I use Photo Flo undiluted or "straight". I don't think the Photo Flo is essential, but it does make the solution 'wetter' and easier to spread out evenly with the brush.
DIY Record Cleaning Machine w/pics
- Thread starter cactuscowboy
- Start date
I use Photo Flo undiluted or "straight". I don't think the Photo Flo is essential, but it does make the solution 'wetter' and easier to spread out evenly with the brush.
markd51
Nyuk Nyuk
I'm certainly not looking to start up any chest beating about chemicals again, just trying again to be helpful, as I have read evidence in a couple of places on the web, that Photo-Flow is not exactly the optimum product you wish to be using in your DIY Cleaners.
Preferred chemicals mentioned in this link I'll provide below might be of some consideration?
They are Triton X-114, and Monolan 2000.
While the article doesn't seem to get highly technical on DIY, basically all seems to be of good common sense here. Enjoy the read, and hope this helps. Mark
http://www.teresaudio.com/haven/cleaner/cleaner.html
Mark,
I'm familiar with that website and what they have to say about Photo Flo, quoted below:
"Kodak's Kodaflow is sometimes recommended as a wetting agent. Do *not* use this as it contains chemicals in addition to surfacants that would leave behind residues bad for both record and stylus. Kodak recommends against this application."
Just a few comments and for whatever it's worth I do have a degree in Commercial Photography and have worked in the field.
Photo Flo is a wetting agent designed to promote rapid drying of film while eliminating water spots and streaking. As such, I find it hard to believe that it would leave behind "residues". I've used Photo Flo thousands of times on Black & White film. It leaves no visible trace of any "residue". Assuming (for the sake of argument) there are residues, why would it be harmful to a vinyl record but not photographic film? It makes no sense if you think about it.
Also consider how it's used for cleaning records. A couple drops of Photo Flo per 250 ml of solution (in my case) is a miniscule amount, especially considering the small amount of solution used per record and the large surface area it covers. Then there's the rinse with distilled water. Then it's all vacuumed off the record. What's left behind? Common sense and logic suggests that any Photo Flo left behind would be a microscopic amount, if at all.
As for Kodak recommending against using it for this application, I'd like to see that in writing from Kodak, because I have my doubts. If Kodak indeed recommends against this application, that's only because they just want to cover their asses. It's designed for film, why encourage other uses and risk some knucklehead claiming it ruined his $5,000 cartridge and stylus?
I use "H" as my first solution scrub. Then VPI from concentrate, then finish with Phoenix. You really need to play with the "H" mixture since it is so concentrated.
clydeselsor
Lunatic Member
markd51
Nyuk Nyuk
Cactus, What these chemicals are, and why they are bad, I have no idea what they are, or what they may cause? No doubt though, knowledge is never a bad thing (or is it! lol)
From what I have read, and this makes some sense to me, is that there should be just enough of the surfactant, in that it does make the cleaner "wetter", so that a cleaner can more easily get into the grooves, do its job, but then slightly "puddle" so that dirts, and contaminants are sort of "lifted" out of the grooves, and can then be swept, or sucked away. (Don't know if I said that right, that it makes sense?)
Certainly am no chemist, but I find it an interesting topic. Like a cake, I imagine the better the ingredients, the better the product, but as Andyman said ealier in the other thread, there has to be a point of diminishing returns.
I'm sure manufacturers of cleaners "know" what point it then becomes utterly unnecessary, in needing such chemicals, such as "DNA" grade water just to clean vinyl. The stuff would then be $500 a gallon! Mark
From what I have read, and this makes some sense to me, is that there should be just enough of the surfactant, in that it does make the cleaner "wetter", so that a cleaner can more easily get into the grooves, do its job, but then slightly "puddle" so that dirts, and contaminants are sort of "lifted" out of the grooves, and can then be swept, or sucked away. (Don't know if I said that right, that it makes sense?)
Certainly am no chemist, but I find it an interesting topic. Like a cake, I imagine the better the ingredients, the better the product, but as Andyman said ealier in the other thread, there has to be a point of diminishing returns.
I'm sure manufacturers of cleaners "know" what point it then becomes utterly unnecessary, in needing such chemicals, such as "DNA" grade water just to clean vinyl. The stuff would then be $500 a gallon! Mark
fsjonsey
Born in the wrong decade.
I have a darkroom in my basement. I shoot mostly b&w medium format, so i happen to use photoflo a lot. I have never seen it leave any kind of residue on film, or vinyl for that matter. On the other hand, plain water and denatured alcohol does seem to leave a haze behind. I have used the photoflo record cleaning formula with no ill effects.
>
Nice gadget. I have been doing them in the kitchen sink, 18 at a time, and have gone through several hundred in the last couple years. This makes me want to build one.
How do you keep the water from getting into the motor? Is the volume small enough it just evaporates in the massive amount of air?
I haven't researched the surfactant issue but I would say (as a chemist) that there are different types of surfactants (ionic, non-ionic, etc.) that will interact differently with a particular material (in this case vinyl). I would not be surprised at all if there were some that don't come off well. And I would ALWAYS rinse with distilled water to make sure the stuff comes off. All this has probably been covered elsewhere in AK threads, probably not news.
Someone mentioned plain water and denatured alcohol leaving a haze...that would be minerals in the water I suspect. Use distilled. It's only a buck a gallon.
How do you keep the water from getting into the motor? Is the volume small enough it just evaporates in the massive amount of air?
I haven't researched the surfactant issue but I would say (as a chemist) that there are different types of surfactants (ionic, non-ionic, etc.) that will interact differently with a particular material (in this case vinyl). I would not be surprised at all if there were some that don't come off well. And I would ALWAYS rinse with distilled water to make sure the stuff comes off. All this has probably been covered elsewhere in AK threads, probably not news.
Someone mentioned plain water and denatured alcohol leaving a haze...that would be minerals in the water I suspect. Use distilled. It's only a buck a gallon.
Tox,
The relatively small amount of fluid entering the vacuum tube just evaporates, it's not really an issue. I live in a very dry high desert climate so I imagine that helps as well.
This type of machine definitely helps speed up record cleaning. It's easy enough to clean a few dozen in a couple hours.
The relatively small amount of fluid entering the vacuum tube just evaporates, it's not really an issue. I live in a very dry high desert climate so I imagine that helps as well.
This type of machine definitely helps speed up record cleaning. It's easy enough to clean a few dozen in a couple hours.
markd51
Nyuk Nyuk
In the link I provided earlier in this thread, there's some info, and ideas about making a homemade RCM.
As cactus has used, he went with a manual platter device. Note that he uses a clamp down device, and something like this is definitely needed when one finishes the cleaning process, and applies vacuum force to an LP. Otherwise it would be a complicaed effort/matter, both trying to turn the platter if non-motorized, and hold the LP to Platter as well when removing fluids with the vacuum.
In this link, it pictures a hand held Wand, attached to a small Vacuum of some sort, and of course while this isn't in some ways as convenient as a stationary mounted Suction Wand, I think results of Fluid removal could be virtually identical as long as one has fabricated a suitable Wand, and holds the wand perfectly parallel to the LP's surface when vacuuming.
With Machines like the VPI 16.5, you apply the fluids in a manual fashion, and this I personally prefer to an automatic, in which the end user controls the exact amount of fluids they wish to use, can also use multiple step Fluids of thier personal choice with no hassle, can manually scrub with either an appropriate Brush-Brush Pad as they desire, and of course, can let certain cleaners sit for a short while, so they can effectively do thier job, and when one feel sufficient time has passed, remove with vacuum.
Basically, almost any junk find Tunrtable could be used I suppose, heavier would be better, and if a sprung table, perhaps disabling the suspension would be an aid. Perhaps the hardest part, would be somehow modifying the spindle, or finding a way to accept some sort of Clamping-Hold Down Device. With a non-threaded Spindle, this could possibly be accomplished with some sort of hard rubber Puck, or such, with a slightly undersized hole drilled into it, so that when pushed onto the Spindle, it would remain tight, and hold the LP in place?
This Puck could also serve double duty as being a means to manually rotate the LP as you vacuum. The Platter doesn't have to be motorized, just as the Basic Nitty Gritty machines aren't Platter driven machines, but if one could maybe find a table with 16rpm speed, this would be ideal.
You'll note in the link, a Crevice Tool, with a slot cut into it, the end blocked shut, and Velvet Strips Applied, with preferably some sort of waterproof Epoxy Glue. It doesn't have to be pretty to be effective, and the important thing here I guess, would be a soft Velvet that would not harm the LP's surface.
Naturally, for the Vacuum itself, one wouldn't want to use one of those monster Shop Vacs that would pick up a Bowling Ball, and little cannister vac (perhaps preferable a little wet/dry Vac) as small as possible might be the best suited, and have more than sufficient vacuum to remove all fluids within one, or two rotations at most from the LP.
Hope this helps, and gives some of you folks some brainstorms so that you too can enjoy the benefits, and greater ease of cleaning your cherished LPs. Mark
As cactus has used, he went with a manual platter device. Note that he uses a clamp down device, and something like this is definitely needed when one finishes the cleaning process, and applies vacuum force to an LP. Otherwise it would be a complicaed effort/matter, both trying to turn the platter if non-motorized, and hold the LP to Platter as well when removing fluids with the vacuum.
In this link, it pictures a hand held Wand, attached to a small Vacuum of some sort, and of course while this isn't in some ways as convenient as a stationary mounted Suction Wand, I think results of Fluid removal could be virtually identical as long as one has fabricated a suitable Wand, and holds the wand perfectly parallel to the LP's surface when vacuuming.
With Machines like the VPI 16.5, you apply the fluids in a manual fashion, and this I personally prefer to an automatic, in which the end user controls the exact amount of fluids they wish to use, can also use multiple step Fluids of thier personal choice with no hassle, can manually scrub with either an appropriate Brush-Brush Pad as they desire, and of course, can let certain cleaners sit for a short while, so they can effectively do thier job, and when one feel sufficient time has passed, remove with vacuum.
Basically, almost any junk find Tunrtable could be used I suppose, heavier would be better, and if a sprung table, perhaps disabling the suspension would be an aid. Perhaps the hardest part, would be somehow modifying the spindle, or finding a way to accept some sort of Clamping-Hold Down Device. With a non-threaded Spindle, this could possibly be accomplished with some sort of hard rubber Puck, or such, with a slightly undersized hole drilled into it, so that when pushed onto the Spindle, it would remain tight, and hold the LP in place?
This Puck could also serve double duty as being a means to manually rotate the LP as you vacuum. The Platter doesn't have to be motorized, just as the Basic Nitty Gritty machines aren't Platter driven machines, but if one could maybe find a table with 16rpm speed, this would be ideal.
You'll note in the link, a Crevice Tool, with a slot cut into it, the end blocked shut, and Velvet Strips Applied, with preferably some sort of waterproof Epoxy Glue. It doesn't have to be pretty to be effective, and the important thing here I guess, would be a soft Velvet that would not harm the LP's surface.
Naturally, for the Vacuum itself, one wouldn't want to use one of those monster Shop Vacs that would pick up a Bowling Ball, and little cannister vac (perhaps preferable a little wet/dry Vac) as small as possible might be the best suited, and have more than sufficient vacuum to remove all fluids within one, or two rotations at most from the LP.
Hope this helps, and gives some of you folks some brainstorms so that you too can enjoy the benefits, and greater ease of cleaning your cherished LPs. Mark
Good observations Mark.
You are correct in speculating that modifying the spindle is perhaps the hardest part of such a project. In my case, I welded a short length of 1/4" x 20 bolt to the spindle, thus allowing the clamp to be tightened against the record. Without this feature, it's difficult to spin the record, fighting against the force of the vacuum. I doubt that a hard rubber puck with a press-fit onto a (non-threaded) spindle would work on my machine. As it is, if I don't have the clamp tight the record will slip during the vacuuming step.
I used a Discwasher for many years. (I've been collecting records since the late 60s). Until recent years, all of my vinyl had been purchased new and stored in plastic innersleeves. So the Discwasher was sufficient in removing light surface dust.
With thrift shop and garage sale discs, it's another story. I've encountered thick layers of dust, cigarette ashes, mold, fried chicken fingerprints, paint, wax, beer/soda, bongwater???.. you name it, it's been spilled on a record! A wet/vac machine is really the best and most efficient way to clean records. I now use my RCM for everything in my collection, including new vinyl purchases.
piece-it pete
What, me worry?
Just a note on DIY RCM motors. You know what makes a really good RCM motor for dirt cheap? Pasta/bread maker machines! These little suckers are quiet and unstoppable. Paid $6 at GW. Some even reverse direction. Plus most machines come with high powered fans. Once you pirate the motor and lose all the electronic switching, the hard part is making a spindle that doesn't wobble. generic pic.