Paul...The Oxyclean is just an idea, but Vodka has been used for years. It is a darned pure alcohol/water mix. If it doesn't work for you, other uses can be found, and I guess that goes for the Oxyclean too.
Playing records wet is real. Radio stations, especially in the days of 78s, did this, and audiophiles picked up on it. |
That's funny, the vodka never makes it as far as the vinyl in Helsinki, though I believe that after enough of it the surface noise goes away, or no longer matters...;-) |
REGARDING GRAIN ALCOHOL (VODKA)
This is a subject I've discussed with Duane Goldman (a/k/a the Disc Doctor) a couple times. 100% pure, 200 proof grain alcohol (ethyl alcohol) is a good cleaner. However, Duane says that vodkas have numerous impurities which may not be safe for vinyl. (All vodka sold in the U.S. is charcoal filtered. Perhaps some of the impurities are carbons and hydrocarbons from the charcoal?)
Bottom line: using vodka on your vinyl may not be a very good idea.
Best regards,
Paul
|
Haven't received my sample of the cleaning fluid yet. Hope I'm still on the list to get some. Best, Dave Pogue |
Hi Dave,
The last group of samples were mailed out on Thursday or Friday of last week, so you should be receiving your samples soon. If they don't show up by Thursday, please let me know, and I'll re-ship samples to you. Thanks for your interest and I look forward to your feedback.
Best regards,
Paul |
Hi, Paul. Just received it, and realized that all my records (anything I care to listen to, at least) are pretty darn clean already. Need to hit a used record store to pick up some candidates, I'll report back. Thanks, Dave |
Dopogue,
Play one of those "pretty darn clean records", then clean it with Paul's two-step (kind of sounds like a dance), and play it again. I've been cleaning my very clean records with this stuff and am hearing a big improvement. Like you, I also just picked up some used and dirty LP's to test with this stuff, and am anxious to see how it does on records that have not been well cleaned prior to this. |
Dear Paul: I agree with 4yanx, Motdathird and Sean. I don't want to talk more about, I thing almost is saying.
I'm a little worried about an important issue with your formula: it's works like an equalizer or it really works ?,
all of your beta testers experienced what they thing was an improvement and they like it: after using your formula the sound was more accurate to the recording?, nobody knows it: they like it ( but in this forumm I learn that at least the 90% of the people likes the equalized sound, they use tube electronics: equalizers. ).
I think that you have to test your formula, too, with the people that can know if what they hear is accurate to the recording or is not: ask to David Wilson ( Wilson speakers ), Tony Faulkner ( Green Room Production ), Joe Harley ( Audioquest/Groove Note Recordings ), John Atkinson ( Stereophile ) if your formula it is an improvement and accurate to the recording and let us to know their answers: all those people were at the live
recording and they really knows about it and only they can tell us the true. This is a critical issue for the people that loves the music and that cares about music sound reproduction at home. So, do it you a favor and do something for us and for the people that you ask for a free help. I'm stay tunned for your answer and effort in this way.
Best regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Rauliruegas,
What makes you think the people using the test formulas don't know what the recording is supposed to sound like? Are you saying the testers are unqualified? Are your comments directed at hearing acuity, the quality of the playback system, the condition of the vinyl? Quite frankly, I don't understand your point. Why would any of the industry people mentioned in your post be any better a judge of whether or not the product works than anyone else? Does their "stamp of approval" make it any better? What matters is if the people who choose to use it, like how it works. I doubt very much that anyone of the above would submit the product to any more of a rigorous test than the average user with a record cleaning machine and a large vinyl collection.
You keep talking about people liking an "equalized" sound, and this product is an equalizer. Have you used it? Do you use any record cleaning products? Don't presume to pass judgement on this or any other record cleaning product unless you have tried it yourself. Further, do not presume to pass judgement on what people in this thread or this forum like or don't like. You speak in generalities. Your opinions are welcome here, but keep them in the context of what is being discussed. Have you spoken to every one of the testers? It would seem that you have in order to make the conclusion that everyone has heard an improvement and that everyone likes an equalized sound. That conclusion cannot be gathered from the comments thus far in this thread. |
The enzymatic formula contains: (1) enzymes; (2) surfactants; and (3) distilled water. The cleaner formula contains: (1) surfactants; (2) a wetting agent; and (3) distilled water.
The formulas contain no plasticizers (e.g., LAST Record Preservative), nor does it contain lubricating agents (e.g., Gruv-Glide and RRL). It is not possible for the formulas to act as "equalizers" and alter the sound. Any differences perceived are due -- strictly -- to cleaner vinyl.
Best regards,
Paul |
Paul,
I got my samples today, many thanks again. I fired up the system to do a little pre-cleaning warm-up listening, and damned if there isn't a blown channel in my Audio Note! Changed all the tubes, but no joy. So, I had to reconfigure everything using a Belles 150a I have lying around. I'm just about done setting the electronics back up, so I should be doing some serious listening over the next few days. I think I'll leave the amp & that thing that plays the little silver things running overnight to get the amp up to speed. I really need to get reaquainted with the SS amp before I can do any real world comparisons. I'm even going to give up my afternoon golf tomorrow!
Slipknot,
Once again you've gotten it right! But I figure if all of those guys mentioned in that other post were there when "it" was recorded, I need something to "equalize" the differences in their ears. Thanks God I'm having tube amp problems at this time. That way, there is one less thing to screw up the sound of Paul's formula! I seriously hope I can enjoy the non-live music.
Remember all, blanket conclusions are like assholes: We all are, I mean have, one, usually.
Joe |
Paul,
I received your products yesterday and will try to set some time aside today for testing. I'm looking forward to this exercise as I have two problematic albums I would like to make more listenable.
Rauliruegas-I have not, nor would I ever allow Wilson, Faulkner, Harley & Atkinson to make any audio decisions for me. Sounds way too much like a law firm. Besides, I've got some tubes and my own ears to go by. Just take your odd order harmonics and hum them to yourself all day long. |
Dear Slipknotl: "....what the recording is SUPPOSED to sound like ?, this is the point: the testers only can suppose but they don't really know about: only the people that were at the recording sessions knows about it.
"....that the testers are unqualified ?, you told it I never mentioned about it.
"..........the quality of the playback system,....?", again you told it I never mention it.
I ask: this formula is an equalizer or it really works?.
Yes, you don't understand my point. I hope you can do it in a near future. ( Don't be angry for something that you can't understand ). Be happy.
Best regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Lugnut: Like Slipknotl, you don't understand anything about.
You have to be more " open mind ": it is the only way to learn in every day life.
Best regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul,
I apologize if I offended you BUT you were out of line with your tube comment, IMO. I was really jokingly referring to the situation at hand with my law firm comment. I would like you to understand that I do consider myself having an open mind. Otherwise, I wouldn't be trying Paul's potential product. I fail to see how cleaning a record could be equalizing such. Some products stand in the way of the information and others let allow it to come through. I'll post my findings in an honest fashion. However, I will not insult Paul in the way I do it. I'll probably piss off a lot of people with the following comment but here goes. I get tired of attacks for no good reason. While I'm a current user of RRL products and have no ill will toward any manufacturer of record cleaning products I've not been convinced that the base water is as good as they say. Bottom line is, I don't care. If it sounds better, I'm an owner. Maybe this isn't an anal enough thought process for the superior audiophile but it has served me well for the over 35 years I've been in this hobby. Why don't we just see what the thoughts of the testers are while this thread evolves? Or, is the point of being an Audiogon member just to stir the shit? Sometimes I feel like I'd like to crawl through my DSL line just to see how big some of you audio bullies really are. |
I'll put my cable against your DSL any day! |
Raul,
Are you suggesting that only the engineer can understand how a recording is supposed to sound? I guess my assumption that the purpose of this hobby was to enjoy the music contained in the grooves rather than fret over whether or not we hear it as the engineer intended, is incorrect. Any component, cable, tweak, setup, etc. imparts it's own sonic signature. Each of us assembles a system based on our own personal listening biases. Ideally, we listen through the sonic signature imparted by the equipment for the heart and soul of the composer's intention not the engineer's. Do we like what we hear? Does the music move us? Or, are we dissatisfied because we are unable to appreciate it because we are unsure that the playback is not like it was the moment it was commited to tape.
Your "point", or your mission is of no importance to me, and I dare say of any of the testers who are posting to this thread. I am not "angry" that I don't understand what you are getting at. What I am angry at is the fact that your post represents nothing short of a troll, with nothing of consequence to add to the context of this thread or it's intent. This thread is about a new formula of cleaner for vinyl, and whether or not the users feel that it works better than or worse than what they are currently using. If your intent is to start some kind of argument, I would suggest you take it over to AA, where there are plenty of paranoid folks who like to fight in the anonymous world of cyberspace. Otherwise, please stick to the subject at hand. If you have no experience with the product we are discussing, you have nothing to add and are therefore irrelevant...
If you do not think this is the case, it is YOU who doesn't understand. The title of the thread says it all.
MY posts to this thread prior to your intrusion dealt with MY perceived impressions of Paul's products, they will also return to my impressions of the product from this point forward. |
Paul,
I listened to a record I love earlier this afternoon which has some annoying surface noise yet no apparent reason for it. It has been cleaned previously using two well respected products. I used your products and there is a noticeable improvement. It's not an audiophile pressing and I can't say that anything has improved beyond reduced surface noise but I can say that the music was as detailed as before. So, in this one case I enjoyed a benefit. More cleaning and postings to follow, good or bad. Of course, time will tell, as others have suggested, if your formula degrades the vinyl. If a 12 1/2% solution containing alcohol will degrade vinyl then my entire collection is headed to the trash heap some day because most of the previous solutions I've used contained alcohol. For the record, the EQ remains the same, FWIW, IMO, YMMV, etc. |
Dear Slipknotl: First than all my post was to Paul not to you. I ask to Paul to give and answer and he is silent till now.
You still don't understand about it and yes I know that it is not important to you. So don't loose your time answer me for something that you can't understand and that I don't ask you: Paul has to answer.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Lugnut: An equalizer is a device that can change the frecuency response in music reproduction: all the testers told us that they hear something different ( that they like it ): this " something different " is a change in the frecuency response, my point is if that changes are in the recording or not: the only people that know about it are the people that were at the live studio recording, if these people told us that after the formula treatment the reproduction sound is more accurate to the recording then and only then Paul can say that the formula really works in favor of the music reproduction, if these people told us that the treatment it does not help for " accurate to the recording ", then the formula is an equalizer. That is all.
About the tube electronics that work like a very expensive equalizers I agree with you that this is not the moment to speak about it and I apoligize for that.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Hi Raul,
You say "Paul has to answer." Actually, I don't, but will do so now as a courtesy to you. I didn't respond earlier because I thought that what was already posted adequately responded to you.
Your suggestion that should send the fluids to the original recording engineers (studio engineers? mixdown/mastering engineers? lacquer cutting engineers?) makes no sense to me whatsoever. They don't have hard drives for brains; they can't "replay" sounds once heard years ago for comparison. And even if they did, how would they listen to the vinyl cleaned with these formulas except on their equipment ... which necessarily has its own sonic signature?
The reason for this thread is really quite simple: whether the knowledgeable, experienced and technically-oriented vinylphiles here on A'gon think the vinyl sounds better -- or not -- after using the formulas in my 2-step process. None of us need anyone else -- whether a recording engineer or our mothers -- to agree or disagree with us when we listen to something on our system and say "that sounds better," or "that sounds worse."
Having now responded, I respectfully ask that if you want to continue this debate, please start your own thread to do so. People are using the thread to post their feedback on using the formulas, and others are coming to this thread becaue they want to read that feedback ... and not debates on whether we should or should not have recording engineers tell us what sounds better -- or worse -- on our own systems. Thanks, Raul.
Best regards,
Paul |
Well, this testing process is turning out to be harder than I expected. I bought some used records this afternoon, tried to get a handle on the "before" and then listened to the "after." Yes, a nice improvement, but not one I swear I could pick up in an A/B test. But a friend has another copy of one of the discs and this weekend we'll see if we can hear a difference between your products and whatever he uses with his Nitty Gritty/Record Doctor RCM (same model as mine).
One of the problems is that I may be too stingy with your stuff -- want it to last, and there's not a lot to play with. Another "problem" is that my own cleaning regime works very well -- Harry Weisfeld's formula (not the VPI concentrate, which I don't like at all) plus a distilled water rinse. More later, Dave. |
Hi everyone,
I wrote to Dave and asked to go ahead and be liberal with using the formulas -- I'll send more if he needs more to complete valid testing. I make the same offer to everyone else. If you need more fluid, let me know and I'll send you more.
Best regards,
Paul |
I received my samples on Saturday. The first album I tried was my Johnny Hodges, "Blue Notes" which has some scratchiness that drives me crazy. I was expecting a miracle cleaner. After cleaning album still has the same scratchiness. In other words this is not a "miracle" cleaner(it won't fix worn out albums). I will keep looking for a better copy of Johnny. Other albums that I used for my test were from garage sales that I purchased that day and needed cleaning. I first used my normal popular solutions, which is also a 2 step process, on one side and Paul's solutions on the other. Visually I could tell that Paul's would remove all of the fingerprints and the other solution would only remove a portion.
I have tried this method on a few others and the results seem to be the same, Paul's visually look cleaner, which should mean cleaner sound. There is definitely less surface noise. I also have been very conservative on how much I have been using, so maybe I am not seeing the full benefit of these solutions. Would it fix my Johnny hodges? Who knows.
Paul I would like to try a larger sample 6-12 oz of each and I would like to reimberse you for the expense of the materials and postage. |
Yes, Paul, I'd be happy to pay you for the larger quantity, too, and thanks for offering. Dave |
Hi Paul,
I too would like a larger quantity and would be more than happy to reimburse you for any/all costs. Thus far I am very impressed with the promise your product holds. Thanks again. |
Ok, so here is what we got going on tonight:
I pulled out 4 LP's, all of whom have known "issues" with noise. All of them have been in my collection since I was a teen/college student. They are:
Beethoven "String Quartet, Op.131" Bernstein/Vienna Philharmonic (DG 2531 077)
Bill Evans "New Jazz Conceptions" (Riverside RLP-223)
Santana "Caravanserai" (Columbia KC 31610)
Al Stewart "Year Of The Cat" (Janus JXS-7022)
The Bill Evans LP was cleaned using the two solutions several days ago and has been played twice since then. Before playing tonight, dry swept with Decca brush while on the table. All the other Lps were cleaned (both sides) tonight prior to playing.
There is no question that these formulai (formulas?) are very effective at reducing surface noise. All of the air and detail is restored to the LPs, and I think the reason we are hearing this is really very simple: CGMCM Clean Grooves Mean Clean Music. This two step process does a very good job of getting deep down into the grooves and lifting the grunge and getting it off the disc, allowing the stylus to track a nice clean groove. My stylus is staying cleaner, and in the case of the Al Stewart LP, I hear stuff again on it that I have not heard since the day the seal was broke on it in 1977. It's not changing whats on the vinyl, but it's cleaning the vinyl to a degree that allows me to listen to the music, and not the dirt and dust and junk that has gotten into the grooves over the years.
The Evans disc sounds just as quiet and good with just a sweep of the dry brush prior to playing.
I have treated/cleaned over 20 LPs so far and as long as long term vinyl degradation does not become an issue, I am convinced of the efficacy of this stuff. |
Dear Paul: Tks for your courtesy.
I think this is an " open thread " and everyone can post an opinion: if you or anyone agree or not with that opinion is another history.
I don't give my opinion for to start a debate, I post my opinion because it is what I think is usefull for to know ( for sure )if there is a true improvement in the music reproduction through your formula treatment or if it is only another equalizer. If you really care about the music reproduction at home you have to try what I'm suggesting you. If you close the door to my suggestion maybe will be because you are more interested on the comercial value of your formula and not on the music reproduction value of your treatment.
Anyway, what do you loose if you can have the answers of the original recording people?.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul -- while I'm not doubting your kind intentions (nor anyone else, surely) I still fail to understand why & how the application and subsequent removal of a cleaning agent+rinsing liquid (distilled/de-ionized water) on a rotating surface (LP) will affect the electrical properties of the upstream system (=equalisation). That's what you're inquiring about, at least that's what you're saying.
The stylus-groove is a mechanical contact so, the better the contact the better the ultimate result.
If you're wondering whether after the rinsing there is residue left which, in turn, compromises this contact affecting certain frequencies (hence "equalisation" effect)... it really doesn't seem to be the case: most people report less surface noise (removal of particles deleterious to stylus-groove contact) while no-one has reported a reduction of high frequency content after the "cleaning" (which could be an indication).
Ultimately, calling upon the mastering engineers is, I would agree with others above, a somewhat nebulous proceeding for the reasons already offered -- likewise with speaker manufacturers. Rather, you could experiment along the following lines:
Find an original master-tape--> cut two LPs; store 1 LP leave the other out (to collect dust etc). Later, perform a spectrum analysis of each LP. Apply cleaning to dirty LP. Perform spectrum analysis. Listen to "cleaned" LP vs stored LP vs master tape. If game, "clean" stored LP. Spectrum analyse it "cleaned". Listen again, comparatively. Of course, take notes all along.
Copious and difficult proceding, indeed.
At the end of the day, however, this is all just about cleaning the surfaces of a cut vinyl disk and comparing results before & after (i.e. that's what the thread is about). The "testing" conditions, while not rigourously scientific, seem adequate enough for the experiment: same downstream system, same cleaning machine, etc; the application and removal of "cleaning liquids" is the only "before & after" point. It doesn't seem like anyone has reset their riaa equalisation curve...
Cheers |
Damn. Raul figured it out. The formulas contain (1) microscopic-sized audio ninjas and (2) microscopic-sized electronic parts to build an equalizer.
Once the microscopic audio ninjas are deployed via the first formula, they dig-in and camouflage, waiting until the microscopic electronic parts are stealthily delivered via the second formula.
At that point, the microscopic audio ninjas load up their microscopic audio ninja backpacks with the microscopic electronic parts, and bivouac their way (microscopically, of course) through the stylus, through cartridge, through the tonearm wires, through the interconnect, through your phono stage, and then through another interconnect, to the preamp, where they unload their gear, download microscopic audio ninja schematics, and build (and integrate) a microscopic equalizer into your preamp. Pretty nifty, eh?
Regards and enjoy the humor.
Paul |
I tried the sample and it worked. It definitely removed finger prints and cleaned dirts deeply from the grooves. It even salvaged worn LPs because the wider grooves allowed the stylus digged deeper into the dirty grooves. I rinsed before vacuum the cleaning solution to ensure minimal residue left. I am ready for more of your great product. |
|
Paul, I have not received my samples as yet.
JYPrez |
Hi Jyprez,
You certainly should have received them by now, especially since you're close by. The Post Office strikes again! I'll send you another set of the samples today.
Best regards,
Paul |
Gregm: I agree with you.
Tks, best regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Microscopic audio ninjas...
An Audiogon classic for sure! ROFL. |
The ninjas are just red herrings to the real truth.
Audiophile gnomes are the real culprits. They go to work after you go to sleep...
http://faerie.monstrous.com/gnomes.htm |
Today I shipped more samples as requested. I appreciate the offer to pay for the extra samples, but when I posted this I agreed to a protocol: that I would not offer the product for sale unless this expert group agreed that these formulas were good.
While the initial feedback is very encouraging, there are many more people who have received the formulas who have yet to post their results. The jury, as they say, is still out. So thank you for the couple "orders" I've received, and the offers to pay for the formulas, but I can't accept any payment at this time -- I will abide by the protocol I established.
Hopefully, more will post their feedback soon, and we can see if there is a consensus. Have a good weekend, everyone.
Best regards,
Paul |
Dear Paul: ¡ Viva for the ninjas !.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Paul,
At least you didn't implement my idea of using nanoprobe robots equipped with phasers to do the cleaning. LOL
Mr Kidknow |
Paul,
Just wanted to let you know I recieved the box of audio Ninjas you sent ;) Unfortunately, they arrived in rough shape. It appears some suffocated, and several others killed each other fighting over food, water and air in the box.... |
Joe ... I apologize for the unruly ninjas. I'm currently performing an advanced microscopic ninjactomy on the remaining brews, and hope to replace the ill-behaved rascals with better trained microscopic audio ninjas in the near, if not microscopic, future.
On a more serious note, we've yet to hear from many of the folks who received samples. Kindly post feedback when you can. Thanks!
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin |
Sometimes I feel like I'd like to crawl through my DSL line just to see how big some of you audio bullies really are. Thank God I'm not involved in this!!! Lugnut and Slipknot (sounds like a MK & BM together..) Please forgive Raoul. He hasn't done the internal organ cleansing I prescribed him a few weeks ago. Neither he has cleansed himself in the ocean. He's going to keep knocking till he gets the *flush*... *** |
Paul,
I'm testing as we speak. As some on this thread were getting a little ridiculous (not the ninja's, I was laughing my ass off over that one!), I was holding off posting until I had a good feel for the results. Given the temporary loss of my tube amp, I've been spending some time getting used to the Belles. While I like the amp, I like the Audio Note better. So, I've been playing a loy of lp's to get the sound down.
In the preliminary usage of your formula, I am impressed. Not only does it get albums visibly cleaner, but I believe there to be a sonic improvement as well.
Note, this is preliminary. I will spend quite a few hours over the weekend doing comparisons. The other thing I want to try is using DD brushes compared to the Last brushes I've been using. They won't be here in time for this evaluation, but I may take you up on your offer for more fluids when they get here.
Be ready for a detailed report, probably Sunday night.
Joe |
Hey Raoul,
Yesterday I ran into a box w/business cards and I found the one belonging to my beloved Mexican model (lives in Tlaltenco Tláhuac, Xochimilco). I thought my then South American *amiga* had thrown the card in the trash! Anyway, this model was one of the Puro Loco TV program models. Forget about audio for a moment...she's about five feet-seven, dark brown skin, curvaceous body, long brown hair, a six pack PLUS a very *fleshy* mouth!!!
My girlfriend, the exotic dancer in Monterrey is a whole different *animal*...and also has a six pack!!!
Viva México.
With psychic power and primal intensity, |
Paul,
I've begun listening after cleaning 4 LPs today. My methodology was similar to others. 2 LPs were purchased (used) yesterday after a trip to Academy Records in NYC. The others were garage sale purchases from a year or so ago. I used the 2 step process on side A and my normal RRL Deep Cleaner & Super Vinyl Wash process on side B. I did use separate brushes for each.
One question for all regarding brushes: Any learnings? I use a VPI nylon brush for step 1, and the disk doctor brush for step 2...
Too much commotion in my house to do serious listening today, but I can say that I noticed a difference immidiately on the first LP, King Crimson-Beat. This is one I just purchase NM to NM-, with a few paper scuffs, but no major scratches. The side with your 2-step definitely had less surface noise. This LP has good dynamics, and it was nice hearing notes attack cleanly and quietly. I'm looking forward to more serious listening over the next few days...
Cheers,
Spencer |
Rauliruegas....
Either you have a difficult translation issue....
or you need to back off....the crack pipe....
Try it, use the product....offer trial results....
No one here expects ghosts in a machine....but ....from time to time.....we locate ...
and struggle to eliminate one or two....
Ghost busters.....EH?
If you're still on X-Box....that's OK....
My suggestion....
cut and paste better responses....
No international offense....intended.... |
Paul,
Just a thought, but have you tried a cryo treatment on the ninjas? Maybe a little deep-immersion just prior to shipment might get their fiesty molecules to better line up, resulting in a more consistent behavior during the shipping process. It works for my kids, as in: "you better get in line mister". |
I have a question for Paul Frumkin regarding the water.
RRL boasts about their "quadruple deionized water" used in their formulas. I still don't know what "quadruple deionized water" is, though I have worked in the ultrapure water industry. I take that term as a marketing buzzword for [ cation resin + anion resin + mixed bed resin + mixed bed resin ] purification train, like what is used for laboratory grade instrument calibration water.
My question is, do you think using ultrapure water might improve the performance of your products? It seems to me that so far the Beta testers are very satisfied with the results. Now ultrapure water is an entirely different animal. With about $50-$60 you could buy a small mixed bed resin cannister and run the distilled water through it, converting it into decent quality ultrapure, conductivity in the less than .060 uSiemens or so...and add a SECOND beta test round!!!
*** |
Hi Psychicanimal,
It was my understanding that: (1) distilled was preferable to deionized because it removed both ions and organics; (2) deionized substituted polyvalents, such as Mg+, for Na+ and Ca+, which maybe didn't really advance the ball all that much for our purposes; and (3) your water basically become re-ionized when exposed to the air.
Also, if the group concensus is that these formulas work well and I am therefore encouraged to offer them for sale, I had planned on selling them in concentrated form (dilutable in the range of 4:1 to 8:1) -- I don't want folks to have to pay shipping for water, at 64.4 pounds per cubic foot. To maintain purity if I use deionized, and assuming most folks have ready access to distilled but not deionized, I would have to ship in dilute, ready-to-use form, which would undermine one area of cost savings.
But both formulas would contain some water, and since you have worked in the industry and garnered expertise, I would like to discuss this with you either directly via e-mail or through a telephone call. Thanks!
Best regards,
Paul
(302) 836-0453 |
