|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.160.113.186
In Reply to: RE: Thanks for the good info posted by Lew on October 22, 2016 at 19:23:52
Lew, the few folks I know who have the V-8 cleaner are not using any detergent (Tergitol/Triton) in their mix and they are air drying. As I've commented in my essay, my research strongly suggests that 8 LPs in a 10L tank overloads the tank and limits its effectiveness. Get a 15L tank for 8 records at a time and stick to 4 records in a 10L tank.I got into this to find a FASTER way to do my record cleaning, but also to get as close to the quality of the four step manual process as I could. This is faster than my manual process, even with the double rinse. With the cleaning solution I'm using in the tank followed by the double rinse and vacuum drying, I think it is as good a quality as my old regimen.
If you have the space to set up a rinse tank in which you can spin your records after coming out of the ultrasonic bath, rather than the manual rinse and vacuum drying, that might be faster still. But you miss the big advantage of the vacuuming.
Yes, the isopropyl will also act as a surfactant and could be used in the rinse, but it's not as fast drying. The ethanol just brings a bit better result.
Like you, I only wash a record one time. I've just got more to go.
Edits: 10/22/16Follow Ups:
My sense of the chemistry was telling me that alcohols are not surfactants, but I was too insecure about it to make that assertion. Now I just looked up the topic of surfactants, and indeed nothing is said about alcohols as a class. Surfactants lower surface tension; I don't think alcohols do that, albeit pure alcohol probably has lower surface tension than pure water. If you add alcohol to water, I believe the alcohol would evaporate at a faster rate than water, but I am not sure that has much of an effect on the evaporation rate of the water per se. The nonionic detergent is a surfactant for sure, however.
FWIW, I had already decided that if I were to purchase David's apparatus, I would only wash 4 LPs at a time. I agree that 8 is pushing the system a bit too hard, in that size tank. Not so much because of the tank volume but because of the space between LPs when you load 8 of them (the thickness of David's space pucks). It looks too narrow to permit a good cavitation effect; I would use two spacers between LPs and load only 4 at a time. That's still way faster than I can go with the HW17.
Yes, I'm finding four records at a time to be faster than I can clean records on my HW-17. The HW-17 continues to be perfect for completing the rinse and vacuum dry steps while I have the next set of four records spinning in the ultrasonic bath.
Oh, and while the alcohol may not technically be a surfactant like the Triton and Tergitol, it does sufficiently reduce the water tension to allow the rinse to flow into the record grooves rather that staying stubbornly in little balls on the surface of the record. During the first rinse, there's enough detergent residue on the record to allow the water to flow as it mixes with the residue. But that second rinse is a real bear without the alcohol.
Good luck with what you choose to do! I'd love to hear about your experience if you choose to move along this path.
that's why I use 5% of it in my final rinse. Without it, the distilled water rinse will not spread out, much less go into the grooves. What alcohol does not vacuum off will evaporate quickly.
The link below is an informal experiment that I did back in 2002.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: