Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Analogue Source Turntables, Tonearms, Cartridges, Phono Stages, Tuners, Tape Recorders, etc.

Diy Rcm
Diy Rcm
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 7th July 2018, 06:11 PM   #21
rewind67 is offline rewind67
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiyGazza View Post
I think the original Talbot #30 Thread is made up from three twisted strands, and this is where I got stuck when looking for a cheaper alternative, it didn't seem to give the information as to whether it was a single stranded thread or multiple strands per thread.
Well, this all gets very interesting—assuming anyone reading this is likewise obsessive about such things...

I broke out my USB microscope and carefully separated the Prowrap thread braid (attaching a picture here). It's a twisted braid of three nylon threads. So far, so good.

Back when i was researching threads I had some trouble figuring out the correspondence of a size "#30" compared to ProWrap's A, B, D etc designations. I finally just bought a few thread sizes and went with what seemed to work best. I'm guessing there is an optimal balance between nozzle orifice diameter, thread diameter, and height the nozzle is suspended above the surface.

The teflon tube I used for the nozzle came pre-drilled to a nominal 1/16" (1.5mm); however it was stated as "undersized for machining to spec". Time to put the USB micro back to work—this time with a micrometer. Ah—1.4mm!

And then to this chart. Scroll down to the chart for "Nylon Thread Specifications". I'm not absolutely sure Talbot's #30 corresponds to the number gauges here; but we can see in the column header #33, it lists a "Tex" (I assume for "Textile") number of 30 and a "Government" designation of AA.

As a layman to the arcane world of thread, I have no idea if I'm making the right connections; but let's go on faith and assume the #30 Talbot is designation "AA", with a spec thickness of .2 mm. ProWrap however only comes in A, B, and D. I have thread spools in all three sizes.

The one I chose to use, "A", is half the diameter of AA: .1mm, compared to the Talbot's .2mm! ProWrap B thread is much closer to AA: about .04mm larger, vs A's .1mm smaller diameter.

So have I been loading the less-optimal thread? Time to re-load the B, and see what kind of difference there is to be detected.

Later though, as I have other things to do today than sit indoors and obsess over threads...!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg three-braid.jpg (63.5 KB, 102 views)
File Type: jpg nozzle diameter.jpg (41.2 KB, 102 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2018, 10:06 PM   #22
DiyGazza is offline DiyGazza  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kent, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyr View Post
I use 1ml of Ilfotrol to 1l of tank solution - so 1/5th of what the advice was, that you found.

My ratio was what I found somewhere - seems to work OK, in the sense of stopping beading.

Andy
Ah, It's all a mystery isn't it

Today, I added a further 4 drops of Ilfotol to the 90+ ml of mix I already had in the bottles, and hey presto Nice Pooling, not quite sure what that works out as in ml, but would be way less than the 5ml / Ltr I read about, so for arguments sake say 8 small drops in a 100ml mix, that has to be somewhere around the .1% I would have guessed. It also helped with the drying out issues I was having previously.

Regard's,
Gary.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2018, 11:05 PM   #23
DiyGazza is offline DiyGazza  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kent, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by rewind67 View Post
Well, this all gets very interesting—assuming anyone reading this is likewise obsessive about such things...

I broke out my USB microscope and carefully separated the Prowrap thread braid (attaching a picture here). It's a twisted braid of three nylon threads. So far, so good.

Back when i was researching threads I had some trouble figuring out the correspondence of a size "#30" compared to ProWrap's A, B, D etc designations. I finally just bought a few thread sizes and went with what seemed to work best. I'm guessing there is an optimal balance between nozzle orifice diameter, thread diameter, and height the nozzle is suspended above the surface.

The teflon tube I used for the nozzle came pre-drilled to a nominal 1/16" (1.5mm); however it was stated as "undersized for machining to spec". Time to put the USB micro back to work—this time with a micrometer. Ah—1.4mm!

And then to this chart. Scroll down to the chart for "Nylon Thread Specifications". I'm not absolutely sure Talbot's #30 corresponds to the number gauges here; but we can see in the column header #33, it lists a "Tex" (I assume for "Textile") number of 30 and a "Government" designation of AA.

As a layman to the arcane world of thread, I have no idea if I'm making the right connections; but let's go on faith and assume the #30 Talbot is designation "AA", with a spec thickness of .2 mm. ProWrap however only comes in A, B, and D. I have thread spools in all three sizes.

The one I chose to use, "A", is half the diameter of AA: .1mm, compared to the Talbot's .2mm! ProWrap B thread is much closer to AA: about .04mm larger, vs A's .1mm smaller diameter.

So have I been loading the less-optimal thread? Time to re-load the B, and see what kind of difference there is to be detected.

Later though, as I have other things to do today than sit indoors and obsess over threads...!
Haha, Oh dear, I bet you won't sleep tonight

It's a minefield isn't it.

The Talbot #30 was the thread originally used by Keith Monks and we do have some information available stating that the nozzle diameter is / was 1.4mm, The Lorigraft uses an (unspecified) thread, although I did ask for more information on it, it wasn't answered, as for the nozzle diameter they said 1.4mm is a good starting point.
I think you have to ask yourself, Did Keith Monks test hundreds of different types of threads before they decided to use the #30, or did they just choose one that gave about the right clearance from the surface of the record, and was cheap and readily available.

I also think that if you are getting good results, the record is dry after vacuuming, and there's plenty of gunk on the jar It's doing the job.

I find that very rarely does the first clean yield the best results, I will often clean twice sometimes three times before I'm happy that its as good as its going to get e.g. the 46 year old "Argent" album I received from Ebay Today.

I have to commend your efforts in becoming a Thread Guru I was getting confused half way through reading the post , as for the AA Vs A Thread Size, I guess testing is the only way to go, but will you really notice a difference? That's a tough one, but if you get perfect results in one pass instead of two, I guess that's proof that the thread size even by a tiny amount is critical, Look forward to seeing what kind of results you get.

Regard's,
Gary.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2018, 04:20 AM   #24
rewind67 is offline rewind67
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Ok, so I swapped out the threads; and there is a difference with the thicker “B” thread. Seems the spread of suction area increased somewhat. No surprise I guess, given that the nozzle is riding higher now. The airflow doesn’t seem to have been adversely affected by the larger diameter thread. It’s still pulling everything in its path; just a bit more than before.

I would think that the wider spread means each groove width is getting more time under vacuum. Can’t be a bad thing.

Now I’m wondering why I thought the “A” thread was better. It’s been some time since I finished the project. Dunno, but I’m leaving the B thread on.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2018, 09:47 PM   #25
DiyGazza is offline DiyGazza  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kent, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by rewind67 View Post
Ok, so I swapped out the threads; and there is a difference with the thicker “B” thread. Seems the spread of suction area increased somewhat. No surprise I guess, given that the nozzle is riding higher now. The airflow doesn’t seem to have been adversely affected by the larger diameter thread. It’s still pulling everything in its path; just a bit more than before.

I would think that the wider spread means each groove width is getting more time under vacuum. Can’t be a bad thing.

Now I’m wondering why I thought the “A” thread was better. It’s been some time since I finished the project. Dunno, but I’m leaving the B thread on.
That's interesting, seems there may have been some thought \ Testing that went on to give optimum results when the machines were first developed.

I guess you'll have a better idea if any sonic improvement or increase in performance has been gained once you have cleaned a few records.

As I mentioned in the previous post, I normally get the best results after the second pass, it's rare that I am happy with the results of the first pass / clean.. That said, I have been working mainly with the worst of my records, The ones that I treated way back in the early 80's with the "Permostat" but strangely, I think it may have done me a favour, the very worst distorted stylus gunking ones, once cleaned several times come out sounding absolutely stunning, so I'm thinking it may have actually protected the vinyl, and after some 30+ years of being stored has degraded to the sticky mess that I've been finding on the surface.

I'll be keen to hear if you get better results with the "B" thread
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2018, 01:21 PM   #26
LFM is offline LFM  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sault
Default DIY RCM

I think you have done a fantastic job on this project. I'm curious about the thread mechanism. How quickly does the thread spool unravel and how much thread is used when cleaning a single LP? Have you experimented with altering the feed rate of the thread? It seems that there is precise control of platter speed and cleaning arm sweep speed but the thread feed speed is not. To my way of thinking, controlling this may take things to the next level.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2018, 10:18 PM   #27
DiyGazza is offline DiyGazza  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kent, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFM View Post
I think you have done a fantastic job on this project. I'm curious about the thread mechanism. How quickly does the thread spool unravel and how much thread is used when cleaning a single LP? Have you experimented with altering the feed rate of the thread? It seems that there is precise control of platter speed and cleaning arm sweep speed but the thread feed speed is not. To my way of thinking, controlling this may take things to the next level.
My Machine does not feed the thread as it's cleaning, I manually pull a fresh length of about 1 cm for each cycle and that lasts the duration of one sweep of the arm, I'm not sure if Rewind67's machine actually feeds the thread as it goes.

I think only the Keith Monks machine feeds the thread as it goes, I don't think the loricaft does, but I may be wrong.

Regard's,
Gary.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2018, 04:05 AM   #28
rewind67 is offline rewind67
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
I also manually advance the thread before each cycle. I believe Loricraft does the same, unless something’s changed since I researched my project.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2018, 09:47 PM   #29
DiyGazza is offline DiyGazza  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kent, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by rewind67 View Post
I also manually advance the thread before each cycle. I believe Loricraft does the same, unless something’s changed since I researched my project.
I thought so, in all of the video's I've watched, and all of the research I've done on the Loricraft, there doesn't seem to be a drive mechanism for the Thread Reel, But as I mentioned above, I do believe the KM (Original) machine does auto advance the thread in a continuous feed, but the newer Discovery one does not as far as I can see, I've also just noticed that the Discovery One looks to have the same platter motor as I have used.

How are you getting on with the "B" size thread?
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th July 2018, 12:28 PM   #30
rewind67 is offline rewind67
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
It’s working out well. As noted before the area under vacuum appears to have increased. It’s hard to make a quantitative judgement as I can’t re-clean the same record with different threads for a direct comparison. However, subjectively speaking, the surface seems to be drier after the arm passes over. Not that there was visible liquid left after the A thread; just that the B leaves less “sheen” behind. I take that as more effective pulling.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Diy RcmHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:59 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2018 diyAudio
Wiki