Vacuum Record Cleaner Rreplacement
I get most of my records from from garage sales and such, and they are typically pretty dirty. My record cleaning protocol is to run them through the vacuum record cleaner then the ultrasonic cleaner. If they have fingerprints or mold I’ll put them through the Neil Antin’s method. I’ve done it this way for years with good results.
Unfortunately, my venerable Music Hall WCS-2 needs a new cleaning wand and I’ve been told from numerous sources that the parts are no longer available. I started the hunt for a new vacuum cleaner and found a suitable replacement. Before I pull the trigger, I wanted to determine if I really need a vacuum cleaner if I’m using the ultrasonic. I’ve used both cleaners in succession more from habit than any practical reason, though I’ve convinced myself that the vacuum cleaner gets the big chunks off first and the ultrasonic does the fine, deep cleaning. I don’t know if this is true or not.
I’d like to know the thoughts of the group. I’m more than happy to buy another vacuum cleaner, but could always put that money toward something else if it is not needed.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Thanks for that magazine. It took me ages to get to the Shure article because of all the other great content! Those were the days ... I think you are agreeing that electrostatic charges on records attract positively charged dust particles. We probably disagree on how hard these are to dislodge when they are micron size! I am getting quite a lint buildup especially with new records. Is there a chance some of this lint could be vinyl worn from the groove? |
I am not sure what you are trying to imply, but the book is very specific regarding the difficulty in removing particles that increases exponentially as the particle size decreases; ref: Particle Adhesion and Removal | Wiley Online Books, and Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces: Aerosol Science and Technology: Vol 7, No 2.
|
Your cited book from Wiley includes Chapter 7 High Speed Air Jet Removal of Particles from Solid Surfaces so my earlier suggestion to @lewm might have more merit than I thought! The earlier magazine article written by Shure engineers inferred that mechanical brushing could not get sufficiently into the groove. They assumed that everybody used a dust cover while playing records. I suspect the article was to introduce their conductive brush, earthed through the cartridge / arm, to provide a leakage path for electrostatic charges. This idea has not persisted for some reason - patents maybe? Shure also seemed concerned that a macro effect of electrostatic charges is to significantly alter the tracking force by attracting or repelling the tone arm. There is anecdotal evidence for that elsewhere in this forum. I am interested in the sub-microscopic behaviour of charged particles around 1-micron attracted to electrostatic charges in vinyl grooves. I understand your arguments about airborne dust penetrating boundary layers, but another source of dust is abrasion from diamond styli and this dust arises right in the groove. It is a measured component in dirt collected from styli. The abrasion and the triboelectric effect are both effects of friction, so I hypothesize that electrostatic charges and particles can be generated simply by playing a record. One way (maybe the best way) to break electrostatic bonds is to use water as described in your Aqueous Cleaning book. Water is exceptionally good at breaking ionic bonds because each water molecule is slightly polarised. Without water, I think it is extraordinarily hard to mechanically dislodge particles held in place by electrostatic charges. |
Not necessarily; if you read the chapter where the removal efficiency is very much dependent on the local humidity which if too high forms moisture droplets that add liquid adherence forces between the particle and the substate. After all is said and done, for record cleaning, it is not practical for other than blowing visible surface particles from the record. Additionally, any air source has to have a cleanliness better than what you are attempting to achieve or you will just contaminate the record.
As the diamond wears, it's going to produce a very fine power with particle size less than the smallest diamond polishing power you can buy which is 100,000 grit which is 0.25 micron. And the amount produced after one-play of a record is on the order of maybe 4.5 nano-grams - it's inconsequential - see my book - VI.13 I suggest you read this free Chapter 1830476 from the book Surfactants in Precision Cleaning - 1st Edition | Elsevier Shop, to get a better understanding of cleaning/removing particles from surface with wet chemistry and understand that there are electrostatic, van der Waals, structural, and hydrophobic forces associated with particle adhesion with van der Waals generally being the dominant forces. Also, understand, that the electrostatic forces are not the same as the triboelectric static charge which is dissipated when exposed to fluid. Good Luck, |
