Ultrasonic cleaning

@Initm Photo Flo is a surfactant like Triton X-100 which breaks water's surface tension and allows it to get down deep into the grooves instead of riding nearly on top of them. A few drops go a long way.  In film photography and printing they call them "wetting agents". +1 on your idea of using a vacuum machine for a quicker drying method after ultrasonic cleaning. I'm sure you know already, but for others who don't, the key is not letting it rotate too many times, after it is dry, under the wand such that the record builds up a static charge and attracts dust. 

Kodak Photoflo contains ethylene glycol as well as a nonionic detergent.  EG is probably something you don’t want for cleaning LPs.

I use the Rush Paul method slightly modified:

I've deviated slightly (Triton -X100, 99% isoproful, just RO water in the US tank), but I am thrilled with the results. I got side tracked by Neil Antin and his Precision Cleaning. It's good if you only have a few records to clean, but when you have hundreds regularly you need to do it in volume. I've tried many different techniques, but Rush's technique is the best and cheapest I've found. It's gotten even cheaper as many US tanks come with a record spinner/spit.

There have been dozens and dozens of threads written on the subject. Just check any forum. VPI lost theirs but it went over 200 pages. Neil's manual technique is the process de jure. He writes as if he is an expert using US and Vaccum cleaning but he has no direct user knowledge. He can probably clean one record real well while I clean 4-6 just as well.

@tuberculin,

Are you using the Triton X100 at 0.13%?  This would be about 6.8 times its critical micelle concertation (CMC) which is a pretty high concentration - but Paul Rushton specifies rinsing with a vacuum-RCM

Are you spacing the records at 1" as Paul specifies?

Are you spinning as slow as Paul says which is 3-revolutions/10-min which is 0.3-rpm/min?

If you read Chapter XIV of Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press, how much does this differ?  PACVR would recommend only 2.5% IPA vs 5.0% IPA, and PACVR would recommend Tergitol 15-S-9 over Trition X100 because it's much more efficient - 6.8X CMC = 0.035%, and the record spacing is the same recommendation as is the slow spin speed.  The difference is that PACVR discusses the rational for the why.  

As far as hands on experience, I had many years of experience with using ultrasonic cleaning tanks to precision clean components where the consequences could be essentially an explosion (high pressure oxygen) or life threatening (life support systems).

As far as vacuum-RCM, except for the few automated units, it does no cleaning - it's merely convenience and the chemistry, the brush and the user's technique is what does the cleaning.  Otherwise, I have assisted people across of globe with setting up their record cleaning processes, and the lessons learned are not from one person's experience but from 100's.  

But after all is said and done, cleaning a record is not rocket science, the science of precision cleaning is well documented such as Particle Adhesion and Removal | Wiley Online Books.  The record benefits from being a relatively simple surface with no inaccessible surfaces.  The challenge is removing very small particles that can be very difficult to remove, doing no damage to the surface (which has a surface roughness equal to a highly polished surface) and leaving no residue.  

But if the goal post is hands on cleaning of a record with a UT tank, well then guilty as charged.  

Take care,

Neil Antin

tuberculin-

Admittedly, I’m biased simply because I’ve published Neil’s work (@antinn). But I think you don’t fully appreciate what Neil did. When you mention actual application with vacuum RCMs and Ultrasonic, I’ve written extensively on this, from visiting Culpepper (the LOC intake facility) to my own explorations- I currently use a "big" Monks and a KL and have documented and published my "impressions" in terms of results. I’ve also included results-oriented contributions from TIMA, who eventually advanced to multiple tanks and filtering, per Neil. As well as an interesting historical monograph from Mike Bodell on the history of US cleaning of LPs. 

The beauty of Neil’s contributions is the explanation of process and the "why’s" of certain steps. In fairness, I don’t think Neil is dogmatic and neither am I.

As far as Neil himself is concerned, he took feedback from all over the world, more than a 1,000 participants in experimenting with "process," which not only resulted in revisions to the free booklet, but in my estimation, is what it is all about-that is, the results of various methods of cleaning from a huge number of users all over the world.

I was running a lot of records through intake here- upwards of 30-60 copies a month was the norm for a long time. Many highly valuable old pressings.

"Bulk" record cleaning, to me, raises the issue of doing 8-10 or more records in an US bath. That, to my understanding, can defeat the value of US cleaning. My main cleaning machine has been a big ole’ Monks for a while, which I use in conjunction with a KL US machine. I’m always thinking of what comes next due to potential equipment failure (though I bought back up parts for the Monks).

Neil also got feedback from more than a thousand users throughout the world, which, to me, represents "real world" testing in the hands of actual users. To say that he doesn’t have hands-on experience implies that he lacks knowledge (false) or that his recommendations are purely theoretical (also not true based on the feedback of actual users).

I have no need to defend what I publish based on any monetary concerns- it costs me real money for bandwidth and IT support. I do this purely for the advancement of knowledge. If you find it cumbersome for bulk processing, you might look at work flow, since Neil has offered various methods to increase "throughput" that have, in fact, been applied.

I personally clean records in batches. At one point, I’d say 60 LPs a month. Leaving aside around 17 thousand records- not all of which I cleaned- before I moved from NY to Texas.

If you think what Neil is suggesting is too time-consuming for large batch cleaning, Neil can probably provide you with links to those folks who are doing fairly high volume US cleaning. Me-- I’ve slowed down on intake, not for lack of interest, but simply because my focus on all of this has changed to some degree- but (ironically or not), involves archival preservation. music history and technology.

Apologies for length, I did not have time to make this pithy. But I will say (to echo Neil), that you find the right process that works for you (with an understanding of the "why") and proceed from there. I don’t think Neil is dictating that you use one process; just that you are aware of what you are doing in respect to various steps.

Bill Hart