Discussion in 'Turntables' started by guest110, Nov 18, 2015.
So, what I would like to ask is: is there a "conditioner" for LP's that would both remove grime, dust, surface grease while preserving the pvc/vinyl components? I'm a lazy and cheap teacher who likes to experiment with this stuff. I've cleaned a couple dozen really beat up Goodwill specials at this point, detailed on the other vinyl cleaning thread, and with 90+ pages here, I'm wondering if my question has been asked? I'm good on the Triton 100 and pure Isopropyl Alcohol, distilled water, and paint pad "gentle" scrub (used something similar and it worked great.)... and now I've gotten thru 40 pages here, so I gave this thread the College Try, but the Iron Bowl came on and, well... The beers came out of the fridge and one thing has lead to another... I'm interested to know from a chemist's POV, is there anything that both cleans AND conditions at the same time so the vinyl won't be compromised?
Nashou: Sorry, been moving the beach house, then the holidays, and haven't had much time to read this thread. I would not use that Grease Gobbler on my records. Primarily because it is a caustic mix of salts, pyrophosphate and potassium hydroxide. The pH is up there around 13, way too basic. These mixes are fantastic at cleaning glassware but anything containing a strong oxyanion I would never recommended for records. If it works for you, I understand, I just think it would strip endogenous additives like lubricants off the record surface and potentially make it susceptible to static so I would personally avoid it.
drjohnny: a neutral quat- based cleaner would do what you describe. This is what we have come up with in this thread. Some use an all-in-one shampoo/conditioner, but these generally contain lots of additional ingredients we might not want on our records so we are making our own pure mixes. So a good quat surfactant would do the trick (both clean and condition) if you can source it, and something like Hepastat has been recommended because it contains a good mix of them without too much other stuff at the dilutions used.
As an alternative to Hepastat which is not available (or doesn't seem to be) in Canada, what about this stuff, Diversey Virex II 256 J-Fill Disinfectant Cleaner?
Can't find the datasheet, but on the face of it, it looks very similar.
Virex II was recommended earlier (post #1348) and used successfully by AVfan (post# 1365). It is a great substitute and almost identical. It is mostly 10-20% Quat (N-alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride and Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride), 1-5% Ethanol, and 1-5% non-ionic detergent (Lauryldimethylamine oxide). I'd use it alone at 1:1000 dilution or enhance with additional detergent if you wish. MSDS here: https://sds.diversey.com/private/document.aspx?prd=MS0801116~~PDF~~MTR~~ANEP~~EN~~~~&productName=Virex II 256&productName_option=d__^value&productID_option=d__~value~&language=d__-1 shows it also contains EDTA (like Hepastat).
Well, they want 60 bucks for shipping to sweden. I think I will keep on looking
Another option for quats are pool algaecides. For sale at Canadian Tire is 4L of a 15% solution of n-alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlorides. Also available in 5% and 40% concentrations. There does not appear to be any other ingredients (well water, and maybe a light green/blue dye). I am using this as part of a wet cleaning solution with distilled water and isopropyl alcohol just before playing a record. The link for these products is:
I've got a question that will expose my ignorance...
I just bought a jug of Brighton Hepastat 256. How the heck do I "open it" or whatever it takes to dispense? I unscrewed the cap and removed the foil/plastic film but when I tip it, nothing comes out. There are 2 tiny holes in the topmost plastic - when I stick a toothpick in either of the holes, a diaphragm just below the visible top flexes. Am I supposed to poke a hole in that diaphragm?
That bottle is meant to go into a special dispenser. For safety reasons, it's very difficult to dispense the product from the bottle. That said, it's not that difficult to remove the entire plug/dispensing/safety apparatus (and it is surprisingly large and complex once you get it out). First, make sure you are wearing gloves and eye protection. Then you can just use pliers to grab the rim of the plastic disc that covers the hole and then pull the whole thing loose. You will likely splash at least a little of the Hepastat as you do this, so make sure it's not sitting on top of prized family photos or anything like that. And, again, make sure to protect yourself from the undiluted Hepastat.
Ahh! Thanks for the info. I carefully used a paring knife to easily pry the disc out, along with the attached mechanism.
Glad it was extracted safely! Enjoy your clean records!
Suppose you could say I drank the koolaid
If beer did not solve the problem, you didn't use enough beer.
Could you elaborate on the bubble size of 40 khz vs 80 khz ultrasonic bath units? I use a cheap us cleaner from eBay, I think it's 35 kHz. 80 kHz units cost quite a bit more. It would be nice to have definitive answer whether the more expensive, higher frequency US moachines make a difference vs. the cheap 35-40 kHz Chinese units from eBay.
This has it all covered. https://techblog.ctgclean.com/2011/12/ultrsonics-number-and-size-of-cavitation-bubbles/
Based on the graph in that article, it looks like a 40 kHz machine will produce bubbles with a diameter of about 16 microns. The RIAA standard for the minimum width of a stereo groove is 25.4 microns. At least as far as the size of the bubbles goes, it seems like 40 kHz should work just fine.
Yep, I can vouch for 40kHz...no experience with others though.
Someone will still try for a 16,000,000 kHz claiming all other frequencies won't work.
My 40 kHz works wonders. I did not opt for the higher frequencies either.
Actually the size of the bubbles will be around 8 microns with a 40 kHz machine. The 40 kHz is only one fifth the distance from the 50 kHz line.
The graph is of radius, but I converted it to a diameter, since I thought that would be a better comparison to the overall width of the groove.
Separate names with a comma.