The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

@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

@wizzzard 

Thanx Wiz, 

I would use needle bearings, no stiction. The only problem with aluminum is that it is boring. Audiophiles want something glamorous, something with a really high Young’s modulus like ……Diamond😎 Titanium nitride would work. You would have to grow it on an aluminum form. Forget machining it. Nice gold color. Some form of alumina might work. Cost is not a factor. It is only 6 inches long.

@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

@wizzzard 

Grease will dampen the bearing. A hardened steel needle in a ruby cup is a very simple reliable design. Any 4 Point user will tell you that. 

As for the length of the wand, that is a long story, but it ends in straight line tracker. 

@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"

As a history the 7075 Alloy came into production in 1943, I am not sure when the T6 Tempering was selected as a Hardness.

 With the above in mind, I would question 7075 - T6 as being the ideal Arm Wand?

It does appear periodically as a Alloy Material used for Wand or a MC Body, but this might be for voicing reasons only and not being too closely voiced to the other Alloy Materials seen in use.

As an Arm Wand material selection, it has been an available material throughout the period in time when some the most famous Japanese Audio producers were carrying out extensive R&D.

I am working on the basis, that the Alloy 7075 is a material that was subjected to R&R within the Japanese Companies investigations and is one that did not find a place in the mainstream, as a component to be used for the structure of a Tonearm.

 The Link is to a research carried out not too many years past with 7075 as the material under investigation.

  https://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=27814.0   

@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 

@wizzzard  on this matter of material type, I am not material prejudiced or critical.

I have heard Tonearms with different metals used as Wands from materials being Organic, Metallic and Composite. I myself don't see the Arm Wand as being the detriment of SQ, there is so much more that will impede the Tonearms optimised function. 

My own experiences to date are certainly leaving me with the certainty, that friction is 'a/the' debilitating factor in how a Tonearm is able to function, especially in allowing the Cart' to work to its optimised when interfacing with the Groove Modulation.   

I am for quite some time, familiar with Korg Investigations of materials and have over the past years been in occasional discussion, where Wand Materials, Wand Length and Damping Methods have taken place with individuals who have used their acquired  knowledge and skills from chosen careers to be thoroughly investigative, with the result being they have produced Tonearm Designs.  

None of the above makes me an expert or authority, it just shows I have an interest.

What I was very correct in presuming to occur, is the type of response I have received to the post I have made about the use of 7075 - T6.

As a side, when I was heavily involved in Target Shooting Competition, nearly all ancillaries to assist with accuracy, would not be considered valuable if not a 7075 Material, with this in mind, there is a time in my life I have been an advocate oof this Alloy.    

@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

I was suffering from a illness when I posted, which may have caused my typo. 

The reference should have been to Korf and not Korg.

I am a fan boy of Korg, the Link I posted has an embedded link to Korf.

@wizzzard 

Any news on the Larostat?

The arm wand section is only 6 inches because the tonearm we are working on is a straight line tracker based on a new motor design used by the semiconductor industry in robots that position chips under lasers. Our motor is about 1/10th the size of the original. It is a linear motor that has no mechanical contacts, floating on opposing magnetic fields. No friction, no noise. It can be controlled within nanometers. We should be able to maintain tangency within a few seconds and level will not bother it at all. It could actually track a record vertically. There are three of us involved, a robotic mechanical engineer, a retired electronics engineer who specializes in robotic control systems and me. We have not decided yet if this is practical to do. We have to finish our CAD drawings then price everything out. We need to keep it under $50,000. I'm hoping for $20,000. If we can bring it in that low we will sell a pile of them. The other problem is the possible effect of all that magnetism and control noise noise on the cartridge. We won't know this until we build one. 

Wizzard, I would like to make your solution in a 100 ml graduated cylinder, for use in a VPI vacuum drying device. How much 95% ethanol should I use (with the rest distilled H2O and a tiny amount of surfactant/wetting agent). I realize this won’t be as precise as your formula. 95% ethanol is readily available here, but I can’t get Tergitol 15 S-7. They will only ship it to a real lab in the US, and I have no such contacts. I will probably try it with Ilford Ilfotol as a wetting agent, because that’s what I have on hand. I am guessing about 1/5 drop per 100 ml would be about right. If anyone has a better suggestion for a readily available surfactant, please suggest it, and a source. I understand that this will not be “Wizzard’s Best” precise formula. You make a persuasive argument for an ethanol/water cleaner, but no one sells, as far as I know, an ethanol-based record cleaner (for legal reasons, presumably); this compromise might still be at least as good as anything commercially available. Thank you for your contribution to this subject. I hope you get to feeling better.

I also meant to ask: I believe you mentioned that your formula works optimally at 104 degrees Fahrenheit.  I doubt that anyone voluntarily lives in an environment or listens the stereo when it’s 104, and certainly not a tube amp!  So is any adjustment to your formula suggested for use at a more normal temperature, say 72 degrees Fahrenheit?

@wizzzard ,

I got the 200 proof ETOH online and found a source for the Lorastat 264A in Chelmsford MA. They are sending me two 8 oz sample bottles otherwise I would have to buy a drum for $3000.00. Their minimum effective concentration is 5% and it is supplied in a 35% aqueous solution. Each liter of formula would have to have about  140cc of Lorastat. 8 oz is not going to go far. I will try a lot less first.

Did you get the Double Matrix yet? The pump I repaired is starting to go. I have a brand new pump standing by. This seems to be the machine's weakest link. Having a spare on hand is advised. The American importer, Musical Surroundings keeps them in stock which should tell you something. They are $250 each. 

The Larastat has the consistency of wax. I may actually serve as a groove lubricant and could, at least theoretically reduce background noise. The question is how much will it gum up the stylus.  

For heating the solution you could conceivably use a sous vide machine.

As in all things that require a Specific Temperature Control for an application to take place. 

Both the Substrate and Coating Material are ideally in an environment that allows for both to be of a similar optimised Temperature. 

Failures of certain types of Coatings adhesive properties, when applied to a Substrate, are usually attributed to the Substrates surface temperature not being acclimatised/optimised to receive a Coating, as per the Coating Manufacturers guidance.

The Temperature for the coating material to be used must be  as per manufacturers guidance and the ambient temperature where the application occurs must be as per manufacturers guidance. 

Maybe the Coating Solution, Substrate to be Coated and Ambient Temperature are all required to be the 140 Fahrenheit. If so there are additional practices required as control measures if this solution is to be used as the ' Very Best' Record Cleaning Formulation. 

Maybe there are other solutions able to surpass this proposed one, when the alternative solution is being used at a more typical ambient temperature of 15-18 Celsius. 

 

The Wizzzard has been quiet. I hope he is all right!