The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

@bdp24 

cc:    @mijostyn    @ljgerens 

                                        “ I state NO opinions ”

And I encourage others to refrain from voicing their opinions as much a possible, and to refrain from repeating the opinions of others as well.  I intended this Forum to be as factual as possible.  Not only pertaining to myself, but desiring and requesting it of others as well.  In essence I can state that it is “The Prime Directive” of this Forum.  With regard to questions, that is an entirely different matter, because ALL QUESTIONS to me will be considered.  There is no such thing as a bad question!  I am not Ghandi, who could make such a remark.  I had indicated this, as of day one, in my original post.

This post was intended for Mijostyn and Ljgerens.  I included you because I recalled that you had a high regard for Walter Davies, and expressed your esteem of him on several occasions.  I believed it was necessary to express my sincere sorrow to you independently because I was a messenger / bearer of disconcerting news to you.  And, I also wanted you to understand.  As former President Bill Clinton famously and frequently stated:  “I feel your pain”.  I thought I was being nice to you by sincerely expressing my feelings to you.

You have somehow managed to misconstrue and subvert my sincerely into something sinister.  It is impossible for me to understand you, and how you have managed to contort my messaging to you.

If you wish to cling to the verisimilitude that Mr. Davies provided you - that is your choice.  And, you can continue to live in “your reality” of events if you so choose.  But, please do not dismiss the FACTS provided to others that read this Forum as “opinions”.  I take umbrage with your statements regarding my convincing display of revelations regarding the respectability of a particular firm because of their pricing of products, but also with regard to their claims that are disproven by their own admission in their patent submission.  I relied on only the information provided in the patent and the actual ingredients used and the foundational functions provided by the manufacturers of the products that are actually used.  And what is consistent with all known Technologies including especially the Chemistry involved.

If you choose to remain oblivious to the actual realities - that is your choice.  But, do not be gratuitous towards others that have read the post and sagaciously been revealed a realism of which you disapprove.  You can not and should not insult the intelligence of all the others that read this Forum that are seeking correct data and information.

Because of your one personal experience with one individual many years ago, you can not totally dismiss all scientific evidence presented by either myself or others, and refer to actual proven FACTS as opinions.  Your dismissiveness is unacceptable.  If I can not address you with a sincere regret, I do not believe I can ever relate any accurate information to you.  Perhaps, others can, and, perhaps they may make an attempt, but, as far as I am concerned, I need to proceed to respond to others that are awaiting a response from me to their questions.  But, I needed to make one last attempt, otherwise, I would regret that I did not try sufficiently enough to allow you  to understand.

                                     “No more soup for you”

Wizzzard 

 

@mijostyn 

cc:  @ljgerens 

Regarding your post Today at 12:00 PM.  You are able to detect the difference in odour between Fluorine and Chlorine in their "Elemental Stage" which is as a gas, however, it is extremely difficult, or, rather more as impossible to detect a difference  in aroma as a Fluoride and as a Chloride.  So, there is nothing wrong with your nose.  Perhaps, a very well trained "nose" may possibly be able to detect the difference, but, even that would be exceptional.  Therefore, there was no error on your part.  I only wanted you to be aware, and, to be accurate in my response.

As I noted in my opening remarks of this Forum that "Magical Ingredients" that produce "Magical Results", most obviously, must be very expensive!

The perfluoropolyether lubricant is NOT volatile, nor would it be "carried" with the rapid evaporation of the perfluoroalkanes included in the product and compromises the vast majority of material of the "so called preservative".  The minute level incorporated in the claimed "preservative"  would not be able to be detected by you with your microscope.  I doubt that even @ljgerens  would be able to detect its' existence with his Electron Microscope.  But, I would not know that for certain, only he can accurately respond.  I am basing my statement  based on very similar compositions, and arriving at my statement to you founded on that particular knowledge.

Wizzzard

@ljgerens 

cc:  @mijostyn 

I only read your comment to Mijostyn after I responded to his remarks.  I should have read your statement before responding to Mjostyn.  Nevertheless, thank you for for your input, it is sincerely appreciated.

While I have you.  You were the first to ask me questions with regard to Ultrasonic Cleaning.  And this forum is full of various inputs.  I did mention that I am familiar with Ultrasonic Cleaning, however, not related to vinyl records.  And, I do intend to make some statements a bit later.

However, with all the discourse regarding this subject, as of yet, I have not heard of any specifics related to the machines.  I was intending to ask you this much earlier, but, life interrupted my intentions.  What frequencies are we considering, is it fixed or variable, what type of drivers are used, and what power ratings are being considered as well as the "time element" in the bath.  And, is rinsing always a necessity.

Basically, I know all that I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning", but, I have absolutely no knowledge of the details used by various machines available for vinyl record cleaning, and, also more details about the device that you constructed yourself.  And, if you can include some comparatives.  Yes, I know I can investigate this matter myself, but I have no intention of doing so.  Especially when someone as yourself can provide a condensed version for me to peruse.

I hope you are willing to provide me with this information.  There is no urgency because I need to address some other matters on this post first.  So, if you have some spare time, i sincerely would appreciate your input.

Thank you again for your post.

Wizzzard

@rich121 

cc:  @mijostyn ​​@drkingfish ​​@ljgerens 

As to your posts on 25 July 2023 at 2:20 PM and 3:15 PM, have you absolutely nothing else better to do than to TRY and ATTEMPT to find fault with statements that I make without realizing that you are exposing yourself.

I had requested information from Ljgerens.  And, I had written the following:  "Basically, I know all that I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning"

  Ultrasonic Cleaning - is a "Process"

  A vinyl record - is an "Object".

  A Ultrasonic Cleaner designed to clean vinyl records - is a "Device" 

I suggest you consult a dictionary to investigate the meanings of the three very different words are, that is, Process, Object, and Device.

And' yes, "I do know all that I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning"! When you have purchased more than several machines, some of which that did cost over $150,000.00, you tend to know a sufficient amount of information about the process and the specific devices that you had purchased, installed, and operated.

I was inquiring about the devices mentioned so far in this forum, because, I have not seen ANY specifics mentioned.  I mentioned just a few specifications to be congruent of a proper sentence structure, nothing more.  Neither Ljgerens, nor anyone else has yet to respond.  However, I did state that there is no immediate concern, just, that, at some point, I am provided some specific specifications before I make any response.  That is all, nothing more and nothing less.

Wizzzard 

@drkingfish 

Absolutely NOTHING!.  Sorry about that!  I inadvertently included you to receive a copy because at @rich121 included a post that you received from "Mr. W.", and that was my mistake.  I remembered to remove you, but than I forgot to.  Further proof that sometimes "old geezers" with numerous handicaps should not be submitting posts at 12:25 AM with only one eye open.

Sorry about that!  My Bad!

Wizzzard 

@ljgerens 

I must have been having some bad days.  I recently purchased a new Mac Pro and a 32 inch (for old geezer eyes) 6k XDR Display while providing my wife with my previous Mac Studio and Studio Display.  All this while "suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune".  Further demonstrating my incapabilities of multitasking.  Therefore creating self-confusion.

Nevertheless my request to you, and to you specifically, was to obtain specifics about your own ultrasonic cleaning device you constructed for you own purposes, while also providing details (specifications only) of the various machines that you are aware of that are specifically designed and sold for cleaning vinyl records and vinyl records only.

As I mentioned to @rich121 earlier:   

[ I had requested information from Ljgerens.  And, I had written the following:  "Basically, I know all that I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning"

  Ultrasonic Cleaning - is a "Process"

  A vinyl record - is an "Object".

  A Ultrasonic Cleaner designed to clean vinyl records - is a "Device" 

I suggest you consult a dictionary to investigate the meanings of the three very different words are, that is, Process, Object, and Device.

And' yes, "I do know all that I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning"! When you have purchased more than several machines, some of which that did cost over $150,000.00, you tend to know a sufficient amount of information about the process and the specific devices that you had purchased, installed, and operated.

I was inquiring about the devices mentioned so far in this forum, because, I have not seen ANY specifics mentioned.  I mentioned just a few specifications to be congruent of a proper sentence structure, nothing more.  Neither Ljgerens, nor anyone else has yet to respond.  However, I did state that there is no immediate concern, just, that, at some point, I am provided some specific specifications before I make any response.  That is all, nothing more and nothing less. ]

My experience with Ultra Sonics  and vinyl record cleaning was more of a "giggle"at best, when I used one of our Lab Cleaners, which was an unusual valuable variable frequency (with limitations, of course) machine.  It was required because we were "Self- Certifiable" with regard to CSA Standards, and they specified certain criteria and equipment that we had to meet on a regular basis.  It was a pain but well worth it in the long run.

So, basically I know nothing about the machines that are being used for record cleaning, and, nothing has ever been mentioned by anyone else previously.  So, I am asking you for an outline and a brief synopsis, if and when you have the time.  There is no urgency but I would like to know some particulars before I voice any comments about the Chemistry and Physics aspects only that are involved.

Based on you previous posts I am requesting this information from you and only you because I sense that I can "trust" your information.

Also, sorry about the misunderstanding about your access to an Electron Microscope, however, that was also stated more in jest than in reality.  It is obvious that an Electron Microscope can and would be able to detect the perfluoropolyether as well.  I was intending to relate how little lubricant is in this particular product with the intent to express the insignificance of the quantity in the product in relation to the outrageous claims made by the firm.

I am sorry to have confused the matter, and I request your understanding and forgiveness.

Please keep me informed if you have the time available.

Thank you very much for your understanding in advance.

Wizzzard

@pindac 

cc:  @mijostyn ​​@lewm 

I remembered your original post, and I reviewed that you made that statement on 11 June at 11:46 AM that you have used Dehypon LS 54 nonionic surfactant as a substitute for Tergitol 15-S-9 and you noted that my recommendation was for Tergitol 15-S-7 and NOT Tergitol 15-S-9.

Somewhat later that same day, 11 June at 6:06 PM I stated that I intended to phone an old friend who is now retired but was the V.P. of Research and Development of BASF in Germany.  And that it was my turn to call him because he phoned me last just before Christmas last year.  Nevertheless, he is now on vacation (typical in Germany) so I will not be able to speak with him until about mid-August.

In the interim, perhaps, I can help a bit.  I am familiar with BASF’s “coding” system, so allow me to explain what Dehypon LS 54 really is.  First the name Dehypon simply is a Registered Trade Mark Name BASF has selected for a particular series.  The “L” in LS 54 stands for Laurel Alcohol.  Laurel Alcohol is a “common name” for Dodecanol.  Dodecanol contains exactly 12 Carbon atoms, and is a “Fatty Acid Alcohol” (I will explain).  Laurel Alcohol, as I stated is a common name which is based on what it is derived from.  Because of the derivative (today most likely coconut oil and / or palm oil), it can contain either 12 Carbon atoms or 14 Carbon atoms.  (13 Carbon atoms is a very rare possibility and is very unlikely).  And that is why you may sometimes see it written as C12-C14.  Fatty Acid Alcohols have an even number of Carbon atoms because of the nature of the fatty acid it is made from.  So, that takes care of the “L”.  The “S” stands for Secondary Alcohol.  And, as I stated in another post, that means, that the Hydroxyl Group (-OH) which makes an alcohol an alcohol is not located at the end of the molecule but rather at the midpoint of the molecular structure.

The “5” stands for 5 moles of Ethylene Oxide, and the “4” stands for 4 moles of Propylene Oxide.

So, in the case of LS 54, we need to add 5 moles of Ethylene Oxide to 4 moles of Propylene Oxide.  Thus giving us a Total of “9” moles of reactant with the alcohol to produce the desired surfactant.

Do not worry there will be not be a test afterwards.

So, in your first post on this matter you compared it to Tergitol 15-S-9.  Do you now see that both the Dow product and the BASF product are based on Laurel Alcohol and they both use 9 moles to produce the surfactant.  However, and that is a big However.  The Dow product uses Ethylene Oxide exclusively, while, the BASF product uses combination of Ethylene Oxide and Propylene Oxide.

This makes the BASF Dehypon LS 54 an excellent nonionic surfactant to add to a laundry detergent to clean your dirty underwear and dirty socks.  And if you use the BASF product the propylene oxide is better if your underwear and socks are 100% cotton rather than a blend or containing some synthetic fabric.

So yes there is a meaningful similarity of Dehypon LS 54 to Tergitol 15-S-9.  However, my stated formulation calls for Tergitol 15-S-7 because I intend to clean vinyl records and not to launder dirty underwear.

So, while we are at it, lets simplify some of this alcohol classification.  We are aware of the most basic alcohol, Methanol.  Methanol contains only 1 Carbon atom.  It is sometimes called “wood alcohol” because originally it was produced from the destructive distillation of wood.  Next, we have Ethanol which contains only 2 Carbon atoms.  It is produced by the fermentation of sugars (mainly derived from corn starch) with a yeast.  The starches are converted to sugars, and the sugars are fermented to produce  -  Booze  -  or Ethanol.  Next we come to the Propanols'.  Here we have 3 Carbon atoms.  Now the Hydroxyl group (-OH) can be located at the end, which is N-Propanol, or, the (-OH) group can be located the midpoint, which is Isopropyl alcohol.  Isopropanol is the “most simple” Secondary alcohol.  This becomes important for other reasons that continue to be mentioned on this Forum.  “Why Ethanol, and why not Isopropyl Alcohol”  Ethanol is called a Primary alcohol.  Isopropyl Alcohol is a Secondary Alcohol.  “Therein lies one rub”.  I will not get into the complicated reasons at this point as to the “Whys”.  But, Primary Alcohols react in specific ways in which Secondary Alcohols can not.  Likewise, Secondary Alcohols react in specific ways in which Primary Alcohols can not.  Very distinct reactions with very distinct consequences.  This pertains to all Primary and Secondary alcohols.  That is why differences are noted in the end results.

Butanol, also known as Butyl Alcohol contains 4 Carbon atoms.  It is the First in the series of “Fatty Acid Alcohols, and, you can go up to 30 Carbon atoms which is called Tricontanol.  So, the vast

majority of alcohols are “Fatty Acid Alcohols” and all are made by the same process.  And with rare exceptions the number of Carbon atoms is an even number.  To make odd number Fatty Acid Alcohols other unusual steps need to be taken. (No reason to go there.)

Nobody ever need to know more about alcohols unless it is your career.

I promise to find out if BASF has a product identical to Tergitol 15-S-7.  But, in the interim the BASF Lutensol LA more closely resembles the 15-S-7 because it uses 7 moles of Ethylene Oxide and no Propylene Oxide.  However, the “A” in Lutensol LA stands for a Primary alcohol.  The “L” stands for Laurel alcohol again.  There are no numbers that follow because that purports that “7” moles are reacted to make the surfactant.

If you continue to use Dehypon LS 54 follow the following formula:

  Distilled Water                          77.900%  parts by weight

  Ethanol                                      22.000%  parts by weight

  Dehypon LS 54                          0.100%  parts by weight (Approx. no less than 5                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                             no more than 6 drops)        

  Total                                        100.000%

 

If Lutensol LA is readily available, then follow the following formula:

 

  Distilled Water                     77.930%  parts by weight

  Ethanol                                22.000%  parts by weight

  Lutensol LA                           0.070%  parts by weight  (Approx. 4 drops no more) 

  Total                                   100.000%

@mijostyn 

Good day Mijostyn!  Can you please explain your post at 11:28 AM today.

Also, thank you for the information that you relayed to me at 12:20 PM.  I can state now that you were correct, that is all I needed to know for now.  And thank you for responding even though I asked for some basic info from @ljgerens .

It must be obvious to you as well that there exists a contentiousness among some of those who post on this forum towards me.  I do not know if you noticed, that when I stated on 14 July 2023 that I was back, and that I would approach this forum in a somewhat different manner - that the post was REMOVED.  Apparently people (plural) objected to what I had stated.  It was reinstated a few days later.  Also, other postings of mine were removed only to be included again.  I do not know if this is something that you are aware of on other forums.  But, I am very pleased with the Administrator of this website and these forums for acting properly.  I have nothing but compliments for the Administrator, however, I do not understand why others find what I say to be so objectionable to them.  I am only trying to present factual statements.  And, I do not understand why these individuals do not address me directly rather than go running to complain indirectly.  Why not address me directly!

Sorry, I drifted.  Thank you for the info it is sufficient for my addressing Ultrasonics which I already believe you will agree with, but, I also believe all hell will break loose after it is posted.

I also just realized that I never answered your question about Freon 113 having an effect on vinyl records.  Regardless, of what you have already heard from the individual who promised on several occasions that he would not waste any more of his time posting anything on this forum ever again  -  he continues to post to this day.  I will answer you in detail tomorrow, but for now, for all intents and purposes, Freon 113 will present no harmful effects on vinyl records as you had stated,and that you believed.  I can assure you, you are absolutely correct (with a very few minor very remote exceptions),  Freon 113 presents no dangers of damage to vinyl recordings.  And that again is a fact!

Wizzzard 

@lewm 

Sorry Lewm, you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG.  It again is a FACT.  Remember I only post FACTS.  And, it is not just one person, but several.

Stop talking about something you know nothing about.  The information provided to me is VERIFIABLE as is everything else I post.

My information is straight from "the horses mouth" so to speak.

So, please keep your statements to yourself.  I did not make my statement based on speculation, it was based on evidence!

Wizzzard

@lewm 

Yes, I was "quick on the trigger", but, I did not believe that I appeared to "seeming to say", but, rather "did say".  And, no, I am not paranoid. 

And you used the word "one", I stated the "plural".  A minor distinction but nevertheless one that required clarification.

Did you happen to notice in my response to @pindac the distinction that Ethanol is a Primary alcohol, and that Isopropanol is a Secondary alcohol.  And do you recall First Year Organic Chemistry which spent a considerable time discussing and explaining the differences between SN1 Reactions and SN2 Reactions, and how this may pertain, to some degree, to your original good question regarding Ethanol versus Isopropyl alcohol.

I am certain that some day someone else will ask that question, and, you may finally get the answer that I did prepare for you, but, later chose to send a "condensed" (but accurate) version to you.

I may explain further tomorrow.  My demons are summoning me!

Wizzzard 

@mijostyn 

Was just curious, I had thought that perhaps you had been blocked.  Thank you for responding, also, thank you again for the Ultrasonics info.  I obviously new you made a typo.  But. I am fascinated on how many others promptly spewed specifications after your post when prior no-one made any effort to provide me with any information.

Till later!

@kylehildebrant 

I apologize I have been away for a few days and was unable to post.  Also, My new computer appears to be very problematic, and it is driving me crazy.

I noticed that this is your very first post - and what a post it is (although you may not understand the significance that I am relating to).  Noting the "unnecessary back and forth", and asking for answers to what would normally appear to be simple and straightforward matters.  Not realizing that my answers to you will rupture the brain vessels of several of the contributors to this Forum.

Nevertheless, you can obtain Tergitol 15-S-7 (now a Dow Chemical Product) on the internet from:  a.) "The Lab Depot", or, b.) "Advance Scientific & Chemical", or, by contacting (by phone) a local Dow Representative or Dow Chemical Distributor.  There are other internet choices, but you will need to do your own searches.  Phoning a Dow Representative or Distributor may be very productive, however, unfortunately it has a lot to do with where you reside.  Remember when speaking to any of these individuals to be truthful and honest with regard to your intentions, and your interest in the product.  You may be pleasantly surprised, or, not!

The answer to your second question is that YES it can be used in an Ultrasonic Cleaning device, but, recall your times in the bath may only be one-tenth of a "normal" time period, and that no rinsing (especially with distilled or deionized water is required or recommended.  It is self-defeating in many respects.  If you feel compelled the "rinse" then rinse only with the formulation that is presented.

Before I say more, I would ask of you to first respond if you already have an Ultrasonic Cleaning device or not?  Get back to me about this, and it can be further discussed.

This is where I already sense that other contributors minds are "blowing up" (yes, pun intended).  You may understand at some point as to my referrals, and, if and when you do, you can then explain it to me.

Recall, my "Very best Record Cleaning Formulation" is just that, and it is to be "an ease of use" product as well.

Good Luck, and keep in touch!

Wizzzard 

@lewm 

Yes, I was prepared to respond to you with one of my surly statements again, especially after you, did not disappoint me, and was able to inform me of what my personal thoughts that kept reappearing in my mind actually were. 

Of course I knew that the Captain played by Strother Martin while standing on the ridge said ""what we have here is a failure to communicate".  However I included the (BANG) after the quote to relate when it is REPEATED by Paul Newman just before he is killed, is more significant and relevant to the entire  story.  Plus, and a very important plus, they were MY THOUGHTS.  How insightful of you.

But I chose not to post my prepared scathing remarks.  Especially after I had witnessed a possible glimmer of hope.  Although, the remark was in parenthesis by you [ Despite Wizzzard's antagonistic attitude toward my posts, I may change the formula thanks to him.]. You need to go back in time to the very beginnings of time to review who was "antagonistic first", in fact "the antagonism" started before I even made any statements.

But, because of that "possibility and glimmer" I will forgo my prepared statement and "make you an offer you can't refuse".  Actually you can refuse but perhaps you should not.

Now, you stated what you use volumetrically, and I would hope you can convert that to parts by weight for better precision.  you, however, never mentioned how much Triton X-100 you use in your formulation.  Everything else is now known.

Allow me to state (in may terms) your formulation.

Deionized Water.                           803.650  grams

Isopropyl Alcohol (98.0%).            196.350  grams

Triton X-100                                     ?.???  grams

Total Weight                             1,000.00+.  grams

 

Now, if you slightly lower the amount of Isopropyl Alcohol and use the correct amount of Triton X-100, the formulation would be as follows:

 

Deionized Water.                        804.772. grams

Isopropyl Alcohol (98.0%).         195.000. grams

Triton X-100                                   0.228. grams  ( Approx. 11 to 12 drops)

Total Weight:                          1,000.000. grams

 

Now, go ahead," just for the heck of it", compare the above to the following.  It won't kill you.

Deionized Water                        779.772  grams

Ethanol  (99.5%)                       220.000. grams

Triton X-100                                  0.228. grams. (Approx. 11 to 12 drops)

Total Weight:                         1,000.000. grams      

Also keep in mine that 12 drops is better, but do not add more, the reasoning behind the 11 to 12 drops, original suggestion.

Use it as you would normally.  We now know that we both have VPI HW-17 Record Cleaners.  And they are of about the same time period.  Another thing I did manage to recall.  Was that when my unit was given to me by the individual that I purchased a lot of other equipment from, also provided me with a bottle of "VPI Record cleaner.  The bottle was about 500 cc, I have no idea as to what the surfactants or additives (if any) were, but, I distinctly remember without any doubt, that it contained Ethanol as well as water.  Also, there was no trace whatsoever of any Isopropyl Alcohol.  I can assure you I have a very "good nose" for solvents.  Others jokingly use to say ask Wizzzard to do a "Finger Chromatography".  Which I did, and, surprised many people by not only the content but the percentage.  What can I say, it was a "Gift"!

If you agree to perform this simple test, regardless of the results you provide me, I promise to tell you all the details of as to why Ethanol and not Isopropyl Alcohol.  More detail than you will ever want to know.  This is so that you do not have to embarrass yourself to thank someone for a "non-answer"- "answer".  And, I will be kind up front so you need not to bother "doing a deep dive" into Hansen's 519 page book.  The answer is not in there.  I did not think so, but, just to be certain I went through my Complimentary Edition that I have in my Library.  Yes, I did say that correctly, my Complimentary Second Edition .  You see CRC Press made an offer to me many years ago, and I still receive Various Books at no charge even though the company has changed hands many times.  I only stated this because I would not waste any money purchasing that insult to Dr. Joel Henry Hildebrand, with whom I had the pleasure, and honor, to collaborate with many, many years ago for about 6 months.  One of the greatest Chemists this Country has ever known.  And one of my greatest experiences as well.  He received every distinction and award possible, with the exception of the Nobel Prize, which he was worthy of as well.  And, as for Hansen in his Phd. Thesis to do a terrible injustice to

SORRY, I have to stop , I am getting very emotional and annoyed right now, you can't imagine.

I am sorry I will need to leave you now. please consider what I offered.  Perhaps when I cool off I can explain myself better to you. 

I have to go!

 

 

 

To all.

I intended to answer a several more questions today, but I can not continue any further today.

My last post stirred up a lot of emotion, and I just can not continue any more today.

Till another time.

Thank you for your understanding.

Wizzzard,

@bdp24 ​​@cleeds ​​@dogberry   @lewm. @drbond ​​@drkingfish ​​@ericsch ​​@eryoung2k  @fleschler  @gemoody ​​@jasonbourne71    @jm-audiophilemusiclover ​​@joenies ​​@jwillox ​​@kennyc   @kylehildebrant ​​@lewm   @llg98ljk ​​@lloydc ​​@mijostyn ​​@mojo771 ​@moonwatcher    @mrthunder ​​@normantaylor ​​@noromance ​​@oilmanmojo ​​@ossicle2brain  @pindac  @recklesskelly ​​@rhg3 ​​@rich121 ​​@richmon ​​@rtrlover ​​@thecarpathian 

I apologize to everyone especially @lewm for allowing my emotions and my medical condition preventing the conclusion of my message to Lewm and others on 30 July 2023 @ 4:40 PM

I determined that I needed to submit another comprehensive statement explaining my issues concerning the undesirable direction of this particular Forum and that it is not proceeding as intended.  I wanted to obviously be totally objective and not allow personal experiences and issues interfere with what should be a purely clinical statement.

The following day I logged onto the Forum to be struck by profound but very dissimilar postings.  One post was a sincere expression by @lewm that I truly appreciated.  The other was a post by a new individual, @drbond, that was very perceptive in its’ nature, and his understanding of both the the objective of the Forum, as well as my visible frustration.  His suggestion of listening to music is one of my basic precepts, and his advice in musical selection could not have been better.  His selection demonstrated his understanding even further.  To the contrary of these meaningful posts was a post made by "Mr. W" which was clearly most disingenuous, even to the extent that it contained an additional caveat to enhance his pretense.

Needless to say, I again found myself unable to present any coherent statement that day and waited for another time while debating my intended presentation.

The next day I logged in again only to discover matters did not improve as "Mr. W" was now again providing his pontifications to matters that were intended for the Forum initiator.  "Mr. W" was now not just continuing to contaminate this Forum with his pontifications from his "collage" he calls a book, to essentially abducting this forum for his own intended purposes because of the lack of interest in his own forum that he started over two years ago.  The following days continued in a similar manner, it was at this point that I had an additional thought to consider.  Since I was still debating as how to best express myself, I considered to allow the Forum to continue as it had, to see if the outcome would approach my recent thoughts to any degree.  Never did I imagine that it would continue for such a period of time without a posting by anyone.  I obviously must now interrupt this cycle and post some statement.

The last post made was on 6 August 2023 at 9:04 AM.  It has now been 22 days without a post even though the views continued at a reasonable rate.  One can draw many conclusions from this however I have selected mine.  I wanted to understand the fundamental problems that I was unexpectedly having.  I now believe I understand, but I must now apologize for the method I selected.  I hope everyone understands.

I wish to share my knowledge with those that are interested, however, I do not wish to squander my limited time correcting certain individuals even though their incorrect statements can not remain without being corrected.  I also need to be careful because my riposte to certain individuals were considered offensive by them that they resorted to tactics to remove previous well expressed explanations of mine to be temporarily removed - I do not wish that to happen again.

If you find the time, much of this has already been covered from the onset.  It is mentioned repeatedly at the beginning of every page, which is the very first post.  You only need to read the last three short paragraphs of the first post.  Also, the brief statement I made 16 June 2023, and the rather lengthy, but significant, statement that followed on 17 June 2023 at 4:36 PM.  I am fully aware that two separate issues are fundamentally in play, however, they are interconnected to some extent.

In common terms there are expressions that are quite appropriate and meaningful, such as, "It only takes one rotten apple to spoil the entire bunch".  But, since this is intended to be a scientific and technical Forum, in Chemistry and in Physics there exists the concept of a "nucleating agent".  We witness this scientific event every time we prepare pasta.  When we bring water to a boil we add salt prior to adding the pasta.  The addition of salt at this period causes an "explosion" of millions of tiny bubbles while the salt still maintains its’ crystalline structure and subsides when the salt dissolves.  If the salt were to be replaced with crushed glass of the same consistency (not that I would ever suggest doing such) this event would continue unabated.  Which brings me to my first segment of my comprehensive statement, that to allow this Forum to continue as intended, we need to avoid the "salting" of the Forum.

This individual, "Mr. W", who has repeatedly stated that he would not waste any of his time with any involvement in this Forum, and said his "final farewells" more than once - FINALLY does keep his word and avoids inserting himself and his incorrect comments once and forever!

This individuals’ verisimilitudic meanderings contribute confusion by negating basic fundamental scientific realities, and in its’ stead inserting his sanctimonious perfunctory beatitudes is disturbing.  These ostentatious presentations of his disguised as sagacious posts are nothing more than pernicious deviations that intend to appear didactic on the surface, are in reality, a supercilious exposure that is extremely destructive in nature of very basic facts, which is a fundamental aspect that is sought on this Forum.

This methodology of his, that has obviously served him well in his prior endeavors of his career, is in opposition of my methodology that not only is inherently based solely on substantiated facts but with assiduity and diligence.  This methodology of "Mr. W" to attempt to elucidate an issue by continuously providing surfeit data creating a cancatervate of verbiage that is salient of incorrect data and contradicts the basic tenants of TRUE SCIENCE is dangerous and misleading.

I encourage those that are besotted by this individual and his postings to be more astute and aware of these incorrect statements presented as facts are nothing more than his misunderstood interpretations of what "others had written".  I ask you to carefully parse his collection of "data" and be aware to segregate his biased misunderstood statements presented as factual while truly being incorrect in a multitude of respects.

I assure you that I am fastidious and that my statements are factual and verifiable.  I may mention the work of others, but, never claim those works as mine.  And the verifications are not only based on scientific realities, but also verified by me personally.  I would never state something as factual unless I could also verify the statements by my own actions if and when necessary.

I would now like to revisit what started this dissertation.  After reading Lewm’s sincere message, the disingenuous post from "Mr. W" followed mentioning the "discourse" on Wikipedia about Mr. Hansen.  I am relating to actual personal exposures and dealings with these individuals.  Working with some of the most brilliant people in the Sciences, as well as with frauds.  Personal contacts and personal impressions and interactions, and, "Mr. W" meanwhile is referring me to a comment he read in Wikipedia.  And, in this same post he initiates another futile attempt to correct me.  (This is not the first time he has made such an attempt but his third).  he relates to a "childish reminder" that "20 drops of water is equal to 1 mL of water which is equal to 1 g. of water". He mentions his favorite Nalgene dropper bottle once again. And signs off with a fallacious "Peace".

I have had people correcting me on a variety of things. One individual was correcting me about the Degrees issued at U.K. Universities, such as Oxford, never ever even considering that "Wizzzard" attended one of those Colleges at Oxford University where such degrees are/were issued.

Another individual attempted to correct me by stating that "Chirurgie" is French not Latin, never stopping to consider that Wizzzard studied Latin for six years and ancient Greek for four years and attended a College at Oxford where some subjects were taught in Latin and Greek. Also, never stopping to consider that Wizzzard is fluent in several languages and "functional" in several others. (Latin, and ancient Greek not included, because they are not conversational).

And now "Mr. W" relates "grade school guidelines" about drops and weights, never stopping to consider that I, Wizzzard, actually weighed out two drops of Tergitol 15-S-7 on his $5,600 Sartorius analytical balance. Not just once but five times and taking the average of the five readings. This never crossed his mind because his mind does not even allow such things to ever enter or even be considered. Fact is, that 1 drop of Tergitol 15-S-7 weighs 0.02888 g. So in my presented "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" which is based on parts by weight, I state to use 0.038 g. to produce 1 kg or (Approximately 1 Liter) actually 998.203 ml. of cleaning fluid at 20°C, and, I placed in parentheses "Approximately 2 drops".  Two drops will equal 0.0577 g. which is 52% more than required.  I know, I knew, that at the onset.  My formulation is in parts by weight and many individuals, if not most, do not have the equipment to measure such small quantities, therefor, I had to approximate the amount in drops as well.  You can not measure half or quarter drops, so it was only logical to state an amount that would be sufficient, and, 1 drop would NOT meet the requirement, therefor, I stated 2 drops.  It is not because I do not know how to calculate, or, how many drops should have been stated as "Mr. W" implied on a few occasions.  It troubles me that I need to explain such things and wasting my time instead of providing other meaningful knowledge that I would like to share with everyone.  I realize that this is a weakness of mine, but, I can not allow such remarks to exist without correction and explanation.  This childish nonsense needs to STOP, and it needs to STOP immediately after this presentation.

When I indicated that the formulation I presented was done by "design", that was entirely correct.  I needed to take many things into consideration including the hundreds of formulations incorporated into "Vinyl LP records" over the years and also the hundreds of additives that were used to establish what was to be considered as a "most encompassing vinyl compounded formulation".  One of the main objectives was to "do no harm to the recording" besides developing the very best cleaning formulation for such a substrate.  This was all very carefully considered before beginning to formulate the cleaning formulation.  I did all the necessary mathematical calculations to determine what can be used and to obtain the lowest Surface Tensions at 20 C. and 25 C.  BUT, I also had to verify the calculated design by actually measuring the Surface Tensions at the intended temperatures.  I did so by using my Stalagmometer developed in the mid 1800’s to measure Surface Tension of liquids and is still the primary device used to this day.  I also had to follow the very detailed proper procedure required to obtain the precise Surface Tensions.  The Surface Tensions that are stated in conjunction with the formulation presented, are those that were actually measured, by me, using my Stalagmometer.  Yes, the mathematical expectations and calculations were very close to the measured values, but, only the actual measured values were stated.  I stated only the actual measured Surface Tensions.  That is what I refer to as Verification.  I hope you can understand why I get upset when someone, or, when someone’s devoted followers questions my statements as mere "suppositions" that require questioning or correction.

Also, as any good Chemist, I use a Stalagmometer to determine the amount of drops required as well to see how it also correlates.  A Stalagmometer is a pipet device that has a bulbous midsection with a capillary bottom and a standard upper portion.  It comes in three sizes and I have all three with duplicates of #1 and #3.  An A.S.T.M. method requires specification of type used for very technical presentations, and, since #1 is used about 95% of the time, and, this was not being presented to The American Chemical Society, but to audiophiles, I found no need to state unnecessary info and clutter a "simple post".  I am bringing these matters up only now in order that you understand and appreciate my efforts to be thorough in order that you can have absolute confidence in my statements.  I found no need to bore you until this provocateur "Mr. W" has forced me to write these unnecessarily long explanations in order that you may discount his interruptions and have the confidence I seek in those that read and post in this Forum, and are requesting additional information.

Also. "W" keeps referring to the explosive nature of a 22% solution of Ethanol in water, and continues to bring up "Flash Points".  Never once being specific as to whether the "flash point" was determined as a "Closed-Cup" or "Open-Cup" flash points.  Now back in the days when I attempted to communicate with him, he was extremely offended when I asked him about his Academic qualifications.  Since I am keeping my promise unlike his (which has no meaning), I wonder how offended "W’ would be if someone asked him how many "flash point determinations" he has made personally, and, not something again that he had read on Wikipedia?

The day after I turned 14 years of age and received my Social Security Number, I started working at a Public Library (part time) for $27.50 per week on average.  Later that same Summer at the age of 14 I began work at a major chemical company.  All starters at this company, with the exception of those with their Phd’s or those that were recruited, were required to work for 5 weeks in the Quality Control Lab before moving to an assigned Lab.  Whether you had your Masters or your Bachelor’s or nothing - this was the requirement by the C.E.O. of the company to familiarize yourself with all incoming raw materials including solvents, and intermediates produced, and finished products, including water-bornes that contained solvents, etc..  It was a great introduction.  The Lab had individuals that worked only in Quality Control as well as the 5 week transients that moved on to other areas.  One of the many tests I learned to preform was "flash point determinations", both Open-Cup and Closed-Cup.  Other tests included measuring Surface Tensions of Liquids including solvents, and solvent blends, and intermediates via the method I previously mentioned as well as other methods.  "Bottom Line ", at the age of 14, I preformed hundreds of both "Open-Cup and Closed-Cup Flash Point Determinations" that Summer before being transferred to "The Conductive Lab".  I was paid $136.00 per week.  That was a lot of money for a 14 year old in 1958 as a Summer employment job.  So, you might say that I have a pretty good understanding of "Flash Points" even at a very early age, and also had an excellent understanding of the results and their significance.  So, who is going to ask "W" how many "Flash Point Determinations" he has done personally, but, more importantly, what is his understanding of results, if any.  I have a notion that this question need not be asked, and I believe I already know the answer based upon his previous comments.

Another point that "Mr. W" had made that ruptured a blood vessel in my brain on 8 July 2023 at 3:35 PM, and I paraphrase, "Vinyl record is a co-polymer of PVC and PVA".  As I have stated many times do not make statements that you know absolutely nothing about.

Since "Mr. W’s" "book" is primarily a collection of works of others with inserted charts and graphs, and references to papers and other documents with notations of additional material that must or should be looked into, I do not know who is actually responsible for this monumentous error.  Is "W" the initiator, or, is he just parroting statements of others, because I have noted this error at other locations and papers, therefor, I am in no position to pass any judgement.  However, it is an excellent example of a terrific error not being corrected immediately and subsequently allowed to flourish unchecked.  I will now correct this once and forever.  "Vinyl LP records" are NOT MADE of a Co-Polymer of PVC and PVA.  PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) is a Homopolymer.  PVA, or more correctly PVAc (Polyvinyl acetate) is a Copolymer.  The mixture of both is NOT a Copolymer.  In Industry, a blend of these two ingredients is most frequently referred to as an "Admixture"!  Stating that it is a Copolymer is an enormous and important mistake, because, if that were the case it would be impossible to process as vinyl pressings are made.  [It is my understanding that LG has been able to make a copolymer very recently with limited success in 2019 to reduce costs of enhanced PVC products by avoiding incorporating specialized polyurethanes that make the end product more expensive.]  An addition of 8% (plus or minus) 1.5% significantly upgrades the physical properties of PVC polymers.  (I might add that I am the original developer of these specialized polyurethanes to be incorporated into PVC components).  If LG can develop a more extensive range it would allow upgraded PVC’s to be made for a little less money, but, the volumes of PVC are substantial, and, basically this little amount of money can actually become in total a lot of money.  I apologize for deviating, but you see this development is very new and limited in scope, but, still would never be able to be processed as records are made.

Now onto another statement by "W" when discussing with @mijostyn about a "typical" vinyl formulation developed by RCA in 1976 (one point) and using epoxidized soybean oil  which is "very stable" (second point).   This formulation is probably one of the worst examples of something that is "typical".  From what I have gathered, there appear to be many serious audiophiles who are well educated far beyond the norm and many appear to be of an older generation based upon their statements.  I am certain that many may recall "RCA Dynaflex" and the "wonderful sound" of these thin flexible recordings.  Yes, I am being factious!  Well that is the formulation presented as typical.  How many of you have any in your collection?  Using epoxidized soybean oil - how cheap can you get.  I assure you, off-hand I can not think of anything less expensive, other than the Toluene, that was also used as a "plasticizer".  Now this is a very remarkable technical subject, and, I mean that seriously, but, Toluene is very unique and I can go on for hours about this uniqueness - but it is also totally unrelated to the subject matter at hand.  Forgive me again!  To say that epoxidized soybean oil is very stable is again one of the most ridiculous statements made.  It decomposes RAPIDLY when exposed to sunlight or light at and near the UV spectrum.  That is why it is used and advertised as biodegradable because it is very much so.  A mere 15 minutes exposure to sun light initiates a decomposition process that can not be abated.

When I developed the Formulation I presented, I had to take many matters into consideration.  One matter that is completely overlooked is the number of "Vinyl Formulations" and the additives for the formulations.  A very important matter is the assumption of a "typical formulation".  Many people would be surprised if I tell them that I had to consider Hundreds of formulations.  Yes hundreds, and I am only considering the basics.  Most people do not realize during certain periods from around 1950 to 1990 the main ingredient of "vinyl records" were, in fact, Polystyrenes - yes, it’s true your "vinyl recordings" were actually "polystyrene recordings".  Not that they were ever called that but that was the case.  So, I also needed to consider what affected various polystyrenes based on the criteria "do no harm".  Many of you have "vinyl records" that are actually "polystyrene records", and, do not think that this is a small number.  It is possible that half of your collections are in fact polystyrene.

Much has to do with your choice in music. much with your favorite labels, much had to do with the time period.  Many recordings were for all intents and purposes polystyrene.  Many others contained varying additions of polystyrene.

Besides your personal selections, in some cases, it was beyond your control (that is, if you were even aware of this situation).  The primary reason for incorporating polystyrene had to do with what we in the industry refer to as "Feedstocks".  Feedstocks relate to the most basic of materials available and in use.  It also has to do with the location of the feedstock, and, let us not forget "Politics" one of the greatest disrupters of all to the chemical and plastics industries.  In the 1970’s and the 1980’s many records had no choice but to contain  varying amounts of polystyrene due to the oil embargoes.  I can go on forever about this subject because it affected all in the chemical and plastics industries.  I suggest if you have any specific questions please forward them to me and I will do my best to answer your specific question.  Examples, such as why did my Simon & Garfunkel album I purchased in 1970 sounds terrible, or wore out quickly, or competed with "Rice Krispies" on the "snap crackle and pop" sounds, while other releases were just perfect.  Perhaps you blamed your stylus or your cartridge.  I do know some details and particulars, but, please recall I am a Chemist, a Polyurethane Chemist.  But in this matter I think that is the best way to proceed.

Also, I would like you to know that I mentioned that we started our own polyurethane manufacturing facility.  We eventually grew and occupied 96,000 square feet, and the business, as most businesses, evolved.  Sometimes by choice, sometimes by accident.  Never did I imagine that I would be asked to make thermoplastic polyurethane pellets for injection molding equipment.  But two companies I knew very well and trusted propositioned us to do just that.  This happened in just our 9th year in business.  One guaranteed to purchase 5 million pounds per year for five years.  The other committed themselves to 1 million pounds per year also for five years.  In actuality the one committed to 5 million pounds per year averaged 6.75 million pounds per year.  The other took about 2.1 million pounds per year.  And they continued to purchase well beyond the original 5 year commitments.  Those of you not in Business, this is very significant.  We also later established a few smaller customers without any commitments and we also agreed to make some non-polyurethane products for some of our other key customers.  This required that I needed to purchase two Bausano twin screw compounding extruders with 5 station temperature control, and with Face-cut Pelletizers that filled product at -40 degrees dew point.  "Super cool machines".  Nothing against Krauss-Maffei but I preferred the transmissions on the Bausanos and the lower price.  At $674,000 per machine, we started with two but quickly added one more, this did not include all the support equipment necessary, just the main toys themselves.

I mention this because as time went buy and things changed, we knew we were going to loose a key account because they were being purchased.  Now we had over capacity in this area, so I took on what in the Industry is called "toll processing".  We were approached by two resellers of vinyl formulations to high end record making companies.  So we made over 3.25 million pounds of product for the recording industry in a two and a half year period.  We produced eleven different formulations that were their’s and to there specifications.  Actually way beyond their expectations, because it is one matter to have a formula, but it is another matter about the process and equipment used.  Using the Bausano to make their product is very different than what the industry normally uses.  It is like going shopping in a Ferrari versus a Toyota Corolla.  Nevertheless they wherever pleased.  This was just before my wife and I decided to retire.  I have no idea what is happening now nor do we care any longer.  The Governments made matters very frustrating and we could no longer tolerate their interference.  I am mentioning this only for the purpose to avoid discussions about anything that I claim to know about "vinyl formulations".  I just wanted to "nip it in the bud" so to speak.  So, unless you also produced about 3 million pounds of compound for the recording industry, please know what you are talking about before making any posts, especially if you read a "tidbit" inWikipedia.  However, I do welcome any questions.

My desire is to share the scientific knowledge with you all.  And, I do not wish to be interrupted by those who are not as knowledgeable as they think they are.  It is now up to you.  I do not need to do this, but, I sincerely wish to share my knowledge in other areas not just cleaning records.  I want to listen to records not devote my life to cleaning them.  I what to explain my position about ultrasonics without discussing ultrasonics.  I would like to discuss lubricants and dampeners. I would like to provide the results about my extensive study in record mat materials.  And so on, but, I need your help and assistance.  You can not continue to entertain nonsense.  I revealed a company that was a con.  Instead of agreeing or expressing any gratitude, I had an individual defending these corrupt practices.  Again, I require your support.

One last thing before I sign off.  And, as a Polyurethane Chemist and Polyurethane Promoter you may not appreciate how difficult this is for me to say.  I believe all LP recordings should be made of Polyimides and this should be done as soon as possible.  The benefits are enormous, but the outcome is far better than most of you can imagine.

I wish to share my knowledge and continue this Forum.  But, ultimately you will make that determination.  With your approval and assistance it will be very meaningful for many.  As I stated I require your conviction and assistance.

 

Thank you for listening!

       

      

      

@pindac 

Thank you for your comments.  But,I could not help but wonder what your particular field and speciality happens to be.  Do you mind sharing that information.  It has been 4 hours since I first read your post, and, you still have me guessing.  Obviously, you do not need to respond, but you were the first to comment, and your style of writing and composure is unique.  And, as a scientist, we are almost as detectives in nature.

So, it you do not mind, your answer would be satisfying, and, in some strange way, I would be grateful.

Thank you again.

Wizzzard 

@lewm 

I have a new detailed informative response for you, however, I have two Medical appointments this morning, and, last night was too late.  But, you will be seeing another helpful comment later today.

I know that you must be waiting with bathed breath!

Till later.

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

As with @lewm  I also prepared a response that I will need to submit later today.  More like this evening.  I realize that your post was the last before "the void" and I wanted to respond much, much earlier, but I also needed to vent my frustrations and attempt to place this Forum in the context for which it was intended.

Perhaps it was futile, but, I needed to try one more time.  Since this Forum attracted more views in less than two weeks than "Mr.W's" forum did in over two years, it was understandable that he would "coattail" a popular site to post his postings.  But, the interference in the intent of THIS forum was getting out of hand.  So, I hope you are not terribly upset that I did not respond to you sooner, and I request your forgiveness and we can get back to reality.  You will. have your explanation soon and  proposed recommendations.

Thank you for listening, and, I hope you are not terribly upset.

Wizzzard

To All

"Mr. W" - you sir are using the WRONG Forum!

"I know Engineers, and, you sir are no Engineer"

Get back to your own site!

 

@bdp24 ​​@cleeds ​​@dogberry   @lewm. @drbond ​​@drkingfish ​​@ericsch ​​@eryoung2k  @fleschler  @gemoody ​​@jasonbourne71    @jm-audiophilemusiclover ​​@joenies ​​@jwillox ​​@kennyc   @kylehildebrant ​​@lewm   @llg98ljk ​​@lloydc ​​@mijostyn ​​@mojo771 ​@moonwatcher    @mrthunder ​​@normantaylor ​​@noromance ​​@oilmanmojo ​​@ossicle2brain  @pindac  @recklesskelly ​​@rhg3 ​​@rich121 ​​@richmon ​​@rtrlover ​​@thecarpathian 

When I left for the Hospital on Monday 28 August 2023 little did I know that they needed to keep me there until yesterday.

In the interim, I was thinking after my post the previous evening (although the same day), I thought that I would be inundated with questions about "hundreds" upon "hundreds" of vinyl formulations for LP recordings.  Or, that many people have what they believe to be vinyl records, are records with high concentrations of polystyrene, or, that in many cases, the recordings have more polystyrene than vinyls.  I did not know that everyone that reads my forum was aware of that.

Or, that I also manufactured millions of pounds of compounds for the making of records.  Or, that Polyimides should be used to make records and why.  For that matter, what is Polyimide?  Or, that people may begin to ask about other matters as I indicated.

I came to the conclusion that nobody reads my extended, lengthy posts, or, they no longer care about what knowledge I have and am willing to share.

Needless to say, I was surprised!  I know I have many Medical Issues that prevent me from responding promptly, but, it can not be that.  So what conclusion should I take from the lack of responses?

You can not and will not offend me, so, please speak freely!

Sincerely,

Wizzzard 

@lewm 

Sorry about my abrupt actions on 30 July 2023!  But, I went back in time some 55 years and did get very emotional, which in turn, triggered my Auto-Immune condition.  Perhaps, at some other time, I may relate the events which led to that stage, but for now, it is irrelevant.  I would like to now finish my statement to you.  Fortunately I am in a better position now because I now know your complete formulation that has pleased you for over 25 years using you VPI device (the same device I have and used for about the same time period) and, I was able to find my misplaced Triton X 100, which was not in my home lab, but in my basement.  Also I now understand that your rinse after washing as your standard procedure with deionized water.  Please correct me if I got anything wrong!

If you do not mind, I took the liberty  to convert your formulation into a parts by weight formulation.  I need you to know that I did so for strictly selfish, personal reasons because my mind functions much better in weights and equivalents than in parts by volume.  Therefor, your formulation in parts by weight at 20 C. is as follows:

                Water, Deionized @ 20 C.                        79.022 %

                98% Isopropyl Alcohol @ 20 C.               20.865 %

                Triton X 100 @ 20 C.                                 0.113 %    

                Total                                                        100.000 %

The conversions I used are as follows:

                Water, Deionized @ 20 C.                    =  0.998203

                Isopropyl alcohol 100%  @ 20 C.         =  0.785401

                Triton X 100 @ 20 C.                            =  1.06501

                Your 98% Isopropyl alcohol @ 20 C.    =  0.789656

Previously I mentioned to use a lesser amount of Isopropanol.  This was not to "improve" the formulation, but, merely that it was unnecessary to use the extra percentage that you were using.  So, there is no need to alter your existing content of alcohol.  However you are using about 5 times as much Triton X 100 (4.96 to be more precise) as necessary.

I am certain that if you reduce your Triton X 100 level about 20% of what you are presently using, that is, volumetrically, you will find the cleaning ability to be about the same.  Not much better, not much worse, and, I am referring to the cleaning ability only.  I was able to make some calculations and also measurements.  We should go by the measurements.  Using your formulation as you have been using for years, the Surface Tension at 20 C. (68 F.) is 30.0 dynes/centimeter, and, at 25 C. (77 F) it is 30.7 dynes/centimeter.  If you were to agree to my suggestion, and reduce the Triton X 100 as indicated, the Surface Tension at 20 C. (68 F.) is 31.2 dynes/centimeter, and at 25 C. (77 F.) it is 30.9 dynes/centimeter.  Yes, if is higher, but, not as significant when you consider that the differential is a resultant of a level 4.96 times greater.

Now, I know, you are aware that your water and IPA demonstrates a relatively rapid evaporation rate similar to Ethanol.  IPA is unique in that its’ evaporation rate initially is faster at the onset than at its’ latter stage.  Unlike Ethanol and Methanol which are relatively constant.  That characteristic is more of an advantage than a disadvantage.  I wanted you to be aware, if you were not, because it determines your behavioral processes.

I also know that you know that your IPA/Water blend is azeotropic as is Ethanol/Water.  Although Triton X 100 is not a typical primary or secondary alcohol structured surfactant, it is, however, a octyl phenol stemmed, and is terminated with a hydroxyl group.  Therefor, the azeotropic characteristics of your blend does carry. a portion of the X 100 along during its rapid evaporation.  It may not be as high as the 60% "carry factor" as with Tergitol 15-S-7, but, it certainly would exist at a level of at least 30% to 35%.  Sorry I can not be more specific, because I would actually have to determine the value to be specific.

Triton X 100 is a good choice for cleaning records, but, it is a high-foaming, film-forming surfactant.  It must have film forming characteristics in order to bo high-foaming.  Just think of blowing bubbles as a child.  The better the film forming ability, the larger and more stable bubbles can be formed.  Unlike Tergitol 15-S-7 which is very low foaming and more of a wetting and leveling agent.

So, unlike the previous incorrect answer you received, your azeotropic rapid evaporating blend of IPA and water is significantly reducing the amount of Triton X 100 remaining on the record.  (In this particular case, I am considering a 30 to 35 percent reduction as significant, because you are actually using 4.96 the required amount.). That coupled with your vacuum device you may not need to rinse your records if you lower your concentration of Triton X 100.  However, you stated that rinsing is now always part of your process.  In that case, may I strongly suggest that you use your 25% parts by volume IPA in deionized water as your rinse media rather than just deionized water.  That would be very significant.

Rinsing in only distilled water proved to be a problem.  You only need to read my response to @mijostyn, what my wife determined under her microscope.  It is worth the read.  Most people do not conceive the amount of contaminants in our atmosphere that can cause problems after cleaning.  We were discussing Ultrasonics, but it is almost as relevant in this case as well.

Sorry about my late response but my travels to the Hospital for two tests became very complicated, and I had to be kept until yesterdays’ release.

Any other questions, I hopefully will be able to respond more promptly.

Wizzzard                 

P.S. I expected the Surface Tensions as calculated to be a bit lower, I was surprised a bit at the readings I received.  But, we need to go by actual readings and not theoretical calculations.  Also, I now also need to correct the recommended level of Triton X 100 I previously informed you of.  I stated to use 11 to 12 drops, recommending 12 drops.  Now that I located my Triton X 100 the actual amount should be 9 to 10 drops, and 9 drops being a bit more precise.  Calculations are good, but actuality is much better.  Sorry about that!                                     

                

@mijostyn 

I had prepared a detailed statement.  Yes, I did take sealing materials of vacuum pumps into consideration as well.  I did that because I was using a VPI 17 vacuum device.  Now, I should tell you, after almost 30 years, the pump is not leaking one little bit.  But that means absolutely Nothing, especially in you case.  Ethanol was selected over the other alcohol alternatives of Isopropyl alcohol and Methyl alcohol.  N-Propanol and Butyl alcohol can not be used.  Ethanol was selected because it was the alcohol least likely to affect the "majority" of sealing materials.

But, again, that means nothing.  Alcohols are most unusual with regard to seals and sealing materials.  One that is harmless to one type of seal, is destructive to another, and visa versa.

Rather than give a dissertation, I now think it may be better if you can tell me what type/kind of seal you have, or, if the manufacturer has it listed.  You can also tell me what kind of unit you are using, or, if you know the name of the pump manufacturer.  I have giant catalogs here at home, and if I had more information, it would be easier for me to look up.  If it is a lip seal. or double lip seal, I have thousands of various diameters of of various materials that I would gladly send to you a few, if that is the case and if you wish.  Obviously, these would be free.  So, hopefully your pump is using a lip seal, which is most common.  I only would need to know the diameter of the shaft, and the outside housing.  And, I am not exaggerating about thousands.  When our local garage mechanic can not locate a seal, he then gives me a call.

I will await some further information.

Wizzzard 

@mijostyn 

Some misunderstanding on my part.  Are you saying that the shaft that goes through the lip seal is only about 1.5 mm, and the outer diameter of the lip seal is only 6 mm. in diameter?  Which would make the width of the lip seal as 2.5 or 3 or 4 mm.  I only guessed at the width, because a 6 mm O.D. lit seal is nominally 3 mm.

Or, is the inside diameter 6 mm. and the outside diameter and width is unknown because it is hidden from sight.  And. is the 1.5 mm. shaft, the shaft from the gear assembly. 

Anyway, I will also try and find out about the motor and I will get back to you.  If Isopropyl alcohol is working and not leaking, you, most likely, need not concern yourself about the "concentration" of alcohol.  The problem is specific to the alcohol and the material the seal.  It is alcohol type related.  Usually the sequence of alcohol types is as follows:  Methanol, Ethanol, and Isopropyl alcohol.  Methanol demonstrating the least affect, etc.  Now that I know the Ethanol was a problem, and the IPA is not, your unsuccessful seal has been narrowed down to two, (possibly three) materials out of 11.  Also, that the selection was uncommon for such a pump, but, anything is possible.  I will find out what I can for future references.  Besides you selection of IPA is better than the alternative of Methanol.

My stated formulation calls for 22.000% Ethanol by weight, If your are to substitute IPA, as you have, the ideal concentration by weight of IPA is 19.132%, in order to more closely resemble my presented formulation.  For your reference purposes only for now.

Wizzzard 

@mijostyn 

Thank you for all the data.  I have done some extensive investigation and research for your situation.  Unfortunately, I do/did not have the time to submit it to you today, but, I will tomorrow evening.  I am off for the day to Hospital, and will submit your info upon my return.

I believe you will be surprised, pleased (I hope), and perplexed all at the same time.  Till tomorrow then!  I just wanted you to know that I have been working on your problem.

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

Should have learned by now to stop saying such things as "I am off for the day to Hospital".  That was Tuesday evening 5 September 2023.  I only arrived home about 2.5 hours ago from the Hospital.

Tomorrow morning I am (and my wife as well) are being picked up at 6:00 AM to be transported via a special Mercedes Benz Air-Suspension Hospital Transport vehicle to be taken just under 300 miles to the "only" Hospital in the Country that has a new special Device made by Siemens to be tested and returned later that same day.

This was all the time I could spare today to inform you.  As I mentioned, you will be surprised and pleased once you hear back from me.  I am saying no more as to not curse anything, but, I absolutely needed to inform you or it would have bothered me all day.  It is just the way I am.  Sorry I knew nothing about the arrangements any sooner.

But, I also need to say that "you will hear back from me"

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

Good evening Dr. Mijostyn,

My husband is still in Hospital in London.  What was to be a test only turned into an unexpected surgery.  He is ok now after an extensive and complicated spinal surgery.  As a physician you would understand.  I came home to pick up a few things and returning to London where we will be spending our Wedding Anniversary tomorrow.  He is expected to be released Friday.  He wanted me to send you a note that you will hear from him as soon as possible.  Knowing my husband that will be as soon as possible.  He said there was a list with a few other names on his desk which I can't find.  I recall a Lew N. but I do not see a list but perhaps you know them.  He had nothing else to add just that I send this note.

Respectfully,

Dr. Valerie Ann W.

@mijostyn 

cc:  @lewm ​​@pindac ​@bdp24 ​@cleeds ​@joenies 

Sorry about that!  Went for a special test at a London Hospital and immediately afterwards I was in for Spinal Surgery.  Everything went O.K., and they did manage to fix another "broken part".  Only 27 more "broken parts" to go and some day I may be considering my Medical Situation approaching "Normal".  All kidding aside, the surgery went very well (even though it was a complete surprise), and I am very pleased.  I asked my wife to send you an update, and, I see she did.  Now I can get back to responding to your issues.

 

Your event with the pump on your vacuum cleaning device for records has become a very serendipitous event in several respects, and, has precipitated several fortunate events from my perspective.  Other than costing me far more than than what I could have possibly imagined - it was a very interesting journey.

After you stated your issues regarding your seal leaking, I had an immediate reflexive reaction and had drawn subsequent conclusions in my mind.  After all, this is/was another aspect that I had taken into consideration for those that have record cleaning devices, because I possess and utilize a VPI 17 machine myself.

In hindsight, I am glad that I did not post my first prepared response about seals and compatibilities with various materials.  What was needed, was to know more about your device, also, I was silly to ask about particulars.  The KEY was knowing exactly what device/machine you had.  When you informed me that you had been using a " Clearaudio Double Matrix Sonic Pro", I had no prior knowledge about this machine whatsoever at the time.

I used my search engine to investigate.  First, I went to their website and found out it was made in Germany.  That alone, confirmed my initial suspicions.  After going to the Clearaudio website, I chose to view two lengthy youtube videos.  The first was in Polish, and it was excellent, the second was in German, and, that was good as well ( I speak and understand both languages).  I then downloaded the user manuals and the manuals for accessories including surprisingly the manuals regarding the "fluids" designed and designated to be used with their machines.  Looking for a repair manual was futile, but, that is now O.K., I have made alternative arrangements.           

Before proceeding any further I must thank you and inform you that I had decided and made arrangements for what is now to be my early Christmas gift to myself this year.  This present should arrive in a few weeks.  Yes, the deed has been done , and I will be using my own "Clearaudio Double Matrix Professional Sonic (in silver) with my "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" myself fairly soon.  I fully realize that my VPI 17 machine is perfectly adequate and the Clearaudio machine will not necessarily be much better, other than being quieter, but, my attitude now is "Who Cares"!  The design is terrific both in appearance and function, and the engineering is excellent.  Typically German, why should one use a ordinary $0.05 screw when you can use a $5.00 Titanium screw?  I am a "sucker" for a good design and things that are constructed well.

As you already know, Clearaudio provides 4 different solutions to be used in conjunction with their products.

   A);  "Pure Groove" - A ready to use cleaner that can be obtained locally, or, can be shipped, if you are willing to spend the additional outrageous amount of money required to do so.  This is because of the higher alcohol content.  It contains a 41.5% concentration of Ethanol for the original development, and, this requires additional shipping regulations and packaging to be provided.

  B);  "Pure Groove Essence" - is a semi-concentrate that contains only 10% Ethanol and all the other essential ingredients in distilled water, and, can easily be shipped without difficulties.  It is then to be mixed 2:1 "essence" to Ethanol, assumed to be 92.0% prior to using.

  C);  "Groove Care" - another product that contains only 10% Ethanol.

  D);  "Pure Groove Shellac" - that contains no alcohol or any other solvents that may affect these early recordings.

The WHMIS shipping regulations are the same for North America as it is for Germany.  You can ship any product, and with relative ease, as long as it contains no more than 10% of any ingredient listed on an extensive list of solvents and ingredients.  This is regardless of flammabilities in this particular group.  The basis is less than 10%.  Technically this "barks" loudly of lack of technology, however, WHMIS is already so complex that some areas need to be simplified.  I have mixed feelings, but, I do reluctantly agree with these standards.  WHMIS is something that can never, ever be 100% perfect, so, this compromise is reasonable.

In Germany (actually, most of Europe) Denatured alcohol is supplied at 90.0% or 92.0% Ethanol in Methanol with very minuscule amounts of terpenes or mercaptans in order to be distinguished.  Unlike in North America where denatured alcohol most likely contains 95.0% Ethanol with a considerable amount of Methanol, but also contains a host of other "very nasty" harmful ingredients.  This is, in this particular case, important because the people at Clearaudio were not made aware of how denatured alcohol is supplied in North America, as, North Americans are not aware of how it is supplied in Europe.

The group at Clearaudio are/were able to utilize the programs offered with German Universities.  They wanted the best for their equipment.  Who better to work with than those from the Technical University of Munich.  This is, without a doubt, the very best University for Chemistry in Germany.

I wish to start in my field of expertise, which is, Chemistry.  I selected the "Pure Groove Essence" product because it would be the most likely you, or most, would order for your machine to use for cleaning records.  Also knowing that you would need to add Ethanol to the "Essence" prior to use.  And the Ethanol that you should use according to "Wizzzard" and according to Clearaudio would be the 99.5% Ethanol in water available at your Liquor Store.

As I prefer to do to with all formulations, I would like to present them as a 100.0% version taking into consideration all of the details of each ingredient and converting it to its’ basic components.  And, this is all at a chosen specific temperature.  In this case I choose 20 degrees C again.

So, the following is the formulation for a "ready to use", "Pure Groove Essence" with Ethanol as recommended.  No need to ask how I know the actual formulation.

                         "Pure Groove Essence - Ready to use"             

 

Distilled Water                                  679.218  g.         67.9218 %  p.b.w

Ethanol (100.00%).                          296.565  g.         29.6565 %  p.b.w.

Methanol (100.00%)                          20.637  g.           2.0637 %  p.b.w.

BASF Larostat 264A                           2.350  g.            0.2350 %  p.b.w.

BASF Lutensol LA                              1.230  g.             0.1230 %  p.b.w.            

Total:                                             1,000.000 g.            100.00 %  parts by weight

The above 1,000.000 grams will produce:  1.086 liters    

Volumetrically, for those who prefer to view formulations in that format, is as follows:

Distilled Water.                            62.668  %  p.b.v.

Ethanol (100.00%).                     34.600  %  p.b.v.

Methanol (100.00%).                    2.402  %   p.b.v.

Larostat 264A.                              0.214  %   p.b.v.

Lutensol LA                                  0.112  % p.b.v.

Total:                                          100.000 %   parts by volume

If it were up to Clearaudio, the formulation would not contain any Methanol, however, the "essence" version is a compromise because of shipping regulations.  It would exclusively contain Ethanol as in the "Domestic Version", and, the Ethanol concentration would be higher, as in, 41.50% target amount.

When this formulation was prepared, it was prepared by "design", as was the formulation I presented.  The parameters are/were somewhat different, and, understandably so.  If any of this scientific "design methodology" sounds familiar — it should, you only need to read my very first post.  The educated minds that were designated the task to develop the best cleaner and other solutions had chosen Lutensol LA because it was considered, and subsequently determined, to be the best single non-ionic surfactant that was readily available in Europe.  They knew of the existence of others that would be better, however, availability in Europe was a problem.

Ethanol was selected because it also was known to be the least destructive of alcohols towards various vinyl compositions that were most available.  They also wisely chose to ignore the Hansen parameters, realizing that evaluating each individual parameter is far more important and more conclusive, as I also did in my development.  Also, they tested and determined that Ethanol was far superior with regard to cleaning records, more than any other alcohol.  Their determination was that Ethanol was superior, and they developed a series of tests that demonstrated that, in fact, Ethanol was far superior as a cleaning agent than any other alcohol.  It was perhaps these determinations that made them select the second inflection point of 41.500% rather than the more practical, but, almost equally effective 22.000% that I had chosen.

I ask you again if any of this "design Methodology" sound familiar to you.  The difference was that one individual, "Wizzzard", presented "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" for all to know and use at no cost to you.  And, YES it is, and remains, a better cleaning formulation.  While the other was a well funded project conducted by a number of post-graduates assigned to a somewhat more specific goal for a client and their products.

You may recall when I wrote to you with regard to making a graph to visually relate to why I chose 22.000%.  At that time it was to demonstrate the very significant First inflection inflection point.  At that time the graph demonstrated a Secondary inflection point that occurred at 41.500%, but, was not considered sufficiently significant.  I saw no need for such a considerable increase in alcohol for such an insignificant benefit in Surface Tension.  However, I am of the "minimalist school", and, I had also chosen Tergitol 15-S-7 as the surfactant.  And, I was not adding other ingredients for either lubrication, or anti-static, or anti-microbial reasons.  I was solely interested in the very best record cleaning formula.

The team for Clearaudio had selected the secondary point, allowing 41.500% Ethanol, the very Maximum that anyone would ever consider.  Also, they were not using a secondary alcohol non-ionic surfactant.  Theirs was based on the primary alcohol surfactant, Lutensol LA and they also chose to add an additional anti-static agent Laristat 264A.  Which, by the way, is an excellent anti-static agent.  This had some bearing on their overall design, and that is their "chosen design".  Absolutely nothing wrong with their choice, only, that it is based on slightly different criteria.

If you recall my comment to @pindac, which was a post on 15 July 2023 at 2:34 AM.  I mentioned that, at that point, to the best of my knowledge, the closest product that BASF produced that resembled Tergitol 15-S-7 was Lutesol LA, and the amount I suggested was 0.113% p.b.w. to 0.114% p.b.w. However, I was also basing my calculation on a 22.000% Ethanol formula.  You can see how similar my speculative concentration is to the actual amount  used by Clearaudio with this primary alcohol based surfactant.

You can sense that I am very impressed with people who agree with me and my methodology.  If you detected any arrogance on my part in that statement - it was meant as such.  But, seriously, I have seen many formulations proposed as the "most wonderful".  Most are "crap".  Some are even very destructive and many are sinfully overpriced.  I believe, I destroyed one such company with overwhelming details of their gouging.  I did not receive one recognition for that post or a "thank you", so, they can avoid being swindled.  On the other hand, one individual "actually" defended this almost criminal activity.  I realize the animosities that I have generated, but, I also think it’s time to put those feelings to bed and accept the realities.

If you choose to not make your own "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" that I initially posted and choose to purchase a product instead.  The Products supplied by Clearaudio are all very good products.  Their products are the only products I am aware of that are very impressive, and worthwhile purchasing.  Their products are the ONLY products that I would recommend to purchase.  Yes, they are not cheap, but, if you are choosing to purchase, then these are the products you need to buy.

Clearaudio makes no outrageous claims about their formulations.  They are only supplying products in conjunction with their equipment.  If I say anymore, I will begin to sound like a sales person for Clearaudio.  One other thing I had noted about their record mats is that they supply a felt mat (not specifying the type of felt) and a leather mat that is Bovine and embossed, with what is referred to in the leather goods industry, as a "Bison" pattern.  This was another point that impressed me.  When I eventually submit my extensive record-mat study that I did some years ago, you will understand how these two selections fit into my my study and why I was further impressed by this company.

Some final remarks for @mijostyn.  Clearaudio uses Butyl Rubber for their seals, which is unaffected by most certainly all the common alcohols.  Also, you can see that Clearaudio use substantially far more Ethanol in their products than in my suggested formulation.  So, when you tried my recommended formulation it was 1.) Either a fluke!, 2.) Time was up for your existing seal, 3.) or, perhaps it was some other additional ingredient in conjunction with the Ethanol.  4.) Something needs to be questioned about the alcohol used.  Or, 5.) prior activities with other ingredients may have remained in the seal that was activated by the Ethanol.  You certainly see that it must be something else other than the Ethanol because Clearaudio uses considerably far more Ethanol in their solutions recommended for their products.  Have you contacted them for an explanation?  I am very interested in to getting to the bottom of this problem of yours.  As I stated earlier, I will soon have my own machine to use.

I know this was a lot, but there is an obvious solution to the problem that we are both overlooking.  Please keep me informed.   

Sincerely,

"Wizzzard"

 

@mijostyn 

cc:  @lewm ​​@pindac ​@bdp24 ​@cleeds ​@joenies 

Apologies! During transcription I made a slight error on the 100% volumetric formulation with regard to the Methanol concentration.  I had written 2.402% rather than the correct 2.406% parts by volume.

I apologize for my eyes and fingers.

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

Thank you for the experienced advice about the device in advance.  It is sincerely appreciated.

I received an e-mail today that my machine is to be delivered this 4 October 2023, and, I am looking forward to it.

With regard to the 99.5% ethanol in water, I have purchased some in the state of Missouri, and quite a lot in the state of NewYork.  Also, it can be purchased at any Liquor Control Board retail outlet in Ontario, Canada.  Commonly known as the "LCBO" outlets in Ontario, the pure Ethanol is not a stock item - it must be requested.  Any time I have ordered it in Ontario, it had arrived in less than a week.  Likewise, it is also available in Quebec Liquor outlets, but, again it must be requested.  It cost less in Quebec than in Ontario, and when I had to travel on business to Quebec, I would order some, and I would be able to pick its up within two days at most, and return home with it.

When in Missouri, I also needed to request it first at the local store and it was received within two to three days.  I needed to pay in advance as I did in Ontario and Quebec.  In Buffalo, New York it was much easier because the large outlets such as Premier Liquor actually had the bottles in stock.  It is a matter of declaration when you cross the border.  Legally you need to be in the US for 24 hours to re-enter Canada without any problem.  You can also make advance arrangements to purchase the Ethanol "Duty-Free".  It costs less, and again you always need to pay in advance.  For me, I always found the "Duty - Free" situation a pain, and could not be bothered.

I believe you will encounter MORE difficulties obtaining some from a supply house.  Remember this is a consumable item to make punches and other drinks as well, and as such, you NEED to pay the appropriate Liquor Taxes.  The outlet MUST also be ABLE to COLLECT these taxes, I do not see how you can obtain some from a supply house. 

If your Liquor store is being difficult, call, and find one that will order some for you.  Keep in mind, I was always required to pay in advance when I placed my order.  With the exception of the locations in Western New York State where the item was a stock item.

You can not avoid paying the appropriate taxes, and only certain outlets, such as Liquor Stores are able to collect such taxes.

I thought you lived in New Hampshire.  I recall these huge Liquor Stores located at the State Border because of the lower taxes in New Hampshire.  Sorry, that was just a very frequent reminder and flashback to my many trips through the New England states.  I once knew all the roads of Nashua and Concord, New Hampshire. I forgot Portsmouth!

I know I can get easily get Larostat 264A from BASF, but, I have know idea if it is available to the public.  I will look into that for you because it is far superior to what you are currently using.  BASF only recently developed a better product, but, I do know that it is restricted to certain industries only.  I probably should not have even mentioned that - just ignore this last sentence.

I will be getting back to you soon.  Good luck finding a cooperative Liquor Store!

Regards,

Wizzzard

P.S. For your better understanding, we have a residence in New York State, and in Ontario, Canada. 

@lewm 

Methanol is doing absolutely NOTHING of value in a record cleaning formulation.  In fact, it is the exact opposite.  Although it is one of the only three alcohols that can be used in a vinyl cleaning formulation, the other two being Ethanol and Isopropanol, with Ethanol being the very best.  It is more destructive to most vinyl formulations, whether they contain styrene, or not.  It does not assist in any way with regards to the cleaning ability.  Also, it is an alcohol that would be more likely to deplete any beneficial additives that were added to the vinyl formulation when the record was made

Basically, Methanol should be avoided as much as possible.  

The Clearaudio "Pure Groove" Domestic formulation avoids the incorporation of Methanol as much as possible.  As a Corporation, I do not know the exact limitations in Germany, but, in the US and in Canada, Corporations can be more specific with regard to the ingredients that are added to make it undrinkable.  But, as an individual purchasing denatured alcohol you do not have this luxury.  Also, Clearaudio must state "Denatured Alcohol" in their "Essence" product, and it MUST actually be denatured alcohol, in order that it can be shipped.  Although it may sound crazy, they could not just use pure Ethanol, because there would be the assumption that some fool may actually drink the product.  Yes, it sounds crazy but that product COULD be drunk without the harm that denatured alcohol would possess.  It would be like a 12.65% wine (a very expensive wine) that would taste like crap and give you the "runs" for a few days - but, as I stated, it can be consumed.  So, an entire different set of rules would have to be imposed, not just shipping regulations.  Normal and sane people do not think of such things, but, government officials fortunately must.

Yes, avoid Methanol as much as possible.  And you are correct with regard to the dangers associated with handling Methanol.  After this note to you, I will send an explanation to @mijostyn  as well.  Surly drinking Methanol is the most dangerous.  I have the relatively recent 12th edition (all 5 volumes) of Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, and it states the following:

The lethal human dose of pure methanol was estimated at 15.8–474 g/person as a range and as 56.2 g/person as the median. The dose-response relationship between methanol vapor in ambient air and urinary methanol concentrations was thought to be correlated. An oral intake of 3.16–11.85 g/person of pure methanol could cause blindness. The lethal dose from respiratory intake was reported to be 4000–13,000 mg/l. The initial concentration of optic neuritis and blindness were shown to be 228.5 and 1103 mg/l, respectively, for a 12-h exposure.  

The above is the abbreviated statement.  The dermal contact explanation I will summarize, as that brief exposure to the skin is nothing to loose sleep overnight, however, if you have an open wound that really complicates matters.  It is important to note (I believe that you also are a retired Physician) that the Bio-toxicity due to methanol exposure is caused by the metabolites rather than the methanol itself. The severity of the toxicity is related to the degree of metabolic acidosis rather than the exact concentration of the methanol itself.  And, it should be obvious to prevent any entry to the eyes themselves, and, it is important to avoid the vapors attacking the sensitive protection of the eyes themselves.

I, along with Physicians that my wife had worked with tried to get stricter warnings on "Automotive Windshield Washer" products without any success.  When something is categorized as a "Consumer Product" , it is almost hopeless to have proper warning labeling.  Also, we tried to have such products modified with Ethanol and some Isopropyl alcohol to reduce the dangers.  But, that went nowhere as well.  I should state that some years ago it was I and these same Physicians that were successful in composing many of the regulations for our "Ministry of Labor" that are in place to this day.  So, we were credible when it came to Industry, but, lost when it came to "Consumer Goods"

Sorry, but I will digress again about something else that is relevant to this subject.  You can easily buy frozen concentrated orange juice at the food store, but, if that was an industrial item in a 55 (US) gal. drum, it would have to have so many warning labels on the drum that you would not be able to see the drum.  Allow me some exaggeration for an effect please.

Now, back to you wanting to duplicate the Clearaudio formula, I again would state that you use no more than 22.000% Ethanol.  I know your question was somewhat hypothetical, but, I did need to repeat this.

And thank you for possibly alerting others to the dangers of Methanol.  You provided an important service by mentioning this danger.

Thank you,

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

Rather than repeating myself, I would ask you to read what I had written in tho post to him.

Since that issue should be covered please feel free if you wish me to be more specific.

Also, in your case I need to add a "secret"  that was shared to me by an expert who restores antique furniture for Museums in Europe, primarily in Italy.  My wife and I have been into antique furniture since before we were married, as well as collecting Oriental rugs.  Yes we made some mistakes. And, yes we did more damage than good on some pieces that we regret to this day.

Very early on the business I was in took me to Italy at least 8 times per year, later, it was more frequent.  Our shipping agent introduced me to an absolute expert in various types of refinishing depending upon the value of the items.  Yes, I also am fluent in Italian, so not a word was lost.

You need to use Pure Ethanol again for the Ultimate "French Polish" or "Shellac" finishes.  It makes an absolute world of difference.  First, you must dissolve the shellac or "goma laca" in pure Ethanol and allow it to stand for 6 days minimum at 75 degrees F.  Then you must carefully decant this into another bottle adding about 10% more pure Ethanol to this decanted liquid.  This must stand undisturbed for an additional 8 days, again at 75 F.  Then, you carefully decant again.  The resultant is what you then use for your finishing.

The percentage depends upon what you are restoring or finishing for the first time.  You then use pure wool fleece, not cotton. balls.  If you are not terribly critical, you can. use 100% pure cotton that was previously worn or used, like an old T-shirt that you are ready to retire and wash it a few times in a mild concentration of  washing detergent.

You will not believe the difference.  Yes, I was skeptic at first, but, his demonstration made me a believer.  What an Audio discussion that turned out to be!

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

Have you had any success in obtaining the higher percent Ethanol from your Liquor Stores?

Also, with regard to the Larostat 264A, did you obtain any?  If not, you stated you reside in New Hampshire - how long of a drive would it be for you to get the the following three locations, and, would you be willing to drive to pick some up.  I ask this because of "The Border Situation", and, I do not wish to upset the apple cart at either the US Customs or Canada Customs.

The locations are:  Sherbrooke, Quebec.  -   Lowell, Massachusetts.  -   and, Lewiston, Maine.  I am thinking of calling those that I know that use this Larostat and ask them if you could pick some up.  There would be no charges of course, I just need to know if one is close and I can phone and see if I can make some arrangement for you.  My other option would be to send you some when we are in Western New York, and I can send some to you from there.  We may very likely be going in late November if that becomes the case.  Another option is to see if I can have BASF shif you some from Michigan.  It has been some time since I dealt with BASF in the US, but, they "should" be able to speak with someone and get "some" attention after I remind them that we did buy over 4 million dollars worth of polyether (Pluracols) from them.  It depends upon a number of things and hit certainly is worth a try.

I hope you understand that I do not want to risk having Customs intercept a parcel to you without all the required.  Now, I can supply all the necessary paper work, but, for me, I am legally obligated to do an extensive amount of filing and submissions for something that is essentially worth almost nothing, perhaps a dollar, and is perfectly safe to ship.

I hope you understand.  That is why I thought of the other alternatives.  So that you know my contact here in Canada also can not send you the sample directly.  He need to contact the US, and, he thought that I would have more luck than he would.  And, in all these cases, there would be no charges, because that would only open another, but different, can of worms.

Wizzzard

@mijostyn ​@lewm ​@cleeds ​@bdp24 

I am requesting some advice.  As I stated at the onset I would like to share the knowledge that I have in certain areas in which I am qualified.  I had stated record mats, lubricants, dampening fluids, contact agents for any electrical contacts, etc.  I have also been receiving "private messages" from those who have their reasons for not exposing themselves to certain individuals that contribute to this forum.  As you well know, I can certainly relate to that.  Rather than repeating myself, I would like this to be known on one sight.  Having a forum that starts by revealing a record cleaning formulation, is not conducive to attract attention to other areas.

I am sending this post to you because you all have "been around" and have extensive experience and are very capable of supplying me some appropriate titles.  So I am asking you this favor.  I know there are others that are as capable, and, I hope I had not offended anyone by ignoring them.

I do have a sense of humor, so if you have some sarcastic suggestions, please feel free to include them as a joke if you wish.  "Mister Know-It-All-Speaks" immediately came to mind as I was writing this.

I sincerely appreciate your input.  I have already received some suggestions privately, but, I thought it best to open up this question to those that have already been publicly involved.

Thank you for any and all suggestions in advance.  You should know the nickname "Wizard" and "Wiz" well given to me by the C.E.O. of the first company I worked for, and, it has stuck with many others ever since.  So, this name was given to me.

@mijostyn 

No.  I am expecting it early next week.  A shipping agent and friend I have relied on for many years is attending to the shipping.  I did not buy the item from the distributor.  It was purchased directly along with some of the "Ready to use" cleaner.  He has been shipping items for me from Europe since 1984.  In the field of Polyurethanes most equipment came from either Germany or Italy along with some other more Countries as well.

I wanted some of the cleaner to verify what I have been told.  I have a very sufficient Laboratory set up at my home.  Even though I am retired and have a number of Medical issues, I still do consult with some people and companies that request information.  Often I need to test items, and/or, develop formulations for those that require my input.  But, since I am approaching 80 years of age, many of the people that I associated with are no longer with us.  Now, it is either their sons or daughters, or, those that have taken their position still require my input.

With regard to the Larostat 264A, it has nothing to do with "payment".  Money only clouds the issue.  It is the "Border", and coincidently getting examined by Customs.  This would jeopardize my current status. 

@lewm 

Thank you for your input!

I was wondering if you had yet to try Ethanol as a substitute for the Isopropyl alcohol you are / have been using.  I take no offense if you have not tried Ethanol to note any differences.  I certainly understand the concept of "Don't fix anything if it ain't broke".  I was simply curious, and, thank you again.

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

Sorry about that - we had a power failure in our area and I did not finish my message to you and was checking if anything got through.  

Anyway, what I was attempting to point out is that companies most frequently avoid any charges related to shipping small quantities of material.  The paper work is not wort the extra effort. and it contributes confusion to the accounting.  That is why a company, if it is willing to send you a small quantity of material, there would never be any charges.  And, by small quantities can be also quite substantial.  It was not unusual for us to send 5 gallon "No-Charge" samples.  Even on some occasions we would ship a 55 gal drum that either had 250 lbs. or a full 500 lbs. at no charge as a trial.  So, a company such as BASF would normally ship such a sample as the Larostat 264A to us at no charge, and the amount could vary from a 250 ml. sample, or a 1,000 ml. or, even 2,500 ml. quantity.  If I specifically requested a minimum of 5 gallons there may be a charge, but, most likely not if justified.  The point being is "If they are willing to send, or, not to send a sample quantity.  And, if you wanted to pay, you would have to go through the total process of setting up an account, whether it be for $100.00 dollars or $1,000,000.00 - the application and process would be the same. That is why samples are typically sent at "No Charge".

I will be making a call tomorrow to someone in Lowell and find out if you can pick up Anti-static surfactant.  If they are reluctant, my final option is to send it to you when we eventually get to Western New York.  I do not know when that will be.  For certain it will not happen in the next three weeks.  I will keep you informed, and then you can provide your address.

Sincerely,

Wizzzard

P.S. I will answer your question over the weekend regarding the tonearm material selection, and my reasoning.  The reasoning aspect is important because it has a significant bearing on the eventual costs involved.  But, I do have an answer. 

@mijostyn 

Oh heck with it!  Dismissing the details for now - the answer is 7075-T6 Aluminum.

It can either be cast or extruded.  If cast it must be under cover of Argon.  Also the Aluminum alloy would be best if anodized, and, anodized thoroughly to make it even stronger.

Yes Tungsten is the strongest and most rigid but brittle and difficult to work with. And, yes Titanium and Carbon fiber are all the rage now.  And Magnesium is also bantered about.  But, pound for pound you cannot do any better than 7075-T6 for a tonearm.  I have no idea if anyone is using this alloy for making tonearms - you would best to check that out yourself.  I am just considering the end product and what I would choose if I were to make tonearms. At this point, I would not consider anything else. It is also extremely conductive for an aluminum product.               The anodizing assists dramatically making it almost impossible to distort.  Its disadvantages (although few) are not relevant if you were to use it to make a tonearm.  Also, it is far, far less expensive than any of the other alternatives mentioned.  So, both cheap, easy to work, choices of processing, and, the very best choice.  It has it all.

That is my answer.

Wizzzard

P.S. Also, I would avoid any consideration of using ceramic bearings.  Great for Formula 1 Race cars, but not for tonearms. Too often we ignore products that have a proven record only to bee swayed by what is now fashionable.  Fashion is important. if you are Giorgio Armani or Miuccia Prada, but not a tonearm manufacturer wanting to produce the best tonearm.

@mijostyn 

I neglected to mention one other aspect of 7075-T6, and, that is, that it is an excellent metal to machine.  Another very important aspect because it is extremely important to maintain close tolerances, and precission when constructing an article such as a tonearm.

I should not have missed that important quality when it was first previously mentioned.

I hope this is satisfactory information for you to consider for now.  Until later!

 

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

Things that are only 6 inches long have cost a lot of men an absolute fortune.  Not to mention the lawyers portion.

There is no reason to add another 6 inch tonearm item to that list.

I am sorry to inform you that I have had no thoughts about materials that are also not practical or impossible for a significant number of people to be able to purchase such an item.  I must have some filter in my brain that prevents me from thinking that way.  I am sorry to disappoint you.  I cannot even begin to consider it as an interesting puzzle to be solved.  Sorry to disappoint you in this area.  Also, needle bearings do not provide any additional benefits to a well designed bearing that is packed with the proper Krytox based grease.  Especially one that contains a "Nano Boron based additive" ( which are available ) .  I would also discount the speciality lanolin greases because there is no high speed involvement in a tonearm

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

I hope you fully realize the enormous amount of restraint required not to have to ask you why your's is only 6 inches long!

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

I am sorry Mijostyn, but, I did not understand anything about what you meant by your very last post.

I obviously am missing something because I have no idea what you are talking about.  Could you please explain yourself in order that I may understand what you mean.

The person I wished ho speak to in Lowell was not in and is only returning on Wednesday, 11 October 2023.  I will call him back again that day.

Till later,

"Wizzzard"

@pindac 

You do not offer any explanation as to "Why" it is not either a good or preferred material, other, than to make an issue that 7075 Aluminum alloy was first used in 1943.  You need to do better.

Are you "Age Biased", if so, you should also have a low opinion of "Diamonds" which were first known, and spoken of, to be made into a gemstones, because of their brilliance, beauty, and hardness very early in the 4th. Century B.C. (320 B.C. I believe).  Does this aspect render them now useless and undesirable?

Also, anodizing of Aluminum (Type I) was first discovered in 1923.  It is still in use today.  Besides we now also know that we can anodize Aluminum with other chemicals, not just Sulphuric Acid.  And, different resultants are produced with different chemical acceleration ingredients, very different. In 1943 the processes of extrusion and casting of Aluminum were in their developmental stages.  The process has a significant bearing on the end result.

Just because the same additional metals were recognized and designated as 7075 does not also make it the same as well.  Especially the concentration of Copper.  And the methodology of incorporation has varied.  Basically the 7075 of 1943 is not exactly the same as the 7075 of 2023.  Subtle, but nevertheless, somewhat different.

If you are to be critical, you need to present more details, and, you dispense with your "Age Bias". That is all I am saying.

I was not asked to explain my selection for a tonearm, only, what I would choose.  But you, on the other hand, are critical of my selection - that normally requires details and arguments of worth, not just to mention to development initiated in 1943.  That is insufficient as a "Criticism".

 

Wizzzard 

@pindac 

Please forgive me, but I am having difficulty in understanding your last post to this forum, especially the last to paragraphs and the relevance of "Korg Investigations" in this matter.

Can you please elaborate or clarify your posting.  I have read and re-read this post more than several times and have difficulty relating.  This is my problem and not years.

Thank you for understanding.  I want and need to understand.

 

Wizzzard