also warped at this lower temperature. Somewhat less severe warping than the previous run, but still enough to trash the record.
Then followed a period of self-flagellation, followed by a longer period trying to figure out why this happened (at a temperature below what others report as safe). The obvious difference was the slow continuous rotation by motor and the large-increments of manual rotation I used, but why does this matter?
I came up with the following explanation. The warping appears to be the result of buckling in the heated portion of the outer bands which go into compression as their natural tendency to expand is restricted by the cooler parts above the waterline. With slow continuous rotation, the extent of the heated part is roughly constant at less than half the circumference, leaving more than half the outer circumference at cooler temps to provide support against buckling. With a sudden 1/4-turn rotation, there is a time when the heated region extends well over half the circumference. If this unsupported length for 90 degree rotations is roughly double the corresponding length for continuous rotation, it would drop the critical buckling stress by something like a factor of 4. Another contributing factor might be that the peak rates of heating/cooling at any point on the record is much higher than would be obtained with slow constant-speed rotation.
Whether my explanation is correct or not, I tried a couple of single-lp runs this weekend at the same 110-degree bath temperature. I still rotated manually, but tried to approximate slow continuous rotation as best I could. The rate worked out to be roughly 2 complete rotations over 8 minutes (1/4 rpm). This time I obtained no permanent buckling. I did see some milder temporary deformation into a bowl shape after rinsing with distilled water on one side on my VPI 16.5, but this deformation disappeared after rinsing the second side. Apparently, the record was not completely cooled when I began the rinse.
So my conclusions on bath temp are:
• Temperatures in the range of 110 - 120 degrees are not necessarily safe against permanent warping. At these temperatures, the particular motion of the lp through the bath can make the difference between a great result and a ruined record.
• It might be wise to work at an even lower temperature to be extra conservative for particularly valuable lps.
• If there is no reliable means to maintain a desired constant temperature, turn off the heat before inserting the lps. The temperature will not change much in 10 minutes (probably due to the thermal mass of over a gallon of water plus the heat added by US excitation).
Thermometers
Ish, Sorry to hear about your troubles. Chef's thermometers aren't a good tool for this process. Most aren't accurate below oven temps of 250°F or so. We're measuring temperatures around 100°F, plus or minus. Most coffee/espresso/milk thermometers are designed for the range we're working in and will give more accurate readings.
Room temps in Texas often get to 110°F, particularly in the days before A/C was so widespread. Records don't warp at temperatures below 120°F. That's not very hot for vinyl. I've not had a single record warp, and I've now cleaned hundreds in my heated URC. If you're having this many problems, I suspect your thermometer is reporting lower temps than you're actually reaching.
And yes, don't spray cold water on a hot record -- yet another reason to avoid the rinse procedure....
B B
Ish, Sorry to hear about your troubles. Chef's thermometers aren't a good tool for this process. Most aren't accurate below oven temps of 250°F or so. We're measuring temperatures around 100°F, plus or minus. Most coffee/espresso/milk thermometers are designed for the range we're working in and will give more accurate readings.
Room temps in Texas often get to 110°F, particularly in the days before A/C was so widespread. Records don't warp at temperatures below 120°F. That's not very hot for vinyl. I've not had a single record warp, and I've now cleaned hundreds in my heated URC. If you're having this many problems, I suspect your thermometer is reporting lower temps than you're actually reaching.
And yes, don't spray cold water on a hot record -- yet another reason to avoid the rinse procedure....
B B
Sorry to hear about the vinyl damage. Thankfully, I have not had any warping. My cheap Chinese 40KHz machine has a thermostat that has proved to be pretty accurate. I usually keep it set at 40 degrees Celsius (approx 110 F) and that combined with a 6RPH rotation speed has ensured damage free cleaning (knock on wood).
Preliminary results with Alconox
I have preliminary results with Alconox (powder) to report. All of these tests were in the range 100 to 120 F with 8 mins of manual rotation during US cleaning. I used generic distilled water to mix the bath.
The manufacturer recommends 3 tablespoons per gallon, and there is minor foaming at this concentration. I've settled on using much less --- about 1/4 tsp. of Alconox powder for about 5 quarts of liquid. I add the powder directly to the US cleaner's tank, and the degassing process quickly dissolves it. There is no foaming at this concentration. I follow the cleaning with a vacuum and rinse with ultra purified water on a VPI 16.5. One lp was in pretty good shape as far as damage goes, and sounded spectacular after the US cleaning. Another lp had a fair number of surface scratches. Still, the detail that came through was pretty impressive despite the scratches and noticeably better than I generally get from a 3-step vacuum procedure using AI products.
Keeping in mind that I haven't done very many tests yet, my preliminary impressions echo rickmcinnis' enthusiastic comments.
I might try adding some IPA, and at some point it would be interesting to compare to other formulations.
I still plan to test a rinse in my automated process --- both to remove all traces of the surfactant (even at the reduced concentration) and to remove any fine particles that might still be in suspension in the bath (it's not clear that filtering during the cleaning process completely addresses this issue, but I'm sure it helps and I do plan to add a filter). My design should allow me to move the rotisserie assembly with LPs still mounted from the US cleaner to a separate food pan filled with ultra distilled water (probably Aquafina) for rinsing (in lieu of the rinse I now do on the VPI machine).
The only things I'm still lacking for final assembly are a few plastic parts to form a deck and arm. A local plastics supplier promised to produce these in "a few days" … that was three weeks ago. Unfortunately for me, a big job from a large local manufacturer bumped my smaller project. I hope he delivers soon.
I have preliminary results with Alconox (powder) to report. All of these tests were in the range 100 to 120 F with 8 mins of manual rotation during US cleaning. I used generic distilled water to mix the bath.
The manufacturer recommends 3 tablespoons per gallon, and there is minor foaming at this concentration. I've settled on using much less --- about 1/4 tsp. of Alconox powder for about 5 quarts of liquid. I add the powder directly to the US cleaner's tank, and the degassing process quickly dissolves it. There is no foaming at this concentration. I follow the cleaning with a vacuum and rinse with ultra purified water on a VPI 16.5. One lp was in pretty good shape as far as damage goes, and sounded spectacular after the US cleaning. Another lp had a fair number of surface scratches. Still, the detail that came through was pretty impressive despite the scratches and noticeably better than I generally get from a 3-step vacuum procedure using AI products.
Keeping in mind that I haven't done very many tests yet, my preliminary impressions echo rickmcinnis' enthusiastic comments.
I might try adding some IPA, and at some point it would be interesting to compare to other formulations.
I still plan to test a rinse in my automated process --- both to remove all traces of the surfactant (even at the reduced concentration) and to remove any fine particles that might still be in suspension in the bath (it's not clear that filtering during the cleaning process completely addresses this issue, but I'm sure it helps and I do plan to add a filter). My design should allow me to move the rotisserie assembly with LPs still mounted from the US cleaner to a separate food pan filled with ultra distilled water (probably Aquafina) for rinsing (in lieu of the rinse I now do on the VPI machine).
The only things I'm still lacking for final assembly are a few plastic parts to form a deck and arm. A local plastics supplier promised to produce these in "a few days" … that was three weeks ago. Unfortunately for me, a big job from a large local manufacturer bumped my smaller project. I hope he delivers soon.
Hi BB. Thanks for your sympathy; I'm feeling better now. Only now I have to join the thread for diy flattening presses for warped lps.
I am in fact using a thermometer intended for liquids (soups, coffee, etc.). It tops out at 220 F, 110 F is the middle of its range. I think it's reasonably accurate. I know it reads correctly at room temperature, for example.
I agree that 120 F is not a problem if the whole record is close to that ambient temperature and there are no sustained external forces to generate a warp. However, an lp bending under an external load at 120 degrees in Texas will develop a permanent warp at a lower stress than a similar lp in Minnesota in November, and the warp in Texas will grow faster.
Temperature differences and gradients matter here, although absolute temperature comes into play, too. Partial immersion in a 120 degree bath sets up a maximum temperature difference of about 50 degrees --- a substantial difference --- between the immersed parts and the exposed part of the disk at ~70 F. Higher absolute temperature also lowers the stress level that causes slipping and rearrangement of vinyl's polymer chains at the molecular level. This molecular rearrangement is what causes permanent warping.
The warp in the heated outer part of the disk might be a result of buckling under the compressive stresses that develop where free expansion from heating is resisted by the cooler parts of the disk. The critical stress for buckling drops as heating lowers the vinyl's tangent modulus. In addition, rotating the disk 90 degrees all at once results in elevated temperatures in a greater fraction of the disk and a smaller fraction in cooler states. Doubling the unsupported circumference of the heated part would further reduce the critical buckling stress by a factor of roughly 4 (by very rough analogy to column buckling theory).
This is what I think is going on, I could be wrong. But one thing is for certain: the buckling happened before the rinse, so the rinse did not cause the warping.
The good news is that I've cleaned about half a dozen disks this weekend with slow manual rotation in baths ranging from 100 - 120 F, including a rinse every time, and have had no worping problems. But I agree, one should think long and hard and test carefully before throwing cold rinse water on a hot LP you care about. That being said, it does not appear that rinsing itself necessarily causes warping.
If someone is curious and motivated, they could try to replicate my results (with an lp they don't care about) by manually rotating through a 1/4 turn every 2 minutes for 8 minutes total in a bath at, say, 120 degrees. Skip the rinse. Let me know if you get a permanent warp.
If your US cleaner is up and working well at your desired temperature range, all this should have little practical significance for you under normal operation. If you are using continuous rotation at a reasonably slow speed, I see no reason for concern. This is more an issue for those, like me, who are waiting for parts to come in and decide to give their cleaner a try with manual rotation. It seems that a subtle change in the procedure can have big consequences.
I also think this phenomenon poses an interesting puzzle in mechanics, but that's just me.
Agreed. My GemOro might have 60KHz transducers, but I have to say its controls are not very good. Only on-off for temperature, and the mechanical timer for powering the transducers is not calibrated in any meaningful way. Even worse, I can't find a way to shut the US off when my external timer says time's up --- it seems I can't force the mechanical timer ahead. I can pull the power cord, but the mechanical timer still keeps on clicking. Certainly the recent Chinese products and other brands are sporting more useful controls than my somewhat dated machine. But I knew this going into the purchase.
So my typical procedure is:
1. Monitor temperature with external thermometer until desired temperature is reached.
2. CRITICAL: Manually shut off the heater when target temperature is attained
3. Set an external timer (e.g, my phone) for the desired time and set the GemOro's mechanical timer for a little more than the time needed.
4. Remove the disks when the external timer signals; then just let the timer run out and (finally) shut down the GemOro.
This is all pretty clunky, but the worst of it is the risk of damage if I forget step 2.
My tests this weekend, not to mention your results and all the previous reports, suggest you should be fine at your current settings.
An alternative to cork spacers
Here's an alternative to the cork spacers used to space the lps on the spindle. I don't claim they're any better, just an alternative. In my case, I had dual uses for the foam rubber (see below), and the black color matches the finish on my cleaner.
I purchased a "kneeling pad" made out of closed-cell* nitrile foam rubber with a nominal 1" thickness (more like 1-1/8" by my measurement). Then I used a hole saw mounted in a hand power drill to cut out circular disks to make the spacers.
One mat** yields 9 spacers (see photo). It's quick work, but it takes a little practice to cut cleanly and keep the drill vertical to get a nice right cylinder. It would be very easy if you have a suitable drill press handy (I don't).
I used a 4-1/8" hole saw (foreground of 1st image). It's fine, but I would use 4-1/4" if I were to do this again. Be sure to thoroughly clean the disks of all loose particles before first use. The hole saw mandril uses a 1/4" guide bit, so you create the hole for the spindle, auto-centered, at the same time you cut each disk.
I'm using the same end-cap solution described elsewhere on this thread. These, combined with 3 spacers allows up to 4 lps on a spindle, which is about the max for my tank size. It's also slightly above, but perhaps close enough, to the max recommended surface area for my transducer configuration. I can always cut back to 3 lps with two spacers if necessary. So, if all your cuts are good (mine were not), you get 3 sets of 3 spacers from each mat.
I will use two foam rubber strips, cut from the rounded ends of the mat and then shaped with a Dremel rotary tool, as the means of attachment between the deck of my rotisserie and the top of the GemOro cleaner. So, I'm getting good use out of my mat. More on this later.
* Closed cell foam is important because it won't absorb water.
** See, for example, the Kneesaver Kneeling Pad listed under Home Mats at matsmatsmats.com. $14.99. This pad has a nominal 1" thickness, but it's more like 1-1/8" by my measurement. This provides generous spacing to promote good penetration of the US wave field between lps. I ended up buying 2 mats; the second one is for the product's intended use.
Here's an alternative to the cork spacers used to space the lps on the spindle. I don't claim they're any better, just an alternative. In my case, I had dual uses for the foam rubber (see below), and the black color matches the finish on my cleaner.
I purchased a "kneeling pad" made out of closed-cell* nitrile foam rubber with a nominal 1" thickness (more like 1-1/8" by my measurement). Then I used a hole saw mounted in a hand power drill to cut out circular disks to make the spacers.
One mat** yields 9 spacers (see photo). It's quick work, but it takes a little practice to cut cleanly and keep the drill vertical to get a nice right cylinder. It would be very easy if you have a suitable drill press handy (I don't).
I used a 4-1/8" hole saw (foreground of 1st image). It's fine, but I would use 4-1/4" if I were to do this again. Be sure to thoroughly clean the disks of all loose particles before first use. The hole saw mandril uses a 1/4" guide bit, so you create the hole for the spindle, auto-centered, at the same time you cut each disk.
I'm using the same end-cap solution described elsewhere on this thread. These, combined with 3 spacers allows up to 4 lps on a spindle, which is about the max for my tank size. It's also slightly above, but perhaps close enough, to the max recommended surface area for my transducer configuration. I can always cut back to 3 lps with two spacers if necessary. So, if all your cuts are good (mine were not), you get 3 sets of 3 spacers from each mat.
I will use two foam rubber strips, cut from the rounded ends of the mat and then shaped with a Dremel rotary tool, as the means of attachment between the deck of my rotisserie and the top of the GemOro cleaner. So, I'm getting good use out of my mat. More on this later.
* Closed cell foam is important because it won't absorb water.
** See, for example, the Kneesaver Kneeling Pad listed under Home Mats at matsmatsmats.com. $14.99. This pad has a nominal 1" thickness, but it's more like 1-1/8" by my measurement. This provides generous spacing to promote good penetration of the US wave field between lps. I ended up buying 2 mats; the second one is for the product's intended use.
Record warping and other maladies
Sorry to hear of your damaged LPs, Ishmail. Though we are grateful for your experimentation.
I think the warping issue might be completely unpredictable. I have had one record warp, though the peripheral clamp did allow the record to be played. I was thinking in my case it might have been due to my standing the record on edge for drying. Though this only happened with one - that one could be one too many!
There are probably a million different PVC mixtures and some will have different melt points. I hope Ishmail is correct that the rotisserie will eliminate this from happening.
I had thought that maybe I should lay the record down flat after taking it out of the machine? I am using diapers for drying and do not think I am losing anything from this. I had shied away from laying them horizontally due to dust settling on top of them. One could simply cover with another diaper which is what I will try next.
Regarding your use of the rinse and the VPI I cannot stop myself from asking you if you have tried it without doing this. I think bbftx is on to something with his disregard for brushes. Not to say I could be missing something, too. BUT, my experience so far has told me that I have never heard as much information from my records as I am now with NO BRUSHES. Excuse my zealotry.
I received a very informative note from the DISK DOCTOR fellow. I had asked him about using his concentrate with this set-up. I had been using this with the MERRILL spigot system so the path of least resistance dictated giving this a try.
He says he has a few customers who have the AUDIODESK and are using both of his cleaning products - one is a concentrate the other not as concentrated.
He offered to sell a solution with this form of cleaning in mind. I have asked for a quote on cost.
He did say he does not recommend the use of the photographic chemicals. As long as he has been at this his opinion is very valuable.
Still waiting for my parts to get the rotisserie motorized.
I have the motor installed in the housing and when I look at that little motor shaft and I think of the weight of shaft and the records I am concerned that that little 1/8" shaft of the motor - can it really hold all of that weight? Obviously it can since bbftx would have told us - but one wonders what will happen first - it snapping off or bending?
I keep thinking of a way to support the shaft and still allow putting records onto the thing - the only place one could do this would be near the motor housing. And that could be really tricky.
So, bbftx, is your motor shaft holding up well to this duty?
My curiosity is killing me!
Thanks to all for this great thread.
Sorry to hear of your damaged LPs, Ishmail. Though we are grateful for your experimentation.
I think the warping issue might be completely unpredictable. I have had one record warp, though the peripheral clamp did allow the record to be played. I was thinking in my case it might have been due to my standing the record on edge for drying. Though this only happened with one - that one could be one too many!
There are probably a million different PVC mixtures and some will have different melt points. I hope Ishmail is correct that the rotisserie will eliminate this from happening.
I had thought that maybe I should lay the record down flat after taking it out of the machine? I am using diapers for drying and do not think I am losing anything from this. I had shied away from laying them horizontally due to dust settling on top of them. One could simply cover with another diaper which is what I will try next.
Regarding your use of the rinse and the VPI I cannot stop myself from asking you if you have tried it without doing this. I think bbftx is on to something with his disregard for brushes. Not to say I could be missing something, too. BUT, my experience so far has told me that I have never heard as much information from my records as I am now with NO BRUSHES. Excuse my zealotry.
I received a very informative note from the DISK DOCTOR fellow. I had asked him about using his concentrate with this set-up. I had been using this with the MERRILL spigot system so the path of least resistance dictated giving this a try.
He says he has a few customers who have the AUDIODESK and are using both of his cleaning products - one is a concentrate the other not as concentrated.
He offered to sell a solution with this form of cleaning in mind. I have asked for a quote on cost.
He did say he does not recommend the use of the photographic chemicals. As long as he has been at this his opinion is very valuable.
Still waiting for my parts to get the rotisserie motorized.
I have the motor installed in the housing and when I look at that little motor shaft and I think of the weight of shaft and the records I am concerned that that little 1/8" shaft of the motor - can it really hold all of that weight? Obviously it can since bbftx would have told us - but one wonders what will happen first - it snapping off or bending?
I keep thinking of a way to support the shaft and still allow putting records onto the thing - the only place one could do this would be near the motor housing. And that could be really tricky.
So, bbftx, is your motor shaft holding up well to this duty?
My curiosity is killing me!
Thanks to all for this great thread.
Not really qualified yet as my USC is still in the post so I have not yet done any experimenting, But I was thinking that warping may be avoided if the record is set spinning in unheated water and then bought up to temperature thus heating the the disc evenly. Not sure how long this takes but if it,s less than 7 or 8 minutes that should be fine
Anyone tried this?
Anyone tried this?
Shaft Load Limits
I think audiophiles tend to go overboard at times worrying about "residue". At the dilution levels we're talking about in these formulations, there really shouldn't be any concerns.
My shaft is holding up fine. I will say that I am probably not far from the bending limit on the shaft. (The Synchron shaft will definitely bend before it will break in a brittle fashion.)
I'm limiting loading as follows: The weight of my spindle, set screw, cork spacers, and 3 LPs is 1.55 lbs (=24.8 ounces = 700 grams). A 4th LP would be too much (yet another reason to limit the number of LPs cleaned in a cycle).
Also note that I am supporting the other end of the spindle during the cleaning cycle. Furthermore, some care is needed during loading and unloading so you're not pushing down and applying even more bending torque on the motor shaft.
And, in actuality, the edge of my LPs rest slightly on the base of my rotating arm during loading and unloading, taking some of the load off of the shaft.
Your idea of adding some kind of support near the motor housing is workable. I think it is possible to support the spindle (not the motor shaft per se). I'll play around with that thought.
As I think more about this, I also think one will definitely run into sagging problems if a shaft coupling is used, rather than machining the record spindle to fit directly over the motor shaft.
B B
Hi Rick, Interesting comments from Disc Doctor. Thanks for checking with him. Please do remember he is trying to sell you something, so take what he says with a grain of salt. The formulations aren't that complicated and can be created at home at much lower cost. The same surfactants in PhotoFlo are recommended by dozens of people mixing their own LP cleaning solutions. And I'll bet whatever DD is using for a surfactant is probably in the same family.
I think audiophiles tend to go overboard at times worrying about "residue". At the dilution levels we're talking about in these formulations, there really shouldn't be any concerns.
My shaft is holding up fine. I will say that I am probably not far from the bending limit on the shaft. (The Synchron shaft will definitely bend before it will break in a brittle fashion.)
I'm limiting loading as follows: The weight of my spindle, set screw, cork spacers, and 3 LPs is 1.55 lbs (=24.8 ounces = 700 grams). A 4th LP would be too much (yet another reason to limit the number of LPs cleaned in a cycle).
Also note that I am supporting the other end of the spindle during the cleaning cycle. Furthermore, some care is needed during loading and unloading so you're not pushing down and applying even more bending torque on the motor shaft.
And, in actuality, the edge of my LPs rest slightly on the base of my rotating arm during loading and unloading, taking some of the load off of the shaft.
Your idea of adding some kind of support near the motor housing is workable. I think it is possible to support the spindle (not the motor shaft per se). I'll play around with that thought.
As I think more about this, I also think one will definitely run into sagging problems if a shaft coupling is used, rather than machining the record spindle to fit directly over the motor shaft.
B B
Hi Rick,
Yes, there might be differences in vinyl properties between lps.
Our baths likely heat our vinyl all the way through the thickness, and it might take longer than you think for the lps to fully cool all the way through. Based on my experience this weekend, I find that the lps are not completely cooled 2-3 minutes after removal from the bath. I suggest leaving the lps mounted on your spindle a bit longer before setting them on edge, say 5-10 minutes. Once the lps are fully cooled, they should have no more tendency to warp than a record that was not heated. Your idea to let them dry flat should be safer.
Depending on how the rack supports them, standing warm lps on edge in a rack could generate bending stresses that develop into a warp. Why not just air-dry them on your spindle in the raised position, perhaps with a fan to speed things up?
----
Rinsing on the VPI is just a temporary measure. Once I have everything put together, I'll rinse in separate baths, brush-free, by moving my rotisserie. It's possible that rinsing might not be needed with the right surfactant mix --- I'm open to that possibility.
As for drying, it would only take a single vacuum cycle to remove the final rinse liquid, leaving the lp fully dry and ready to play --- no spreading with a brush needed. Alternatively, I might air dry in place on the rotisserie.
In principle, there are pros and cons to vacuum liquid removal vs. air drying. Vacuum cleaning is best for avoiding residues of dirt and/or surfactant, but if the lps are well rinsed, the residues should be minimal. On the other hand, static charge is a distinct disadvantage of vacuum drying. Of course, if someone doesn't already own one, then a vacuum machine is not a cost-effective means to dry lps.
Yes, there might be differences in vinyl properties between lps.
Our baths likely heat our vinyl all the way through the thickness, and it might take longer than you think for the lps to fully cool all the way through. Based on my experience this weekend, I find that the lps are not completely cooled 2-3 minutes after removal from the bath. I suggest leaving the lps mounted on your spindle a bit longer before setting them on edge, say 5-10 minutes. Once the lps are fully cooled, they should have no more tendency to warp than a record that was not heated. Your idea to let them dry flat should be safer.
Depending on how the rack supports them, standing warm lps on edge in a rack could generate bending stresses that develop into a warp. Why not just air-dry them on your spindle in the raised position, perhaps with a fan to speed things up?
----
Rinsing on the VPI is just a temporary measure. Once I have everything put together, I'll rinse in separate baths, brush-free, by moving my rotisserie. It's possible that rinsing might not be needed with the right surfactant mix --- I'm open to that possibility.
As for drying, it would only take a single vacuum cycle to remove the final rinse liquid, leaving the lp fully dry and ready to play --- no spreading with a brush needed. Alternatively, I might air dry in place on the rotisserie.
In principle, there are pros and cons to vacuum liquid removal vs. air drying. Vacuum cleaning is best for avoiding residues of dirt and/or surfactant, but if the lps are well rinsed, the residues should be minimal. On the other hand, static charge is a distinct disadvantage of vacuum drying. Of course, if someone doesn't already own one, then a vacuum machine is not a cost-effective means to dry lps.
Motor Shaft Weight Limits / Loading Method
We're making this too difficult. The easiest way to prevent bending the motor shaft is to mount a fully loaded spindle, with your LPs and spacers already in place, onto the motor shaft. The opposite end of the spindle should be supported. Very little bending torque will be applied to the motor shaft if it is loaded in this fashion.
I've crafted 3 spindles, so I can preload, dry, and unload, at my leisure.
Here is a link to a quick video of what I'm talking about.
Mounting a Loaded Spindle onto the URC
Cheers,
B B
We're making this too difficult. The easiest way to prevent bending the motor shaft is to mount a fully loaded spindle, with your LPs and spacers already in place, onto the motor shaft. The opposite end of the spindle should be supported. Very little bending torque will be applied to the motor shaft if it is loaded in this fashion.
I've crafted 3 spindles, so I can preload, dry, and unload, at my leisure.
Here is a link to a quick video of what I'm talking about.
Mounting a Loaded Spindle onto the URC
Cheers,
B B
I misunderstood this part of your method entirely
bbftx, I should have read closer as I am sure it was in there.
That makes perfect sense and I do not think there is a better way to do it.
Thanks for your patience, yet, again.
Ishmail if you plan on having some other vessel for the rinse you could do what someone (I am too lazy to open another window to get the name) else did amd make an "L" shaped stand for the rotisserie and allow the US machine to be easily removed.
This is what I have done after toying with the idea of a stand (which was foolish since there is no good way to get the machine out of the stand without some system of latches to open the thing up). I used 2 x 12 lengths of lumber which I planed and cut to width and then screwed and glued into the "L". The rotisserie simply mounts to the vertical member (which needs another width of lumber to hold the clamps. Got a scrap at HOME DEPOT for fifty one cents. Luckily I have a planer since it was NOT a straight board.
I got another letter from the DISK DOCTOR fellow. He does not share my/our enthusiasm for the US method. He did make an interesting point - that we should rinse "the dust" off our records before placing into the bath. The dust can act as sand blasting into the groove walls. I would counter that how can we be sure that the rinse would remove dust? Of course, it would remove some. Further, would that be worse than the brushes? Who knows? I know there are merits to both approaches.
He liked the idea of the filtering of the bath for just this reason. Again, I think bbftx has been, and continues to be, on the right track.
Certainly, there is no perfect method of doing this. I am looking for the easiest, most effective approach for the money. Before I was using the forty dollars of PVC pieces George Merrill sells and found it to work better than the VPI but WHAT A PAIN! This is so much better and when I get the thing finished it will be tremendously easier.
I do completely respect the DISK DOCTORS thoughts on cleaning fluids, though. I doubt there are many folks out there with his experience and knowledge. One day I might try the other things out there but until my bottle runs out (and likely I will buy another after that) I am sticking with it. It works well but that statement is limited to my narrow frame of reference.
bbftx, I should have read closer as I am sure it was in there.
That makes perfect sense and I do not think there is a better way to do it.
Thanks for your patience, yet, again.
Ishmail if you plan on having some other vessel for the rinse you could do what someone (I am too lazy to open another window to get the name) else did amd make an "L" shaped stand for the rotisserie and allow the US machine to be easily removed.
This is what I have done after toying with the idea of a stand (which was foolish since there is no good way to get the machine out of the stand without some system of latches to open the thing up). I used 2 x 12 lengths of lumber which I planed and cut to width and then screwed and glued into the "L". The rotisserie simply mounts to the vertical member (which needs another width of lumber to hold the clamps. Got a scrap at HOME DEPOT for fifty one cents. Luckily I have a planer since it was NOT a straight board.
I got another letter from the DISK DOCTOR fellow. He does not share my/our enthusiasm for the US method. He did make an interesting point - that we should rinse "the dust" off our records before placing into the bath. The dust can act as sand blasting into the groove walls. I would counter that how can we be sure that the rinse would remove dust? Of course, it would remove some. Further, would that be worse than the brushes? Who knows? I know there are merits to both approaches.
He liked the idea of the filtering of the bath for just this reason. Again, I think bbftx has been, and continues to be, on the right track.
Certainly, there is no perfect method of doing this. I am looking for the easiest, most effective approach for the money. Before I was using the forty dollars of PVC pieces George Merrill sells and found it to work better than the VPI but WHAT A PAIN! This is so much better and when I get the thing finished it will be tremendously easier.
I do completely respect the DISK DOCTORS thoughts on cleaning fluids, though. I doubt there are many folks out there with his experience and knowledge. One day I might try the other things out there but until my bottle runs out (and likely I will buy another after that) I am sticking with it. It works well but that statement is limited to my narrow frame of reference.
Hey BB, I'm ready to move on ordering parts for a filter system based on your design. The only change is that I'll probably go with a 12 VDC pump, since that's the power I'm running for my rotisserie motor.
Questions: Is there a reason you reduced your tube diameter down to 1/4"? The housing you recommend also has options for 3/8" and 1/2". Were you trying to reduce flow rate so make less disturbance in the US bath? Also, have you settled on filtering during cleaning or do you mostly filter between runs?
Thanks.
Questions: Is there a reason you reduced your tube diameter down to 1/4"? The housing you recommend also has options for 3/8" and 1/2". Were you trying to reduce flow rate so make less disturbance in the US bath? Also, have you settled on filtering during cleaning or do you mostly filter between runs?
Thanks.
Pumps and Tubing Sizes
The HF2 filter housing does come in versions with 1/4", 3/8", and 1/2" port sizes.
The URC application requires fairly low flow rates, at low pressures, over rather short lengths of tubing. So, the choice of port and tubing size really isn't too critical. I already had 1/4" hose barbs and tubing in my collection of odds and ends, so I ordered a 1/4" filter housing. I'm sure a housing with 3/8" ports would be fine too. 1/2" seems rather large for this application and would increase costs for fittings and tubing.
Smaller tubing also gives you more options for positioning the outlet going back into the URC tank.
I am generally filtering during the cleaning cycle, but will at times run the filter between cycles too. I don't leave the filter running all the time though. Running the filter for about 4 minutes at a time (pumping approx. 2 gallons of liquid through my filter setup) is adequate --- you don't want to overheat your pump. I don't think it's necessary to filter more often than about every 3 batches of records, but I'm sure some folks will feel more comfortable filtering for every cleaning cycle.
Check the duty cycle limits of whatever pump you're buying. I have a spare pump from an espresso machine that I considered using, but its duty cycle is 1 min on/1 min off ---- not really appropriate for this application.
Another reason I like the pump I'm using is that it's super quiet. Make sure the pump you select is quiet --- it's worth it if you're trying to listen or watch something while you're cleaning records.
Cheers,
B B
The HF2 filter housing does come in versions with 1/4", 3/8", and 1/2" port sizes.
The URC application requires fairly low flow rates, at low pressures, over rather short lengths of tubing. So, the choice of port and tubing size really isn't too critical. I already had 1/4" hose barbs and tubing in my collection of odds and ends, so I ordered a 1/4" filter housing. I'm sure a housing with 3/8" ports would be fine too. 1/2" seems rather large for this application and would increase costs for fittings and tubing.
Smaller tubing also gives you more options for positioning the outlet going back into the URC tank.
I am generally filtering during the cleaning cycle, but will at times run the filter between cycles too. I don't leave the filter running all the time though. Running the filter for about 4 minutes at a time (pumping approx. 2 gallons of liquid through my filter setup) is adequate --- you don't want to overheat your pump. I don't think it's necessary to filter more often than about every 3 batches of records, but I'm sure some folks will feel more comfortable filtering for every cleaning cycle.
Check the duty cycle limits of whatever pump you're buying. I have a spare pump from an espresso machine that I considered using, but its duty cycle is 1 min on/1 min off ---- not really appropriate for this application.
Another reason I like the pump I'm using is that it's super quiet. Make sure the pump you select is quiet --- it's worth it if you're trying to listen or watch something while you're cleaning records.
Cheers,
B B
Last edited:
bbftx, you might remove the picture showing the spindle ...
holding the LPs and spacers.
Put in a picture from the video and all will be easier to understand!
It would be neat if there were some kind of quick disconnect coupling that would be easy to snap in and out.
Ordered the pieces needed for the filter.
How many records (of average "dirtiness") can you clean with a filtered bath? Looked through the thread to see if you have mentioned this already and did not see anything. So if you had, please repeat it for me.
Have you left the solution overnight and cleaned more records the next day?
Distilled water, which I have not bought in many years, is surprisingly expensive these days. Especially when it takes almost the full gallon. The filter's cost will easily be paid for by saving money on the water, in addition to its many other advantages.
While in the midst of this clean records reverie my amplifiers blew up! What agony!!! Have no idea why. I am the first SIT casualty for Mr. Pass's magnificent amplifier. No music for the holidays for me. I will continue cleaning records and BE PREPARED for their return.
Thanks again for this thread.
holding the LPs and spacers.
Put in a picture from the video and all will be easier to understand!
It would be neat if there were some kind of quick disconnect coupling that would be easy to snap in and out.
Ordered the pieces needed for the filter.
How many records (of average "dirtiness") can you clean with a filtered bath? Looked through the thread to see if you have mentioned this already and did not see anything. So if you had, please repeat it for me.
Have you left the solution overnight and cleaned more records the next day?
Distilled water, which I have not bought in many years, is surprisingly expensive these days. Especially when it takes almost the full gallon. The filter's cost will easily be paid for by saving money on the water, in addition to its many other advantages.
While in the midst of this clean records reverie my amplifiers blew up! What agony!!! Have no idea why. I am the first SIT casualty for Mr. Pass's magnificent amplifier. No music for the holidays for me. I will continue cleaning records and BE PREPARED for their return.
Thanks again for this thread.
Loading options / Version 2 Design / Filtering
Hi Rick -- Perhaps I need to clarify the loading options. I have used my setup both by raising the arm and loading with the spindle already in place on the motor shaft, and alternatively, by mounting preloaded spindles onto the motor shaft (as shown in the video link from message #172 in this thread). The latter loading option reduces the chances of bending the motor shaft, but both procedures work for me.
Originally, before realizing that 3 LPs is really the limit on the amount of surface area that can be effectively cleaned in one cycle, the raisable arm concept would have enabled loading more records in one shot compared to the room needed to maneuver in a loaded spindle. But, given only 3 records on the spindle, there is room to mount the preloaded spindle instead. So, I may even build version 2 of my setup, with a fixed motor housing and no rotating arm.
I am not saving cleaning solution overnight. With filtration, the practical limit on number of records that can be cleaned with a batch of fluid is simply how much time I want to spend cleaning records that day. There is some evaporation of course, and perhaps greater loss of isopropyl than water. I just judge the condition of the solution and add a touch of isopropyl and a little more water as necessary to keep the unit filled to capacity (important in managing temperature!). Another drop or two of surfactant is added occasionally as well.
Also note that the 1 micron filter I'm using won't filter everything out of the cleaning solution. So there is a limit on the number of records that should be cleaned with a batch of fluid. Some chemicals and particles (the 60khz UC removes most particles down to around 0.3 microns --- see msg 93 in thread) may remain in the cleaning solution even after filtering. But as of yet, I don't feel I've hit that limit in a 4 or 5 hour cleaning session (17 or 18 cycles totalling 50 records or so).
I haven't yet tried an active carbon filter either. That would remove virtually all chemical residue we'd worry about from the cleaning solution. But, there is a larger pressure drop across a carbon filter and I'm not yet sure if my pump has the oomph to handle that or not.
Cheers,
B B
Hi Rick -- Perhaps I need to clarify the loading options. I have used my setup both by raising the arm and loading with the spindle already in place on the motor shaft, and alternatively, by mounting preloaded spindles onto the motor shaft (as shown in the video link from message #172 in this thread). The latter loading option reduces the chances of bending the motor shaft, but both procedures work for me.
Originally, before realizing that 3 LPs is really the limit on the amount of surface area that can be effectively cleaned in one cycle, the raisable arm concept would have enabled loading more records in one shot compared to the room needed to maneuver in a loaded spindle. But, given only 3 records on the spindle, there is room to mount the preloaded spindle instead. So, I may even build version 2 of my setup, with a fixed motor housing and no rotating arm.
I am not saving cleaning solution overnight. With filtration, the practical limit on number of records that can be cleaned with a batch of fluid is simply how much time I want to spend cleaning records that day. There is some evaporation of course, and perhaps greater loss of isopropyl than water. I just judge the condition of the solution and add a touch of isopropyl and a little more water as necessary to keep the unit filled to capacity (important in managing temperature!). Another drop or two of surfactant is added occasionally as well.
Also note that the 1 micron filter I'm using won't filter everything out of the cleaning solution. So there is a limit on the number of records that should be cleaned with a batch of fluid. Some chemicals and particles (the 60khz UC removes most particles down to around 0.3 microns --- see msg 93 in thread) may remain in the cleaning solution even after filtering. But as of yet, I don't feel I've hit that limit in a 4 or 5 hour cleaning session (17 or 18 cycles totalling 50 records or so).
I haven't yet tried an active carbon filter either. That would remove virtually all chemical residue we'd worry about from the cleaning solution. But, there is a larger pressure drop across a carbon filter and I'm not yet sure if my pump has the oomph to handle that or not.
Cheers,
B B
Last edited:
Thanks for that
I hope it does not sound like I am harping on the motor spindle. Not my intention.
Your evolution to a fixed motor and multiple spindles sounds like the kind of thing experience brings to any project. Since I am still in assembly mode I think I will take that tact.
THANKS for the advice on cleaning. I think from that I will save Saturdays and Sundays for extended cleaning sessions and let the machine rest during the week.
My original thought was to clean what I was going to listen during the evening but the cost of water and your implied advice to not leave the bath overnight has changed my mind.
I am with you on no rinsing. I agree that this works so well when kept to simplicity itself; why try to complicate it?
YET again, my sincere thanks, and in addition a good Thanksgiving to you and your family. Needless to say I will be adding you to my list of people to be thankful for and to.
I hope it does not sound like I am harping on the motor spindle. Not my intention.
Your evolution to a fixed motor and multiple spindles sounds like the kind of thing experience brings to any project. Since I am still in assembly mode I think I will take that tact.
THANKS for the advice on cleaning. I think from that I will save Saturdays and Sundays for extended cleaning sessions and let the machine rest during the week.
My original thought was to clean what I was going to listen during the evening but the cost of water and your implied advice to not leave the bath overnight has changed my mind.
I am with you on no rinsing. I agree that this works so well when kept to simplicity itself; why try to complicate it?
YET again, my sincere thanks, and in addition a good Thanksgiving to you and your family. Needless to say I will be adding you to my list of people to be thankful for and to.
BB, thanks for your quick response to my questions on the filtering setup yesterday. I just put in orders for the pump and housing, etc. I ended up with a 12VDC pump (Attwood Potable Water Pump, Amazon, ~$30 shipped w/ 3/8" barbs installed). I decided to run 3/8" tubing from the cleaner to pump to filter housing; then go down to 1/4" from the filter back into the cleaner.
That's an interesting comment you made about the simplifications possible in a design for a max of 3 lps. I started wit a design that rotated the records in from the side: load with the spindle pointing up and the lps horizontal, then rotate the spindle down into the horizontal position. It just barely didn't work with 4 lps, but should be easy with 3. Now I wish I'd stuck with that concept. Of course, no rotating arm is simpler still.
That's an interesting comment you made about the simplifications possible in a design for a max of 3 lps. I started wit a design that rotated the records in from the side: load with the spindle pointing up and the lps horizontal, then rotate the spindle down into the horizontal position. It just barely didn't work with 4 lps, but should be easy with 3. Now I wish I'd stuck with that concept. Of course, no rotating arm is simpler still.
Water
Rick-Thanks for the kind words and Holiday greetings. Same to you and yours.
These forums are fun because discussion and exchange of ideas always results in more rapid evolution of improvements and provides alternatives and options according to one's preferences. Thanks to you, Ish, and the rest of the folks contributing to this thread.
As far as water goes, I have considered installing a small reverse osmosis machine in my kitchen. We filter our tap water for drinking anyway, so an RO machine would be useful for that, and could provide lots of clean water for a URC too. Still may do that someday soon...
Cheers,
B B
Rick-Thanks for the kind words and Holiday greetings. Same to you and yours.
These forums are fun because discussion and exchange of ideas always results in more rapid evolution of improvements and provides alternatives and options according to one's preferences. Thanks to you, Ish, and the rest of the folks contributing to this thread.
As far as water goes, I have considered installing a small reverse osmosis machine in my kitchen. We filter our tap water for drinking anyway, so an RO machine would be useful for that, and could provide lots of clean water for a URC too. Still may do that someday soon...
Cheers,
B B