Record Cleaning Machines

@oldaudiophile,

1st, please do not start blending cleaning agents unless you know the composition, there is always uncertainty to the results.  So I recommend you do not add anything to the MoFi cleaner.

If you read Chapter XIV starting XIV.8 to XIV.12 you will essentially see how to assemble a cleaning process with various equipment and various cleaning agents, beginning with pre-clean.

Alconox Liquinox is a fairly aggressive/foaming cleaning agent and is used for pre-clean. If you do or need a pre-clean step, then by Section XIV.9 if you use an aqueous cleaning process is where Alconox Liquinox would be used and you have many options - manual clean, vacuum-RCM or separate UCM for pre-clean.  The concentration of the cleaners is tailored for each method.  

For your process, your UCM is for final clean and you have two options with the Tergitol 15-S-9:

-Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.01 to 0.015%
-Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.01 to 0.015% + 2.5% IPA

Good Luck,
Neil

I haven’t owned or operated a Kirmuss personally so I want to be a bit moderated in my comments.  But seems that a RCM overheating is just not right.  Seems like a design flaw to me.  

I had an Okie Nokki but it was just too loud and the record flipping seemed like double duty to me.  Too many steps in the process and I got tired of wearing hearing protection when cleaning records.

So, ultra sonic.  All point headed to ultra sonic.  I now have the most recent upgraded Audio Desk Systeme (ADS) and simply love it.  Easy to use, clean and the results are wonderful.  Every time I change the fluids and filter I am always amazed at how dirty my records were.  

It’s my understanding that the ADS has a propriety system with a variable US frequency during its cycling.  This means the LP doesn’t get blasted with a high frequency for extended periods of time. I believe I have this right.

Frequency of the ultrasonic is not the only consideration when trying to not only surface clean, but restore a record by removing its release agent. Simply putting a record in a machine that uses sonic technology of any frequency and spin a record  for a fixed period of time may perform a light surface clean, shine up the look of the record,  but that is all.  In selecting a frequency and a sonic, one needs to study the item being cleaned, in this case a soft item, a record, commonly contaminated with dirt, fungus, oily fingerprints, McDonald's french fries oil, and dust, but  not of any concern,  bacteria (microbes), which has nothing to do with sound reproduction and the needle action with the grooves.  1) Ultrasonic microbial removal benefits from a higher frequency. (sub micron particles). This for hospital tools, colonoscopic cameras,  silicon chip substrates and the like.  2)  In the case of records, particles of dust and dirt, fungus caught in the release agent of the record are only three to four microns in diameter. Not sub-microbial, not bacteria.  Any ultrasonic manufacturer whether medical or otherwise will agree where one will require a lower frequency such as 35KHz to dislodge and remove the targeted 3 to 4 micron sized particles from a "sticky", "soft" surface. (In our case we also add a resonance of 70KHz.  3) Ultrasonics 101:  Irrespective of the frequency and sonic model selected: to actually benefit from the effect of cavitation one needs to also change the charge of the record to be opposite  to that of water to fully  attract the wave created by the implosion/explosion of the microbubbles created by sonic cavitation.  Both the record and water in the sonic's tank, with or without a cleaning agent added in the tank of distilled water,  have the same charge. NOT GOOD! Like charges repel. To change this reality, in our case  (Kirmuss),  we apply a bipolar ionizing surfactant spray to the record. With the record now having a charge opposite to that of water, in the first cycle in the sonic we start the "surface cleaning" process removing fungus, surface dust and dirt from the record. As the record spins, we lose the charge after 3 minutes or so, ... that is why we need another cycle with ionizing agent re-applied to the record. One cycle alone of 2 or 5 minutes is not complete. With  the record charged again a second time, we now see cleaning action start deep within the record, first now removing the microwelded dust that lodged itself at the factory  into the newly pressed and "hot" record that just came out of the press. (Heard as pops when a new record is played for the first time). As once more the charge of the record reverts to that of water,  yet another cycle is needed using the ionizing spray, (moving forward in time),  is now required to remove microwelded  dust that we have ourselves welded into the release agent via the heat generated by the dyne of the needle by playing the record and our  heating up the release agent seeing dust around the turntable lodge itself in the grooves. Then, in another cycle, finally removing the release agent itself.  End result: With the release agent removed, one will never create another pop into the record while playing it. (manual needle drops excluded, of course).  4) Validation:  The above said, one can compare the results at a an audio dealer processing the same record with machine brand A, (high frequency), and then processing the same record using brand B, (lower35 KHz  frequency)  and  using an ionizing agent on the record. Following manufacturer's instructions and completing the process,  one can hear the differences as well as see the increase in signal gain by a VU meter on an amp, preamp, or tape deck, or see where one has to "reduce volume" between processes.   Of course one can review materials readily available on the web (or contact me)  that show before and after 3D images with measurements of dust and dirt removed,  as well as the  microscopic imagery of the removed "release agent coating" as measured from the same record as a "before and after" image. About 9 microns average is the thickness of the release agent. If someone is familiar with our process, the safe and small proportion of 70% IPA in 1.78 gallons of water is used to kill dormant and live fungus from records so as to not affect one's health, rather that being part of the cleaning process. WORD OF CAUTION: Never use the Kirmuss ionizing agent on any record unless used in a Kirmuss product. Higher frequency sonics with an ionizing agent applied to a record may see damage to the record occur. I rarely follow posts and the like but in this case wanted to bring some technical reviews of records and sonic technology. 

1.  Water is for all intense purposes classified as nonionic; ASTM D1193, Standard Specification for Reagent Water, Type 4 achieved by distilled water (condensation of steam) has a resistivity >200K ohms and a total dissolved solids <2.5 ppm.  

2.  In general, surfactants can be:
-nonionic (if you measure with TDS - there will no change),
-anionic ionize in aqueous solutions so that the hydrophilic head has a negative (-) charge.  Anionic surfactants are the backbone of all general detergents.
-cationic ionize in aqueous solutions so that the hydrophilic head has a positive (+) charge.  Cationic surfactants are not very good detergents but they can kill viruses so are very common in disinfectants and if a residue is left behind can acts as anti-static because they absorb water from the air making the record electrically dissipative to static, but this capacity decreases below 35% humidity.
-amphoteric can ionize in aqueous solutions so that the hydrophilic head, depending mostly on the solution pH, is either anionic (-) or cationic (+).

3.  Ionizing the fluid in a general wash - such as laundry soap - helps to remove particulate from clothing by charge repulsion.  However, particulate adhesion is governed by a number of factors.  The paper Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces, Aerosol Science and Technology, M. B. Ranade, 1987 shows for aluminum oxide particles, the force (acceleration) required to remove a 10-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^4 g’s, a 1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^6 g’s and a 0.1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^8 g’s. A simple brush or wipe is not going to get the smallest particles/debris that can ‘hide’ in the valleys between the groove side wall ridges. As fluid flows past a hard surface, such as a record, a boundary layer is developed and depending on its thickness (upwards of 5 microns) it will essentially shield any particles within it. So, agitation is critical in reducing the boundary layer to expose the surface with its particles to the cleaning fluid and the fluid velocity (shear force) that can remove them.

4.  The lower the ultrasonic frequency, the larger the cavitation bubble that is created. A 35-40 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 75 microns diameter. These are not going to get into the record groove. A 120 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 20 microns and these can get into the groove. But the larger bubble 'can' produce more energy when it collapses/implodes (cavitation) so there is fluid agitation around the collapsing event that can provide cleaning. How violently the bubble collapse is determined by the amount of power provided by the ultrasonic transducers but only up to point above which more power has no benefit.

5.  Further complicating the effectiveness of ultrasonics is the fluid boundary layer. The fluid flow at the record (or any) surface develops a static layer that is separate from the bulk fluid that is moving. The boundary layer thickness is dependent on the ultrasonic frequency (high kHz = thinner boundary layer), acoustic energy, and fluid properties (viscosity & density). To get the most effective cleaning, the cleaning process has to penetrate the boundary layer to remove the soil and particles that are contained within it.  At 35-40-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 5 microns, while at 120-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 2 microns.

6.  There are other variables, but depending on the initial cleanliness level of record, an ultrasonic tank with just a small amount of a high performance nonionic surfactant (such as Tergitol 15-S-9) can effectively remove light soils (finger prints, etc) and particles.  However, for heavily soiled records (i.e. flea market), a pre-clean step using more aggressive cleaning agents (such as Alconox Liquinox which is a combination of nonionic & anionic surfactants) or a wide range enzyme (soak) cleaner is generally necessary. 

7.  As far as mold-release, the following is sourced from the RCA patent US3960790A - Disc record and method of compounding disc record composition - Google Patents for vinyl records which is probably the best knowledge we have for vinyl record composition:  Lubricant: 0.4% of an esterified montan wax. The wax also acts as a mold release. When the record is removed from the press without the lubricating effect of the montan wax ester in the compound, the grooves of the record are sometimes fractured, torn, and deformed by the removal. These faults in the groove produce noise on playback. Montan wax ester at the stated percentage is compatible with the resins and is "homogenized" into the surface of the record at the normal pressing temperature. If more than the stated amount of the montan wax ester is used, the excess amount is not absorbed into the surface of the record. Its presence results in non-uniformity in the surface of the record, particularly as related to the friction between the stylus and the groove. This non-uniformity produces noise when the record is played. Overall, a good record should not have any mold release to remove.  Otherwise, the discussions on removing mold release may actually be associated with excess lubricant which should not be common. 

8.  Big problem with old records is the buildup of residue from any number of sources be it detergent residue, hard water scale, tar from smoke, and who knows what.  In these cases, as previously addressed, a range of different chemistries with different methods for pre-cleaning is generally required, let just say they may need a lot of love. 

 @antinn  Thanks, that is very informative. One thing that I think is missing in this conversation is that IF one is buying old records ( flea market as an example) the potential for noise is going to be high, regardless of the cleaning regimen. Simply because the grooves are likely to be damaged beyond repair. Damaged by scratches, chunks missing, warping and the like. Nothing to do with detritus in the grooves! Therefore, IMO the regimen of deep cleaning ala the Kirmuss method, while probably a little helpful in reducing the overall noise floor, will do absolutely nothing to getting at the root cause of the issue, the damaged groove. OTOH, with vinyl that is say VG++ or better, the regimen would possibly give some benefit, BUT I believe the increase is fairly marginal compared to a simple US clean in distilled water. Plus, when we read about the fact that the frequency of the ultrasonic means different size bubbles, ( in the case of the Kirmuss at 40Khz--and therefore a larger bubble that cannot deeply impact the groove) this IMO goes a long way to explain why all other machines that are using higher frequency waves do not need the same regimen as the Kirmuss to perform what they do. 
So, the big problem with old records is really not the buildup of residue, but the likelihood of poor handling and damage by the prior owner(s) who were using worn styluses and didn't have too much problem walking on their records with steel tipped boots......