@dogberry
Yeah!, Yeah!, Yeah!
My intention were to lay some matters to rest and to avoid any more entries as your present one. This intent was to eliminate these matters, because they do not belong here. Dogberry, do not be offended, but, I was not even thinking about you or your post when I presented my case to put an end to these posts. Yes, I read your post, but my objective was to address @whart who was the person who initiated these deviations at the onset. And, then to his Cheerleaders who were trying to compete with the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, who are also officially nicknamed "America's Sweethearts", and to chime in with their comments.
I wanted to get my message across to Whart and his Cheerleaders, that their remarks are unrelated to the Primary Subject Matter for which this site was created. And, then you proceed to continue on with this unrelated matter yet again, and, incorrectly I must add, rather then agreeing that this nonsense need to end in order that people that may have real serious questions are not reluctant to post their questions. I have put off, and, I feel very sorry that I have, @mijostyn in order that I may clear up this unwarranted clutter.
Would you please agree with me to stop such posts - Please?
However, I also find it necessary to correct your post in order that others may get the impression that you are correct. Recall the words of my original post about facts and truths. I can not allow errors to continue.
I have forsaken 506 years of an established loyalty to make myself perfectly clear. But, as someone has previously stated, I am "only someone behind a forum handle who has no meaning or significance".
You attempted to correct me. I suggest to avoid doing that in any future posts, it would only be futile. You had stated "by the way, the "Ch. is not latin, but French "chirurgerie"". Seriously! I ask you Seriously!? Colleges established in ENGLAND in 1249, and in 1264, and in 1517, and so on to even 1929. French! Do you have no comprehension the relationships between England and France over the Centuries. Have you forgotten all your History lessons.
Baccalaureus in Medicina et in Chirurgia. Does not sound French to me.
Chirurgiae Baccalaureus. Does not sound French to me either.
Ch=Chirurgie, which is latin for surgery! Get it! - Latin, not French!
Every time I sit down to eat, sometimes even at a McDonald's, I can not help but hear the following in my head: "Nos miseri et egentes homines pro hoc cibo, quem in alimonium corporis nostri sanctificatum es largitus, ut eo recte utamur, Tibi, Deus omnipotens, Pater caelestis, reverenter gratias agimus; simul obsecrantes, ut cibum angelorum, panem verum caelestem, Dei Verbum aeternum, Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum, nobis impertiaris, ut Eo mens nostra pascatur". It is embedded deep in my memories. Also, at times when I begin to write something, it crosses my mind that I must write "Dominos Regit Me" before I even begin to write the date.
Oh! I should have mentioned that those words that I had written are in Latin not French.
I still can not get over your remark that the Ch. is French. It will take some time to clear that one out of my head, but I guess I should take this as an opportunity to remind others, not to submit something in writing on this post unless you are absolutely certain of what you are saying.
I will you again to agree with me to stop such posts?
|
@bdp24 @lewm @whart @pindac @cleeds
CC: @mijostyn
On 10 June 2023 at 12:04 AM, someone posted that ( and, I paraphrase ) "he will no longer waste any more time with me ( Wizzzard ) and suggested that I do the same".
On 10 June 2023 at 9:25 AM, the very same day and within just 9 hours and 21 minutes, I responded to that individual who had made the initial post. My response ( again, I paraphrase ) "thanking him for asking me not to waste any more time communicating with him". And my response to him was very "short and sweet", and, I had hoped , very clear as well. And, that response was, and I now Quote, " I won’t ".
For those that may have noticed, I kept my promise, and, I never addressed him again. Unfortunately, my forum site continues to be"contaminated" with his additional postings, violating his own self-imposed commitment. Whatever compelled him to continue to post is still in force, and continues to compel him to submit additional post to this very day. And this compulsion is significant. He continued to post an additional 1,462 words.
On 11 June 2023 at 10:26 AM, this individual bid his "farewell to all", as it was now likely to be his last post ( yet again ), on this forum. He bid his Farewell again, and in closing "that all take care and stay well".
Nevertheless, the same forces and powers that had overtaken his previously, had obviously returned, and forced him to contribute an additional three posts compromised of an additional 318 words, and even posting an unrequested chart, and additional links to other unrelated materials.
I do wish that he overcomes the forces that compel him to continue to post and abide by his own initial statement at the onset that - "he will no longer waste any more of his time on this site".
To all those reading this, the word number calculation was done by an Adobe program, and was calculated by the computer and not by me personally. Although the number of words corresponds well to what was stated. I can only apologize for any minor discrepancies because I have no intention to waste any time to review and correlate the info.
I ask this individual to please adapt to his own statements and commitments.
To all others, I apologize, though I have no control of what is, and, what is not posted. But, I obviously must have struck a nerve in this individual that he has lost all self-control, and, for that, I must take some responsibility, even if it is superficial and insignificant.
I thank you all for your understanding. Thank you again!
|
@cleeds
Regarding your post 17 June 2023 at 1:45 PM
It is NOT an opinion, if it is 100% Factual.
With regard to your second point, that was already clearly answered. And, I do not choose to repeat myself. If you did not understand my response to you, I am very sorry, I can not help you any further. Perhaps others may have a way of explaining my answer to you in another way that you can better understand the response. Best wishes.
|
@boothroyd
Your post 17 June 2023 at 3:31 PM
I have stated, and stated frequently. I DO NOT CARE what anyone does or uses. This forum is not intended as a debate. If you wish to debate find another forum, or, start one of you own.
And I ask everyone, if you have opinions, to voice their opinions elsewhere.
I am here to answer questions about the formulation presented, and anything that it may relate to as well, and if anyone has any other interests that I am qualified to answer.
|
@dogberry
Your post 17 June 2023 at 2:48 PM
I believe this was very well explained and presented. I suggest you re-read my response. As you are reading the response think of the following.
You are going to a gasoline station purchase Gasoline for you vehicle. You usually have a choice of three types based on their octane ratings. When you purchased your vehicle the manufacturer stated the octane rated gasoline you are to use.
That is based on DESIGN of your engine and the ratios of your transmission and differential. Many items are taken into consideration, but, you buy and use the same gasoline whether you drive fast or slow, whether you drive only within the city or primarily on the highway, whether there are one, two or 5 passengers, whether you drive 6,000 miles per year, or if you drive 80,000 miles per year. Non of this matters, you still need to buy and use the same gasoline by design.
I hope that helped, if not, I can do no more to help you understand design and functionality. Again, perhaps others can help you, but, always remember you are concerned with the substrate. You do not use gasoline to wash your windows.
|
@rich121
Your post 17 June 2023 at 5:47 PM
What is so amazing?
|
@lloydc
I spotted your first point, and then I noticed that you had promptly posted again.
Because, I was going to say there are several sites, and supply houses that make it available.
You must realize that your $69.75 purchase for 100 ml. is more than several lifetimes worth of supply. If you are impressed and pleased with the outcome of the formulation. With your purchase you may consider starting your own distribution. 100 ml will go a long way. You can get back to me and I can suggest "concentrated versions" that you can package and resell that conforms to all regulations with regard to flammability, types of containers, etc. Yes, I known that all as well. remember M.B.A. and owning our own business. This is different, it does not concern me, we dealt in truckloads, and tankers.
Considering what is being sold, and how bad, even destructive, many of the available products are, and the ridiculous prices that are charged for solutions that do not work or work badly, you may have a viable business. I suggested in my original, my only condition is that your pricing be fair and reasonable. For something such as this a 60% margin I would consider fair. And that would almost amount to almost nothing compared to what is out there.
Keep me informed. If you have difficulty getting the Tergitol 15-S-7, I can assist as well, but, only if necessary.
Good Luck!
|
@cleeds
Regarding your post 17 June 2023 at 6:06 PM
The PURPOSE of this (my) forum is clearly stated in my very first posting. It is located at the very beginning. It is also automatically reposted at the very top of every subsequent page thereafter.
You are only required to read it to understand. There is nothing to question about its' intent, you simply need to read it! If, at that point you still do not understand, there is nothing further I can do to assist you.
Thank you for your expressed interest.
|
@bdp24
Regarding your post 17 June 2023 at 6:28 PM
Know that this clearly relates to an earlier post on 10 June 2023 at 9:24 PM, and I recall that post vividly, and have been meaning to respond as soon as I could. If you can recall some other postings to others, I am limited in my functioning abilities. The significant delays being related to keyboarding my responses. Which also relates to previous statements made that I often write my extended responses by hand, and key them in at a later time.
Such was the case when I was responding to @jasonbourne71 who had several questions. I started to respond in a handwritten to him when I realized that it was far too lengthy and I eliminated significant portions of my intended response. In the process I managed to convolute the story, and in my haste to at least get back to him, I failed to notice my errors until you so kindly pointed it out to me. Afterwards, I. wanted to concentrate on @mijostyn and others to respond to them, and get to you afterwards. I am still sorry that he @mijostyn has only received a small portion of my prepared response.
Since you bring this up at this time, I will deviate from the schedule I have prepared regarding my order of responses. Remember, I am functioning with limitations.
Yes, I did purchase my first AR-XA turntable in December 1969. I was not able to listen to the table until either December 1970 or January 1971, I only recall that it was around the Christmas period. I did not purchase the 10 additional AR-XA turntables until late 1971. Buy the way, the first table purchased was damaged in a move, that is why I later purchased other turntables.
Afterwards, I was captivated by the AR ES-1, and I had purchased a total of three of those. The First, was one of the very first available, and the final AR ES-1 in July 1989 which has the aluminum tonearm board and is fitted with the AudioQuest Tonearm and Audioquest MC Cartridge, as it was supplied as a package.. When I purchased the AR-XA turntables I was given small case of something called D 3. It came in a red plastic bottle with white writing. When I purchased the AR ES-1 turntables is when I was supplied with a small case again of the product made by the LAST Company.
Afterwards, I became committed to the Oracle Delphi. My first Oracle Delphi was the MK III. I have owned 6 Oracle turntables in my lifetime. I presently have 4, one is boxed away, and the other three are in use all affixed with SME V tonearms. Two AR-XA are boxed away, and two AR ES-1's are also boxed away.
So that is the complete story, and in the intended chronological order.
And, I sincerely do thank you for pointing out the mistake made, otherwise, it would have gone un-noticed.
I believe that I also stated that this is my very first evolvement in any forum, and that error was made at the very beginning.
Thank you again.
|
@mijostyn
Does this mean you are waving Goodby!, or, Hello!.
It is very important to me.
|
@bdp24
And here you thought that we would never have something in common. And shared the same interests in as well.
And, by the way, my original lengthy reply to @jasonbourne71 also mentioned the Watts and Discwasher. Do you remember if this was some joint promotional relationship with the AR Turntables, or, was it just a coincidence that these products were available at the same time? My memory is now blank about the relationship. Perhaps you remember. Just curious.
I just fell for the Oracle Delphi. I am certain the Design played a significant role in my original choice, and, since that time I never considered anything else. When Oracle made available a "Kit" to upgrade the Mk III to a Mk V, I was at their facility within days to pick up my kit in then Sherbrooke, Quebec.
Anyway, thank you for your understanding!
|
@bdp24
Who knew, another item in common. I was given a (at that time) a brand new VPI-HW17 Vacuum Record Cleaning Machine from an individual from whom I had purchased other items from.
He was moving to China to make his fortune. Nevertheless, that is the machine I use for cleaning all my records with my "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation", obviously, that I presented an the beginning of this forum.
Next, you will be informing me that your wife is an Immunologist, and her first Name is Valerie. And, that she prefers not to be addressed as Doctor, as my wife does not as well.
We need to stop this and get back to "Bitching" - we do not need to disappoint the "others" much further!
Regards,
|
To All!
In moments I am off to Hospital for the day.
Tomorrow, we are leaving later to a distant Hospital again for my wife.
I will be back when I can.
|
To All! Please recall I am away, out of Town, with my wife at Hospital. Possible one or two more overnights. This is regarding my wife's condition not mine. Uncertain of timing.
Will get back A.S.A.P. Already, have prepared statements. Need to be home to do, and I, obviously, need to tend to other matters of priority first.
Till later. Hopefully not too long.
Thank you for your understanding again.
|
@noromance
Triton X-100 is a Non-ionic Surfactant made by Dow Chemical Company. It is Octylphenoxy polyethoxyethanol glycol tertoctylphenylether. 9.5 Moles of Ethylene Oxide are utilized. It is, what is referred to as an OPE Surfactant.
Distillation has no part or meaning. Do not understand your statement.
|
@mijostyn @rhg3 @lewm @cleeds @dogberry @pindac @jasonbourne71 @richmon @whart @rich121
Good evening to all,
Our original plans made for us have be readjusted for us again. We need to go to another Hospital Tomorrow. Then again leaving for yet another Hospital quite some distance away for a few days. I may choose to leave, Sunday night and stay overnight at a Hospital related Hotel, or leave very early Monday morning. Nevertheless, in either case, my wife needs to be away for two full days. I am informing you of this because I will try to get some matters attended to until and when it does becomes possible to complete more. So, you will be receiving my responses in "dribs and drabs" in as unspecified manner.
I am doing the best I can under all the circumstances, but, that has been our lives for some time now. I occasionally question, whether or not I should have started something like this or not. I hope you can relate, and I thank you for your patience and understanding.
Based on some recent comments, and on those awaiting answers especially @mijostyn , who now has to depend upon morphine to overcome his pain and suffering awaiting a response to his questions to me.
I considered and determined that I would employ an alternative method to be able to satisfy most, if not all, regarding my posted formulation and my intents.
Although the very original post is VERY CLEAR in every respect, it obviously, was not to some. It may have been beneficial to some if a prologue of sorts was provided as well at the onset. This, did now become more clear to me especially when @rhg3 posted (now, post #18) a link to what he described as a "tome", which I did read in its’ entirety, before responding. My response to @rhg3 is now recognized as (post #21) in the Forum. (I state "now" because the Administrator blocked and removed many postings, and, shall I say, justifiably so. The Administrator was correct in His or Her actions.)
If all would please take the time to re-read my response to @rhg3 (posts #21), you will note my gratitude and appreciation, and my kind words, along with my applicable position that it differed to my "exclusive design selection method". Again, another posting written in a very clear manner, however, many had taken this response as an affront to an almost "god-like admired contributor" and in an effrontery manner on my part for saying as much. I shall refer to this individual in future writing as "Mister Wonderful" to keep things simple. Now, Please do not make the same mistakes as in the past - that I am suggesting that this individual is "simple", and any associated derogatory implications that may be inferred. Let us not start again!. However, the author of the "tome" (not my word), chimed in with his admirers, and included himself in this "self-admiration", which did not assist the misunderstandings.
An undeclared "war" was essentially initiated both against me and any additional comments I made, but, also against others, that acknowledged the value of my input, and requested further information. Many deviated immensely from my good intention, and the forum spiraled into abuse, contempt, and further deviated entirely from any truly related matters, and sent the forum down a"rabbit-hole" of absurdities at times.
A clearly presented and simple formulation that contains ONLY THREE ingredients, and, precisely stating the exact amounts of each component to within three decimal place accuracy - upset the entire pre-established "Apple Cart" of understanding for many.
Absolutely Incredible! And, beyond comprehension.
Since water has already been mentioned many times, and ethanol as well. Only one ingredient remains that has not been discussed. And, I would like to mention some attributes about the determined Tergitol before proceeding with my altered and modified approach to this matter for those with apparent difficulties.
And, before I cover some points about the Tergitol in the formulation, I would like to address those who "think" they know everything there is to know about water and ethanol. And the answer is very simple indeed - YOU DON’T! Otherwise, to this day, thousands of individuals would still not be studying and continuing research concerning water, and, the same applies to ethanol.
Now, to discuss the last and only remaining ingredient - Tergitol 15-S-7. Tergitol is a Registered Trademark name belonging to The Dow Chemical Company to differentiate a particular class of surfactants from others that they also produce, as well as other Companies.
Tergitol 15-S surfactants are first and foremost "Non-Ionic Surfactants". Non-Ionic Surfactants are THE ONLY TYPE of surfactant to be used for cleaning records. Period!
Dow Chemical designed the 15-S series to be very high performance Secondary Alcohol Ethoxylates (S A E) to be used in place of Primary Alcohol Ethoxylates (P A E) and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (N P E), and Octylphenol Ethoxylates (O P E). Triton X-100, which was also developed by Dow many years ago, is an example of an (O P E) surfactant.
The "S", or, as written earlier above as, S means it is a Secondary Alcohol. And, what that means is that there is a Hydroxyl group along the mid-section of the hydrocarbon chain to connect it to the "Hydrophilic Chain" of repeating Ethylene Oxide units. The "15" was selected because it represents the maximum number of possible "Hydrophobic Hydrocarbon" atoms in the alcohol chain of the series. Note, it represents the maximum, not necessarily, the exact number. The actual number may be from 11 to 15 depending upon the specific product. This is all in accordance with the "designed intentions". I could be more specific at this point, but, I do not wish to go "deep into the woods", at this point.
The 7 in Tergitol 15-S-7 represents the number of Moles of Ethylene Oxide used to make the end-product, which relates to the Equilibrium Surface Tension Relationship intended by design again, which is a specifically calculated amount, which is extremely significant. All of the above mentioned criteria essentially indicates that it is the best and wisest choice to be used on a hard surface substrate as the vinyl records, with which we are most concerned.
In the interim, also keep in mind, that ONLY four types of surfactants exist in the world. This will be important to remember when I provide my "modified approach presentation" later on. The four types are: A.) Anionic. B.) Cationic. C.) Non-Ionic. D.) Amphoteric. Amphoteric surfactants have both a positive and negative charge on their Hydrophilic end. The dual charges cancel cancel each other out, that is why they are, at times, referred to as Zwitterionic, and then the pH of of a given solution will determine how the Amphoteric surfactant will behave and react. This is very interesting Chemistry, but, it will not concern us and record cleaning. The important thing to remember is that ONLY NON-IONIC SURFACTANTS can be used for cleaning records. This also will be further explained. I do NOT intend to get "deep into the woods" with my later adaptation, I intend to "walk around the edges" of the forest and occasionally "peek" into the deep wooded areas, and "label each peek" with a number that can be referred to if someone requires additional information, or, further explanation.
The Dow Chemical Company designed the Tergitol products with Specific intentions. Dow further designed the Tergitol 15-S with additional specific intentions. Dow then further designed specific items within that designed criteria. All very specialized with specific intended end usages.
And many of you thought that Tergitol 15-S-7 was just "some number designation" that was picked to simply differentiate it from other Tergitols. If you did, do not feel bad, many, if not most chemists, would easily make a similar incorrect assumption.
When I selected a "Specific Scientific Methodology" and "Determined, and Selected Modalities" within the selected "Specific Scientific Methodology", I designed a cleaning formulation with water, which then determined the incorporation of ethanol exclusively, and then determined the exact concentration of ethanol, I was left with the challenge to determine the best surfactant to utilize, and then to calculate the precise amount of surfactant to produce "The Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation". And, to verify the anticipated results to determine if it matched All the Parameters desired, and fulfilled all the criteria required to be certain that it is "The Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" as intended. This was all accomplished by "Design" !
I am assured that the formulation is the "Very Best", and, I hope that you would at least attempt to acknowledge my knowledge and my efforts. And, at some point, be as assured and as confident as I am.
|
@rich121
I refer you to my response to @mijostyn with regard to the graph. It is EXACTLY the transition point where the slope changes dramatically. This is simply mathematical calculations determined as to the relationship of Surface Tension in dynes/centimeter and the WEIGHT percentage of ethanol.
Nothing to discuss, just simply to examine and understand the significance of this exact amount of Ethanol.
Anything else?
|
@ericsch
I refer you to my response to @mijostyn in a previous posting. I provided him with the exact amount that he is required to use of Triton X-100 if he chooses to continue to use Triton X-100 rather than switching the Tergitol 15-S-7.
It should be clear, if not, please inform me that you need additional information.
|
@ericsch
Sorry, I should have also stated that please do NOT use isopropyl alcohol, it is imperative that you switch to Ethanol. Again, explanations provided in other previous posting.
|
|
@ljgerens
Thank you very much for your post. Another one that I truly admire and respect. I have extensive knowledge in Ultra Sonic Baths, but, not as you would think. My knowledge is more Industrial and on much larger scale. Nevertheless, the fundamentals are the same as you have also demonstrated.
I sincerely appreciate your post, and it deserves considerable attention as does my response to @mijostyn .
I will need to get back to you as soon as I possibly can. A few adjustments, and a bit more understanding of the Chemistry and you will be on a much better track, and, I assure you more pleased with the results.
In the interim, is it possible to inform me of the Surfactant that you used that is similar to the Tergitol 15-S 7. It would assist me. And, by the way DO NOT use Dawn, I will explain. The residue is from 6 of the 8 ingredients incorporated in Dawn. Also Dawn contains significant amounts of anionic surfactants as well.
Hang in there, I admire you, and I will get back to you. My time is not in my control. You are next after my modified presentation that is already prepared and my response to @mijostyn .
Take care! And, thank you again.
|
@peporter
The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" is the very best record cleaner of any manner. We are discussing the abilities of the cleaner. It is the best regardless if you brush it on, spray it on, dip it in, apply with microfiber cloth, use vacuum cleaning device, etc.
I personally prefer the ease and convenience of using a vacuum cleaning machine. And, if feeling lazy, even a simpler method will do to a reasonable extent. Recall, the evaporation rate is rapid due to the azeotropic characteristics. And, accumulation of residue has more to do with evaporation rates than any application characteristics. Assuming you are using distilled water and pure Ethanol and the proper amount of surfactant.
The cleaning characteristics are independent and a separate issue with regard to methodology. Six shots of Tequila will get you just as drunk whether you are at home or in Istanbul, or Ashtabula, Ohio. It is independent of location. Well, correct that, altitude plays an important factor as well. Poor attempt at an analogy late at night.
|
To all,
It is Good Night for now until my next opportunity.
I thank all those who have expressed serious concerns. I apologize that I have not been able to respond as I would have wished.
Please, accept my request to re-read some of the original postings in a frame of mind that takes the time to understand what I actually stated and posted.
Thank you all again.
|
@ericsch
I should have just stated, that in your case, that would be Approximately 11 to 12 drops.
Sorry!
|
@rich121
I sincerely hope that nobody believes that I, Wizzzard, am suggesting that anyone should ever purchase Tergitol 15-S-9.
I am just making certain that I have only suggested the incorporation of Tergitol 15-S-7, and NOTHING else.
Do not be mislead in any way because I had suggested to @mijostyn to continue to use Triton X-100 if he is pleased with his current existing results, and, because he has/had access to Triton X-100 and has an existing supply.
Recall, I suggested that he switch to Tergitol 15 -S-7, to obtain superior results. That does mean that I am endorsing Triton X-100, but simply acknowledging that it is also not a surfactant that I would be so foolish as to forbid its' use. Or, discourage to use, if one is acceptable of its performance.
Do you perfectly understand why it has been forbidden recently. And, do you fully comprehend the affects and similarities to other surfactants. Can you relate that Environmental/Governmental decision, and, the somewhat similarities to forbidding the laundering of "your dirty socks and underwear"? How would you react if you were forced to wash your dirty socks and underwear along a river bank using only the river water and some rocks? Matters such as these should always be put into perspective.
|
@mijostyn
I just arrived at the conclusion that if you are to await my "prepared hand response", and, the time it would take me to key in in onto the forum, you may not receive it until after the Summer, or, perhaps, even after the "Rapture". (Perhaps, a bit of exaggeration).
Therefore, I have determined just to simply comment on some points you covered in your collective postings, and provide a comment or response. And, if you have a particular issue in mind, you can relate back to the categories I have placed them in. Also, I do not have sufficient details of some particular subjects to accurately determine and calculate an appropriate formulation that will accommodate all your requirements. When I have that info, then the process is much easier for me to do, rather than review the "grand scheme of related issues". So, here we go:
A.). You made a statement in a post, and I quote, "Ultrasonic Cleaning is an unfortunate Fad". In only 6 words you have expressed yourself so succinctly, I can not conceive a more concise and accurate way of expressing that position. I congratulate you and admire the clarity. Obviously, you will not find any disagreement from me in this matter, so I will move on.
B.) Your "residue" experience buy placing 1 cc. of store purchased distilled water leaving residue on a black glass plate is NOT related to the water. I decided to duplicate what you did in a somewhat different manned. First, I used 3.5 inch clear glass slide plates that would fit onto my wife’s $13,000.00 Leica microscope. I should inform you that our house is heated and cooled via forced air. In addition to a pre filter, we have installed the largest Electrostatic Air Cleaner that is made for residential purposes by Honeywell. Afterwards the air flows to a combo activated carbon after filter. Also awe have throughout the house 3 of the largest HEPA room filters made by Honeywell as well. One of these is in my home office where I conducted the tests. The Temperature that day in the office was 68 F, and the Relative Humidity was 35%. I should state we live in the country in a rather dusty environment due to the clay soil, and, at the time we were being affected by the wildfires in Quebec.
I injected 1 cc of store bought distilled water onto the plate. It created a slightly irregular 36 mm diameter circle. I did the same with double distilled water, and then did the same using my "formulation", that is when I noticed "I needed a bigger boat". It had spread across all the glass. The "formulation" evaporated in 13 minutes. The two water samples went beyond 3 hours and 45 minutes. This is where I gave myself a failing grade. I forgot to either change or check the battery in the timer. Whoops! Did look at the samples after 9 hours under the microscope. Ignore this initial test. Changed the amount of sample material to 0.20 cc for all samples. Ran all the following: Store-bought Distilled Water, Double distilled water, my "Formulation", Tetrahydrofuran, Freon 113 (1,1,2 trichloro-1,2,2, trifrluroethane), Acetone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Ethanol (95.6% pure with water), Cosmetic Grade Isopropyl Alcohol (99.999% purity), Butanol, Toluene, Heptane, Hexane, and Naphtha.
My wife examined the residue, basically because she is great at identifying "things". Also, she probably does not like me "playing" with her Leica microscope. Now, I can swamp you with details, however, the results became very obvious very quickly. First, let me state there was NO DIFFERENCE between the store bought distilled water, and the double distilled water which was run through a 4 stage deionizing unit prior to distillations. Second, all the residues were basically very, very similar. The major residue (37%) was particles caused by the clay environment, (34%) was "house dust", surprisingly (15% to 18%) were from dust particles from the Sahara Desert. Said, surprisingly because of the wind direction at the time and the time of year. The other (12% to 13%) was organic in nature. Dead skin deposits, insect parts and debris. No ash was noted or identified. Obviously, the most abrasive material was from the Sahara and afterwards the clay particulates. I believe insect bits would also be abrasive.
But, the AMOUNT of residue was directly related to the evaporation rates. Freon 113 having the least (basically nothing) followed by the others. Pure ethanol did well. The "Very Best Record Cleaner Formulation" did well primarily because of the Azeotropic chacteristics, but also related to the Surface Tension because it covered a far greater area for the evaporation to occur.
So, there you have it. The residue formation is essentially related to EVAPORATION RATE and SURFACE TENSION. Keep in mind, that unlike your original formulation that also contained a very large quantity of BAK, these test samples contained NOTHING ELSE except my 'Formulation" that contained a minute of Tergitol 15-S-7.
C.) How did you make out locating and obtaining the 2-phenoxyethanol? To prevent mold growth.
D.). I find vacuum cleaning of records extremely convenient and effective. As I mentioned to someone else, I was given a VPI-HW17 Record Cleaning Machine from someone that I had purchased other items. That was 28 years ago and never considered anything else. When I am lazy, I also take "Short-Cuts", which seems to be O.K. as well, as long as I am using my formulation and not rinsing, just air-drying in both cases.
E.) We need to discuss your static problem and avoid including another ingredient if it is not necessary. If we determine it is necessary, then I can suggest non-ionic surfactants that are specifically designed for such purposes. Not saying that cat-ionics, quaternary ammonium salts are not great antistatic agents. But, they are not necessary, and, especially at the levels you introduced.
I have no idea what kind of turntable you have. You did not say. And that would help. Bun, let me take a guess by reading you and your posts "between the lines" as I did the Triton X-100. I believe you may have a SOTA. Either a SOTA Cosmos, or, an adaptation from SOTA. Nevertheless, you should not be generating THAT much static that consistently, and that frequently. No disrespect to SOTA (if it is a SOTA), or, any other quality turntable manufacturer. However, sometimes turntable manufacturers overlook some basics. I assume they are using vacuum tubing. I know that the vacuum is not great and does not necessarily need vacuum tubing, but, they shouldn’t skimp in this area for pennies. If it is vacuum tubing, I hope that it is CONDUCTIVE, or, at least SEMI-CONDUCTIVE, and that all the fittings are made of either copper (preferred), or, a conductive material. And, that this is all grounded properly. Also, the vacuum pump should be shielded with copper coated foil, or copper foil, or copper mesh which is also grounded. I do not know, I have never examined a vacuum clamping system or investigated it, nor, do I intend to, other than the turntable that you possess.
If this was not done, then it should be corrected, and I can help you. So, I would need that information first. Because if you attend to this matter in this way, you do not need to consider additives. I will await your information. If it is attended to already as outlined, then I would require some other specifics to make accurate calculations and give you some alternative options to consider. There are Non-ionic surfactants that would be incorporated at much lower levels. Surfactants such as DOWFAX 63N10, or DOWFAX 20B102, or ECOSURFTM Bright 12 Surfactant. Or, other items such as Polyethylene Glycol with a Equivalent Weight of 200, or, amines, such as DETA (Diethylenetriamine). But, we can cross that bridge when we arrive there.
First feedback on the CONDUCTIVITY of the turntable system, if than necessary, answers to a series of questions before I speculate any further. I just wanted to tell you these things because you have options, and, they are very good options.
I have some other matters, but, it may be best that I await your feedback.
Take care. Till a later time again, hopefully, it will not be so long this next time.
Thank you for listening.
|
@mijostyn
E.). Forgot Scales. You can buy very good weigh scales on eBay for just &15.00 each. You need to buy two, one in 2 decimal places, the other in 3 places. O.K. they ar not a Mettler or a Sartorrius, but, they are decent.
|
@lewm
Yes, I know what the Surface Tensions are with ALL the ALCOHOLS are. The Surface Tension is an "aspect of design" after the selection of water.
The choice of Ethanol as the "EXCLUSIVE" option is based on an entirely different "aspect of design", and, that is in relation to the "PARAMETERS" of the composition of. the Vinyl Record. This is stated in previous postings as well. Please review that aspect of design.
Thank you!
|
@cleeds
You still "Do Not Get IT". Please re-read some of my posts again. And, you are welcomed to get back it touch with me again. It has NOTHING to do with degrees of contamination. Keep that in mind while you are taking the time to re-read the postings.
Thank you!
|
@gemoody
Just when I was beginning to think that nobody was ever going to open that door, here you come along and do just that.
We are leaving very early tomorrow morning, and, are now not expected to return until Wednesday night, and, that is if all goes well and according to plans. Our Medical conditions demand our attention, but, as I mentioned to others, I appreciate your understanding and patience.
I will respond, and because of some very recent developments due to the postings of others. I will avoid being distracted and attend to those seeking knowledge first and foremost.
Thank You,
|
@cleeds
Re: Your recent posting at 3:57 PM today.
First, I should inform you that I had just completed a written (hand written) lengthy, and very sincere apology to you, and to several others regarding my responses. And, I had just sat down at my desk to keyboard this apology for my previous response to you at 1:09 PM today. And to make myself more clear to you and to others with a qualified explanation that would be understood without any difficulties.
When I sat down to begin, I and noticed that you submitted another post at 3:57 PM today.
Thank you VERY MUCH for submitting this most recent post. And, I sincerely mean that for reasons that require no explanation.
I no longer need, nor feel compelled to apologize to either you or any others that I had in mind. You have saved me a considerable amount of time and I can move on to respond to others that have sincere interests and deserve my attention and appreciate my inputs.
With regard to your post at 3:57 PM today, I have no response to you because "IT" can not be answered. "IT" can not be answered because it is irrelevant.
I truly am grateful that you submitted another post so promptly, and, I believe that others will understand my appreciation.
Thanx you!
|
@mijostyn
Good guess on the SOTA Cosmos. I did not know that I possessed paranormal capabilities. I need to be brief, because we are preparing to leave.
I do have some other Mechanical and Physical suggestions for you now that I know what you have.
While we are away, I suggest you look into acquiring Conductive vacuum tubing and fittings. These are common. items at "Industrial Hose and Hydraulic" facilities. Most places that I am aware of do not require an account if you pay "Cash". Also these items are not very expensive. Perhaps even a Home Depot or a Lowes may now carry such items. Because, if the system is not conductive throughout and then properly grounded, your other efforts may be futile. I will take a wild stab and state that if you do this, you will not have any static issues ever again. Also remember static charges are better controlled by larger gauge copper wire, and, in this case, fewer strands are better than many strands. You stated a distance of several feet. The longer the distance the greater requirement for substantial wiring.
Till later!
|
@ljgerens
I have not forgotten about you. Will be touch in ASAP. Later this week or early next.
Thank you!
|
@lewm
cc: @ljgerens @cleeds @dogberry @rich121 @noromance
Just returned home earlier today. Have some appointments tomorrow. Intend on posting some responses Wednesday, 5 July 2023. Have no more time today.
However your last post is staring me right in my face as I type. If you are going to ask ljgerens a question at least get your question correct. Apples to apples, and, oranges to oranges. Remember that one?
You finally stated a few posts earlier that you are using deionized water, and "laboratory grade isopropyl alcohol that is 98.00% alcohol. You also stated that you are using Triton X-100, but, you did not state how much you incorporate. And, you stated that your formulation is by volume.
If you are comparing your formulation to The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" that I posted, than you question to ljgerens should read: "...exposure to 22.000% Ethanol vs 19.635% IPA". The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" is stated in parts by weight, not by volume.
Also, if you persist on "beating this dead horse", and insist on using your 98.00% IPA with your deionized water (recall, I told you I have no difficulties with your deionized water), and Triton X-100 (which is acceptable (refer to my post to @mijostyn )), then, at least formulate it at the "best correct balance".
Your formulation in parts by weight, would then be as follows:
Deionized water. 804.772 grams
Isopropyl alcohol (98.0%). 195.000 grams
Triton X-100 0.228 grams
Total Weight: 1,000.000 grams
There is no need to use more than 19.5% of your 98.00% in parts by weight, or, which is by volume 24% not 25%
The primary inflection point of your IPA with regard to Surface Tension at 20 degrees C.
PLEASE, look back when you first asked the question about "Why Ethyl alcohol versus Isopropyl alcohol". I answered your question to you directly on 6 June 2023 at 6:25 PM. You first asked the question only 2 days earlier on 4 June 2023. And, you persist on asking the same question over and over again. And, you ask it of others as well. If you did not understand the answer, why did you not ask a specific question of me about the answer. Because it was answered. I don't understand why you keep asking the same question. Are you expecting a different answer? Because, guess what you already have the CORRECT ANSWER, and had it for 27 days now. It is a different matter if you do not understand the answer.
Regards,
|
@lloydc
Do not take this as a silly question but what Country are you located in? Also, how much Tergitol 15-S-7 are you interested in, or, how much are you willing to spend? It is an either /or question. Also, may I ask who have you already contacted and how? Have you tried to phone the local Dow Distributor or Representative?
Also, you should be aware that this is originally a Union Carbide development, and product still exist with their name as well. Dow purchased the formulations and technologies of all Tergitol products from Union Carbide. Although Union Carbide was not functioning in North America for a very long time since the "Bopal Fiasco", they continued production in some other Nations.
I await you info!
|
@pindac
Please forgive me but I did not quite understand what you actually meant. And, this is totally my problem.
Thankyou,
|
@mijostyn
Forgive me, but why, out of the "clear blue sky" are you bringing up chlorofluorocarbons at tis time. And what specific CFC are you relating to? There are many and they are all very, very different.
What may be your reasoning?
Wizzzard
|
@whart
You stated the following: "There is no "best" in my experience."
Are you intending to contact the people at Webster's, (The World Publishing Company), and, the Oxford Dictionary (Oxford Press), and properly correct them?
Or, would you rather that I relay your "Expert Knowledge" about this major error that has existed for over hundreds of years. I think it should. be you, after all, you deserve the Credit! Or, is Credit the correct word and not something else like R....e, or, S.....y!
Your call!
Regards,
Wizzzard
|
@bdp24 @cleeds @dogberry @drkingfish @ericsch @gemoody @lewm @ljgerens @mijostyn @noromance @pindac @rhg3 @rich121 @boothroyd
@duckmanst3 @jasonbourne71 @jm-audiophilemusiclover @jwillox @kennyc
@lloydc @mojo771 @moonwatcher @recklesskelly @richmon @thecarpathian
@whart
To All:
I’m back! Or rather, I should state that I will be back!
I just wanted to make those aware that were awaiting my return, that I will be returning. I will be attending to requests and questions very soon. Just a few other matters to attend to, and I am looking forward to sharing my knowledge with whoever is interested. And, to those who had hoped to never hear from me again - "Live with it"!
While away at two distant Hospitals that we were attending to address my wife’s current needs, and, away for a much longer period of time that we were originally anticipating. I had opportunity to reflect on a number of important (and not so important) matters. This period of contemplative time was very beneficial. It also became a wonderful total period because my wife’s status was eventually determined to be very positive and we were both pleased.
During these "contemplative periods", whether I was alone or in a public arena, and, whether I was well, or affected by my medical condition, entailing paralysis and pain - my thoughts kept being invaded by two different lines from two different movies. One was from "Cool Hand Luke" spoken by Paul Newman playing Luke Jack Jackson. And, it was: "What we have here is a failure to communicate" (BANG!). The other is from "A Few Good Men" spoken by Jack Nicholson playing Colonel Nathan Jessup as he shouted in the Courtroom - "You can’t handle the truth". Famous lines for certain in Cinema, however, totally irrelevant to all the things that I was thinking about. It made no sense, until, one day, while in a Public Area at the Hospital, and, unfortunately during one of my cycles that caught me off-guard, creating alarm and concern to others that required explanation and assurances to those around me. Suddenly, a gentleman appeared with another individual and began to speak very loudly. People are normally offended by such mannerism, however, at the time, it was a welcomed distraction for me. He than began to complain about his stupid son who just purchased these giant speakers that cost five times more than what he paid for his first car.
It was at that exact moment that I realized that the forum I initiated in early June was subconsciously revealing itself as a "disturbance", and, that was why these particular movie lines kept interrupting my thoughts. My mind immediately jumped to all the wonderful people who were writing to me regarding my decision to share my knowledge about audio elements, but, they were writing to me using the "Insider" selection of the Audiogon website. I could not understand why! The letters were lengthy and extensive. They were all very complimentary and always encouraging (as if I was to quit). They were very comprehensive, well written with considerable effort expressing their appreciation. I was grateful for all of them and appreciated their concern and gratitude and responded accordingly. BUT, none of these individuals ever stated anything on the forum itself. I noted that many of these individuals had their own Forums and were members for a very considerable time. It was if I was involved in two very different forums that did not have any resemblance to each other, considering what I was contending with on the actual forum with certain individuals.
Self appointed experts who even had the audacity to "correct me" about matters even unrelated to the purpose of the post, but, clearly demonstrating their animosities by making absolute ridiculous statements, such as, discussing Medical degrees at British Universities, specifically Oxford. Correcting me, when I stated, "that the Ch" in "BCh" stands for "Bachelor of Surgery" and not "Bachelor in Chemistry". And state that the "Ch" is in relation to the old Latin terminology. Some Yahoo had to speak out with all the authoritative expertise he could possibly muster, that, the "Ch" is not from Latin, but is French "Chirurgerie" (even mis-spelling the French "Chirurgie" while attempting to correct me, and, if he intended Old French, he got that wrong as well because the correct spelling is "Cirurgie"). And, of all languages to state, he selected French, no less. Absolutely incredible! Also, it never crosses his mind that I may be fluent in several languages, and functional in several others. He also makes no assumption that perhaps this "Wizzzard" guy may have attended one of those 27 Colleges (at that time) at Oxford University that provided Medical degrees but chose to concentrate on Chemistry in it’s stead. upon arrival.
I selected this as my "chosen example", because it is totally unrelated to the concept and objective of the Forum as outlined at the very beginning. And, it is a prime example of one’s "soul" being so vitriolic and overtaken with oppugnant contempt, and, in the process distracting and diverting other potentially interested parties in participating in this forum to ask any pertinent questions. To someone that viewed this forum for the very first time and possibly wishes to ask a question, I can only imagine that person being DRIVEN AWAY from this "Circus Atmosphere", by those already contributing. I think, and I believe, that I would most likely be dissuaded from participating, and move on, after all, who has time for such crap? I would not blame them one bit, because I would most likely obtain the same impression.
I happen to be a very knowledgeable person in some areas, who simply wants to share the valuable information that I possess with others, and that relates to the Audio Sector. I wish to share what I know, but, on a request basis. Rather than selecting what I believe to be significant or important, and then to pontificate about my selection, I would prefer that participants choose what is important to them. I am not qualified to make any contributions regarding electronics. This has already been covered by many experts over the decades.
My intent is to address anyone and everyone who enjoys listening to music, whether it be classical, opera, jazz, folk, popular, or, any other form of music. And, I wish to best utilize their existing collections or recordings to provide the best sounding music possible with what they have. They can be musicians, singers, or creators of recordings, or, simply listeners.
I also am addressing those that are interested in the products that are intended to reproduce music in their listening environments to sound as realistic as possible, and as the artists intended, and to experience the sound as if the artists are in the recipient’s environment. This is nothing new and no different than all other devices and their developers. My input is to maximize some of these same goals with realistic simple scientific technologies that may have been overlooked using previous unaddressed scientific methods, and to accomplish these goals without annoying subsequent distractions.
I am also specifically addressing those who do not wish to be conned by "expensive "gimmicks" and costly "magical materials". Whether your finances are "hard-earned" (as most are), or, if it fell from the heavens. Nobody should be fooled by charlatans. This was the single most specific point that prompted me to start this post. For a few dollars you can make your system sound better.
Some of us are fortunate to be able to afford very expensive equipment, at times, even ridiculously expensive equipment. My spirit lies with those who are not as fortunate to have unlimited disposable incomes, but, those that have moderately priced equipment that can be improved upon easily without spending much money.
I want my forum to appeal to everyone, you do not need to have a post-graduate degree, or a college degree, or, for that matter a high school diploma. You ONLY NEED to LOVE MUSIC and appreciate its’ accurate reproduction.
I posted my multiple degrees and experience not to boast, or to demonstrate arrogance, but, for the mere reason that you become aware that the source of information is coming from a very qualified individual for the very specific reason, that you can have a level of confidence in me and what I post. That was the only, and exclusive reason, for that brief introduction. Otherwise, you could conclude that I am just another "shmuck" with some usual B.S. to spread.
I also wish to explain my remarks with some basic reasoning and explanations. That anyone and everyone can understand. I only request that you have an open mind. Otherwise, I am not failing you, but you are failing yourself by adhering to preconceived notions. This failing aspect has already displayed itself on several occasions I cannot "get to you" if you are not willing to "open the door". So, please do not cling to prior adages and stubbornly refute something that is new to you, or that you may have not heard before. Now, I want everyone to know that I can bury anyone with technical data and technical processes and established fundamentals of reactivity, etc.. And, to such a depth that they can begin to feel the enormous temperatures of the iron core of our planet. I can also destroy any conflicting suppositions by similar means, but "what would be the point"?
I am not submitting a paper to be published in a technical journal that is expected to be peer reviewed, anticipating accolades from Associations, and recognition from the American chemical Society and other Societies. I have written and submitted many of these in the past. Now, I am simply sharing some knowledge that has value and is helpful to those that express interest.
I realized that I had made a mistake and allowed myself to be distracted by those who were only wishing to debate issues. I truly apologize to others and everyone I temporarily neglected. However, do not be mistaken, I will inject myself in certain matters that are incorrect, and perhaps, provide a simple remark in order that it not be mistaken that I am comfortable with incorrect data and statements being made and going unchecked. Also, at times, I may "drift" to some extent because that is my nature, and, it may be more for my benefit rather than yours. You may read these "drifts", or, you may ignore them. For my "drifting" I apologize in advance, consider them a characteristic flaw of an elder!
My new approach was to begin on 4 July 2023, Independence Day, an appropriate date, but, I recently encountered some medical issues of my own that delayed matters. But, I am. Alive! I will not forget people like @gemoody, and I intend to respond in a reverse order. It may sound unusual but, I believe, it will be more efficient and easier for me as well.
Please keep in mind, I can not prevent others who wish to debate each other. I can only point out mistakes and flawed thinking and conclusions.
I would like, and I would wish that this site contains only accurate and verifiable data and information, but, I now realize this too, is an impossibility. And, to think that it started with a simple and straightforward formulation to produce "The Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation". Not anything complicated, just a simple formulation.
I promise to do my best in the coming days, and I hope that you still "respect my intentions" and continue to participate in this Forum as it was intended.
Respectfully yours, "Wizzzard".
|
@rich121
I am pleased that you seem to be having a pleasant exchange with @whart , but, I do not see how it relates to this post. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to communicate in a different manner, or, on another post!
|
@mijostyn
O.K. This is going to require some clarification and will take some time. I promise to get back to this subject soon.
But first, you are convoluting several very distinct classes into one grouping. You have managed to combine "Chlorofluorocarbons", with "Chlorinated Solvents", with "Fluorinated Solvents", and with "aerospace lubricants developed in in 1959 by DuPont" that have found there way into a commercial lines somewhat later. The Molykote products in 1965 and the Krytox in 1981products.
I am going to avoid some "people" from trying to correct me. I am fully aware that Molykote was first developed in August of 1948 and the Krytox in September of 1959. And yes, I am aware that the U.S. Air Force was. able to acquire Molykote lubricants in 1960 (a well kept secret at the time), and was also used the Krytox products on the Apollo mission in 1965 and on aircraft. So, no need to try and correct me. And I was purchasing large quantities of Krytox in early 1981 (one of DuPont's first commercial customers).
But the primary issues are the solvents. And again to prevent others from attempting to correct me, I had a 2,500 gallon tank installed by Dupont outside our own business and purchased Freon 113 in large quantities. We were also purchasing truckload ( 80 drums) quantities of 1,1,1 Trichloroethane on a regular basis. I decided to use 1,1,1 versus Trichloroethylene even though there were no restrictions on its purchase, and was significantly cheaper. But, I chose Safety for our employees over cost and efficiency. I even was instrumental in trying the get Trichloroethylene banned long before anyone considered its dangerous. You need to know this did not help make me a "popular guy" in the Societies. I often was booed long before I was able to stand up to walk to the podium to give my presentation. And yes, even objects were hurled at me.
But I drifted. But in is complicated, and I need to present it well. In the mean time, Mijostyn, you are basically more correct than those that choose to try and correct you. Just wanted you to know that.
And, on the "brake fluids" there are those that are Chlorinated and much, much better for for cleaning brakes and parts. And, there are the "nonflammable brake fluids" in spray cans that do not have a respectable position among auto technicians anywhere.
Till later - I promise
|
@mijostyn
"CORRECTED" - To Late in the evening!
O.K. This is going to require some clarification and will take some time. I promise to get back to this subject soon.
But first, you are convoluting several very distinct classes into one grouping. You have managed to combine "Chlorofluorocarbons", with "Chlorinated Solvents", with "Fluorinated Solvents", and with "aerospace lubricants developed in in 1959 by DuPont" that have found there way into a commercial lines somewhat later. The Molykote products in 1965 and the Krytox in 1981products.
I am going to avoid some "people" from trying to correct me. I am fully aware that Molykote was first developed in August of 1948 and the Krytox in September of 1959. And yes, I am aware that the U.S. Air Force was. able to acquire Molykote lubricants in 1960 (a well kept secret at the time), and was also used the Krytox products on the Apollo mission in 1965 and on aircraft. So, no need to try and correct me. And I was purchasing large quantities of Krytox in early 1981 (one of DuPont's first commercial customers).
But the primary issues are the solvents. And again to prevent others from attempting to correct me, I had a 2,500 gallon tank installed by Dupont outside our own business and purchased Freon 113 in large quantities. We were also purchasing truckload ( 80 drums) quantities of 1,1,1 Trichloroethane on a regular basis. I decided to use 1,1,1 versus Trichloroethylene even though there were no restrictions on its purchase, and was significantly cheaper. But, I chose Safety for our employees over cost and efficiency. I even was instrumental in trying the get Trichloroethylene banned long before anyone considered its dangerous. You need to know this did not help make me a "popular guy" in the Societies. I often was booed long before I was able to stand up to walk to the podium to give my presentation. And yes, even objects were hurled at me.
But I drifted. But in is complicated, and I need to present it well. In the mean time, Mijostyn, you are basically more correct than those that choose to try and correct you. Just wanted you to know that.
And, on the "brake fluids" there are those that are Chlorinated and much, much better for for cleaning brakes and parts. And, there are the "flammable brake fluids" in spray cans that do not have a respectable position among auto technicians anywhere.
Till later - I promise (Sorry about having to correct)
|
@mijostyn
At some point I will explain more. But, for not, I have one very specific question for you. I need to be careful on how I phrase my question and to whom it relates to as well. I will explain that to you as well, and, that will be sooner rather than later. And, that explanation will not only be for you but for others as well. You will understand when it becomes known. But, for now, do not think that I am being "strange", but I need to know something from you specifically before I am able to provide an accurate response to some matters.
You had been "accused" (I know that may not be the best word), or you have stated (again, not knowing any history) that you used - "CFC-113", or, " incidental use of CFC-113".
I can only imagine that this relates to "Freon 113" , which is 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane, is that correct? If not, please correct. If so, please state how you had access to Freon 113, and how was it containerized, and in what year that may have been.
I have never heard Freon 113 referred to as CFC-113. That does not mean that it was not the case, it only means that I never heard of it expressed that way. I am curious though, that "in some circles" that may have been the case. Please note that I have purchased, either through our own business, or, for companies where I was employed, that I had purchased well over 2 million pounds of Freon 113 from DuPont over a relatively short period of time in my history. I need to know what is correct, and where material came from, or, who made what statements and when. Please, do not think that I am reacting strangely. I just need to know for now.
I await your response. Thank you.
|
@mijostyn
I do not mean to be a pest, but, you just stated that you used "a Freon", and, you have no idea what kind it was. Whether it was 113, or 11, or some other number. The HOW did you become associated with cleaning your vinyl records with "CFC-113?
|
@dogberry
I accept your’Apology! And, I also should apologize to you as well because I obviously was not totally clear in my response to you.
Recall that my initial response was not intended for you as previously stated. Also my primary point was not to correct your spelling. Believe me my spelling skills are pathetic, or I could have understood that you made a typo error, to which I can also relate.
My concern was exclusively that you believed it to be French and not Latin. Also, the College at Oxford I was making reference to taught certain subjects in Latin and, a few, even in ancient Greek. Not unusual for me, because the High School and Grammar School (last 3 years) taught Latin as a language so I was prepared. When I was invited for the 500 year anniversary of the College some 6 years ago, the Opening Address by the President was in Latin not English. So, I want you to understand also where I am coming from.
One last thing. Your last sentence suggests discussing vinyl. I would like you to be the first to know that I will be addressing this subject, and intend to speak of vinyls (plural). I will make myself clear and understood in a few days. It is this one misunderstanding that appears to relate to a number of issues that result in conflicting statements that I hope to clarify. So, yes I agree "Vinyls", and I also hope you do not ignore the other subjects in which I possess knowledge that I am willing to share.
So can we both agree "to better days and better communication"! I will do my best, and, I am fairly confident that you will as well.
I thank you for listening, and appreciating, and understanding.
Sincerely,
"Wizzzard"
|
@joenies
Yes, I mentioned "Record Mats". This happens to actually be an extensive study. And because it was so extensive, I will be getting back to it later after clearing up a few other matters first. I hope that it will not be that long from now. But I will give you some advance notice because it is restricted in one very specific way, that is, it is related to turntables with aluminum platters.
Any other platters will be an extrapolation only. All the testing was done on an AR-ES1 and an Oracle Delphi Model IV.
The results are surprising, I assure you.
But if you have a turntable that is Acrylic, or Glass, or anything else, its value is not as significant. I just wanted to inform you of that at the onset.
Till later,
|
@bdp24
Sorry to disappoint you, but, yes it is a "surface only" perfluoropolyether lubricant. I have prepared a very detailed response that I will submit on Sunday 23 July 2023. I do not have time now because of a family emergency. So, I hope that you and @mijostyn and @ljgerens can wait till then you will have everything that you need to know, that should satisfy everyone. I ask for your patience. Till later!
Thank you,
Sincerely, Wizzzard
|
@bdp24 @ljgerens @mijostyn @whart
Not something that I thought I would find myself doing. But I feel the need to step in as moderator. My justification in doing so is actually stated in the very initial post about one of the quintessential reasons I posted my “Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation” was in order that people should not be found paying ridiculous high prices for products that cost pennies to make, and for products that may not even provide the claims made by these companies or individuals.
@mijostyn , a person I have learned to respect from his posts, has stated his position about these products produced by The LAST Factory. And, he is correct in doing so. I may be mistaken, but, in his response to @ljgerens he may have gotten the “LAST preservative” mixed up with the “LAST cleaner”. In his brazen enmity and disdain for the worthlessness of the products I find it very easy to understand and accept.
And also Ljgerens did not appear to support any of the products or validate them in any of my readings of his posts. It is exactly as he had stated and that he was only commenting on what is included in the patent and brochures that he has viewed. Nothing more, nothing less.
And @bdp24 , I know you had stated that he “was one of the most ethical persons I have ever known”. He was an excellent hi-fi storeowner Livermore, California. You obviously knew Walter E Davis and was very impressed by him, and, as you state, that he had an extensive technical background and education. I am truly sorry that I must make some “Factual Statements” as has Ljgerens has already made some, I intend to further expound,
First there is no” binder” (whatever that may imply) in The Record Preservative. Mijostyn stated: “lying is an art form among human beings, and that the products are a hoax”. I fully agree with the exception that he should have inserted the word “some” between “among—-and—-human”.
I can only go by the presented information posted the “LAST Factory website”, and the list of products and their claims and their pricing. And by the patent filed by Walter E. Davies and Marion M. Fulk on 1 November 1993 and issued on 14 February 1995. and, that is, U.S. Patent number 5,389,281. First I would like to inform you that my first employer after completing my initial academics chose several people to attend law classes in Patent Law at a nearby University that had an excellent Law School. This is not an unusual activity for some major Corporations, and, do not mistake and I know Patent Law “inside and out”. But, I am surprise that such a Patent was even issued, and, how it slipped by the reviewers to be issued. Any Lawyer knows that the value of the patent is only truly established when it is challenged (if that ever occurs). But there are minimum standards for all claims, the lack of any unrelated or similar existing patents, etc., etc..Perhaps @whart may be interested to contribute with regard to this matter. He did state he was a retired Lawyer, and I realize Patent Law is a Speciality, but, he is certainly better qualified to provide accurate information related to this discussion. I hope he has something to contribute and is willing to do so. It would be sincerely appreciated by me as well as others because my knowledge is limited to several classes in Patent Law. Especially his input with regard to the “claims” made in the patent.
I will discuss “The all-purpose cleaner” and “The record preservative”. “The all-purpose cleaner” is sold in 2 packages. A 2 oz. bottle sells for $38.95, and, a 4 oz. bottle for $58.95. “The record preservative” is available as 2 oz. for $64.95, as 8 oz. for $228.95, and a 16 oz. bottle for $432.95.
“The record cleaner contains 4 ingredients. It is more than 97% deionized water, 2.34% Isopropyl alcohol, 0.01% of an anionic surfactant, and 0.48% of 3,5-dimethyl-1-hexyn-3-ol (a relatively common alcohol). Both the Aerosol OT-75, and the Sulfynol 61 are both very “cheap”. Both commonly used in low cost automotive windshield washer fluid among many other products that require a flow agent and surfactant.
“The record preservative contains only 2 ingredients. The one ingredient is perfluoropolyether (which is covered in a previous post), and as Ligerens also stated as a fluorinated lubricant which he is familiar with as well. This lubricant was originally developed by DuPont Chemical. It is incorporated at a level of 0.055%, and the other 99.945% is a blend of perfluorohexane, perfluoroheptane, and perfluorooctane. The majority of which is perfluorooctane. A blend such as this perfluoroalkane in “Industrial Circles’ is frequently called a “DAG”, which is a various blend allowing the product to be about 50% to 60% lower in cost than a specific ingredient, as in this case, that would be perfluorooctane. Another way of lowering the cost. For the benefit of Mijosyyn in his discussion with Ligerens, it is not a CFC because it contains no Chlorine, not that it matters much, but just to be precise.
Nevertheless, I took the liberty to calculate the raw material costs based on current pricing of materials in what would be considered relatively small quantities, that is, 5 gallon containers versus 55 gallon drum price which would be far significantly lower in price,
The 2 oz. All-purpose record cleaner that sells for $38.95 per bottle contains $0.030 worth of materials.
The 4 oz. All-purpose cleaner that sells for $58.95 per bottle contains $0.060 worth of raw materials.
The 2 oz. of LAST record preservative that sells for $64.95 contains $0.094 worth of raw materials.
The 8 oz. version that sells for $228.95 contains $0.374 worth of raw materials, and the 16 oz. “best value for your dollar” selling for $432.95 contains only $0.748 worth of raw materials.
And, if you believe a major investment in equipment is required, you would be wrong. A 5 gallon Plastic bucket and a stir stick and two scales, a funnel, and a few coffee filters and you are in business. A semi-sophisticated (meaning non-automatic) which would require a variable mixer, and a 25 litre stainless steel mixing vessel, with more accurate scales, and a variable volumetric manual filling device with proper industrial filters, wold cost no more than $2,000.00.
I took only the 16 oz. Record preservative as an example and contacted people that we use to purchase high quality “peel and stick” labels, and a company we purchased bottles from (colorred glass in this case). I am speaking high quality labels, better than those of The LAST factory, and they would be impervious because they would be coated and in three colour printing. I considered employing someone at $55,000.00 annually including all benefits and insurance, including Workers Compensation Insurance, and I calculated the Total Cost to produce a 16 oz. bottle of LAST record preservative to cost only $1.936 per bottle. The same product that you are expected to pay $432.95. That is a whopping 5,595 % Margin. I hope I made my point.
Now, @bdp24, if you believe this to be “ethical" , you need to re-evaluate your meaning of the word. I believe it is abhorrent, and almost criminal. I know it is not criminal, but my beliefs are different than the Law.
The claims, on the other hand, is another matter. Again, I ask if @wart to weigh in with his understanding. Fact, the “preservative” is a lubricant. It provides no preservation of the actual vinyl. And, their statement that it “bonds to the records” is an absolute impossibility. It is a surface application only, no bonding! Also, NO penetration takes place. And, certainly no bonding, even remotely, can take place. The Chemical bond between a Fluoride and another Carbon atom is one of the strongest chemical bonds to exist. In order for bonding to take place, this chemical bond needs the be “altered”, even just slightly, and that is a TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITY! Therefore, this claim is absolutely false.
I stated that I have no intension to ever express any opinions, so, anything else I would have to offer would only offensive. So I will make no other comments other than everything stated is factual and verifiable.
I realize my explanations are, at times lengthy, but I do want to be understood by everyone, and I find it necessary to at least provide enough information in order that I may be understood. I could have been even more detailed, and more technical, and provide even additional information, but I believe this is sufficiently adequate. And, if you have any additional specific questions, I will gladly provide you the necessary answers.
Thank you for your time. I hope this is finally laid to rest!
Wizzzard
|
@whart
Thank you anyway, and thank you for responding. So, perhaps someone else may be able to further comment on the patent issue.
Sincerely,
Wizzzard
|
@bdp24
Sorry about any misunderstanding! But, when one usually states that they consider them as "most ethical", that usually implies that one is ethical at all times. It is not as if you are "ethical" at work, but you are "unethical" at home.
That is an inconsistency that can not possibly exist. Basic logic must prevail throughout. And, I understand that you may feel offended, and I am truly sorry to have exposed Walter E. Davies's "other side" to you. I can understand why you may feel conflicted, but, facts are facts. Only an "opinion" can alter reality.
Sorry!
Wizzzard
|
