The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

Contrary to what you say above, Mijo, most realistic audiophiles, myself included, do agree with the notion that high quality digital copies of LP content is or can be as good as the source LP and that hi-rez downloads on average compete or are superior in SQ to what you can get out of an LP.  Some of us vinylistas just don't want to be bothered.  Others of us are fascinated by the pleasant surprises to be had with each incremental improvement of LP reproduction in our home systems.  It's a part of the fun of the hobby for those of us who think that way.  But this thread is not about the endless boring analog vs digital debate.  I'd rather throw in the towel on that one.

On US cleaning, somewhere back in the earlier years of US RCMs, I thought I read that the US process per se, if done at the "right" frequency and wattage, substitutes for the additives to water (e.g., alcohol and a nonionic detergent) that most think are de rigeur for use with conventional RCMs, because the cavitation effect acts as if to reduce the surface tension of plain water sufficiently to permit efficient cleaning.  Where did that idea go?  (Will I be excoriated by the Wiz for this possible heresy?  I am on the edge of my seat.)

Distilled water and perhaps A couple drops of Shaklee basic h and an ultrasonic cleaner is the ticket.   There are actually affordable ones out there now that do a good job.  

@wizzzard 

I would love to hear your overall impression of ultrasonic record cleaning🤔

@ljgerens , given the price of phonograph cartridges and the space requirements of a large collection, I can fully understand that approach. All my CDs have also been ripped to a hard drive and sold. Most of my purchases are downloaded in Hi Res. I have the capability of recording my records to the hard drive but the time and energy required to do this is prohibitive, so I am stuck. ButI have to say, contrary to popular belief that a record recorded in 24/192 with the RIAA correction done digitally is indistinguishable from the original. Quality is not the issue. Another point is Hi Res downloads, more frequently than not, sound better than the vinyl versions, something the vinylistas do not want to hear. 

@wizzzard

You asked for information about the commercial ultrasonic record cleaners. I am not familiar with any of the commercial ultrasonic record cleaners. I have no experience with any of them and I haven’t researched them. I built my ultrasonic cleaner back in the late 70s using a standard laboratory unit. The unit I used had either 1 or 2 transducers in the bottom and operated at 40 kHz. I do not know the power output. It had temperature control which I typically operated at between 36 to 38 degreed C. I fabricated a spindle assembly that could hold 10 records which rode on an adjustable track. I used it for over 30 years with excellent results so I had no reason to ever look at any of the commercial units. My focus when I built it included; the time in the bath, temperature of the bath and the bath solution (refer to details which I posted on 06-21-2023 at 4:05pm). I never investigated any variables in the ultrasonic unit itself.

I no longer have the unit because I went all digital about 13 years ago. I ripped all my CDs lossless to a music server and also digitized my favorite/hard to replace records. I eventually sold my turntables and sold/donated my record collection.

@kylehildebrant 
I suggest you read this for your UltraSonic needs and it is also an excellent all-inclusive record cleaning bible.

https://thevinylpress.com/app/uploads/2022/01/PACVR_3rd-Ed_2022-01-17_Master.pdf

I tried to read through MOST of this thread. There's a lot of back and forth, so forgive me if this has been mentioned.

@wizzzard 

1. Do you know where we can source Tergitol 15-S-7 in the United States? (I can only seem to find Tergitol 15-S-9)

2. Is this formulation acceptable for use in an Ultra Sonic cleaning bath?

Thanks for taking the time. Apologies if I missed these answers elsewhere.

Wow!

@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!

Wizzzard, you are a bit quick on the trigger. You seemed to be saying that someone must have complained about one of your previous posts, thereby causing it to be deleted. I was only saying there are anonymous persons who monitor all these threads and who appear to be empowered to delete the occasional post that that censor thinks might be offensive to others. Most of us have experienced this at one time or another. In other words, you need not imagine that one of us is your enemy. I’m really hesitant to post further, because I’m beginning to think you’re paranoid.

@wizzzard , I was suddenly blocked from posting because Audiogon's computer could not validate my address. My street sign says Spickett Valley drive. The registry has it as Spicket Valley Dr. There was a back and forth before I finally got it cleared up. Before I entered another long post only to get it wiped out I decided to try it out with a short post which you read. 

@cleeds ,  I have absolutely no interest. Enjoy your machine and use it in good health:-)

@lewm 

Correct lew, I meant kHz. It is higher than usual and I have no way of relating this to the effectiveness of cleaning. Higher frequencies do get into smaller crevices and are less aggressive physically. The Degritter counters this by using higher wattage. Jewelry cleaning is done at 80 to 120 kHz, 50 to 100 Hz. But, in hot water and detergent.   

@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

Wizzzard, the sad fact that your post was deleted does not necessarily indicate there was a complaint from someone monitoring this thread. It seems there is an independent authority endowed by Audiogon with the power of censorship.

Ultrasonic cleaning is manic OCD overkill and a waste of psychological energy, time and money plus it sounds like crap while it's running.  

Just say no to all of that.  It's absurd. Unless you are selling them.  

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BKQB5X6L/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

You're welcome.  

@mijostyn 
Your post is not accurate, as you need to research UltraSonics more to understand better.
Just because a device has more "watts" does not make it more powerful.
The Degritter uses (4) 75 watt 120KHz transducers, and a 45 ounce bath.
The Klaudio uses (4) 50 watt 38KHz transducers, and about 22 ounce bath.

The higher the KHz, the weaker the cavitation effect, especially @ 120Khz compared to 38KHz.
Not only that, but you need to take the bath volume into consideration, as that also very much effects performance.
In comparison, even though the Klaudio has 100 watts less in transducers, it is more powerful than the Degritter because of the lower frequency and volume of bath used.
The Klaudio also has a constant flow cycling through the bath, pumped from the external 1.2 gallon reservoir.

@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 

Mijostyn, You wrote, "The Degritter pulses a sweep of 120 to 125 Hz @ 300 watts." I am guessing that was a typo and you really meant 120 to 125 kHz.  But that is a high frequency for a US RCM, is it not? (I am no expert, either.)

mijostyn

Go in a dark room with a flashlight and look at the beam from the side. That is the stuff that lands on your record when you use an evaporative drying technique on a record open to air ...

My Klaudio machine doesn’t dry in open air, because it’s installed in the Klaudio isolation box. That also has the advantage of containing the machine's noise.

Perhaps someday, @mijostyn, you’ll actually witness one of these machines in operation in real life. Then you’ll see how it’s a convenient, trouble-free, one-button solution to record cleaning.

THAN YOU!!

@cleeds 

Go in a dark room with a flashlight and look at the beam from the side. That is the stuff that lands on your record when you use an evaporative drying technique on a record open to air. To dry the record correctly you would have to buy a vacuum machine causing a messy PITA. The KL uses the same fluid over and over again. It does filter particulates but can not filter substances that are dissolved. Ideally you would have to change the water with each cleaning, another PITA. 

@wizzzard 

Hi Wiz, please pardon me if I intrude. Having researched this recently I think I can provide most of what you are after. Please comment as I am not an expert on ultrasound machines for cleaning. I can scan your gallbladder:-)

The Degritter pulses a sweep of 120 to 125 Hz @ 300 watts. It is the only machine that pulses. I suspect this is to keep the water from heating up with obvious consequences. It is the most powerful unit.

Audio Desk does not publish its specs. It has a reputation for breaking.

Kirmuss 35 kHz @ 220 watts If you want a good giggle, read his literature.

Vevor 40 kHz @ 180 watts. 

KLAudio 40 kHz @ 200 watts total 

All these machines use an evaporative drying technique. All reuse dirty water although some filter it. All use a method of cleaning that is very difficult to validate which should raise everyone's antena. You can use 4000 psi pressurized water to spray off a dirty car. You will remove some dirt but you will not have a clean car without picking up a mit and using some elbow grease. I have seen jewelry come out of an ultrasound machine spick and span using 150 degree F water and dish soap. It can not remove tarnish! Suggested frequency is 80 to 130 kHz. Higher frequencies get into smaller places and are less likely to cause damage. 50 to 100 watts/gallon is recommended. Knowing this it would seem that the Degritter is more likely to be effective and kinder to the vinyl. But, this is an assumption and assumptions are the mother of all F-ups. 

The machine I eventually decided on cleans both sides of the record three times with fresh fluid each time then vacuum dries the record bone dry. A full cycle takes 2 maybe 3 minutes.  I have to fill the reservoir and drain the refuse tank every 30 cleanings. 6 microfiber pads need to be changed once a year or so costing $40.00

Can I post now?

@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%

@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

ljgerens, Thanks for your response.

@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 

mijostyn

... I did not say I know for a fact ultrasonic cleaning damages records. I do not, nor do I care to prove it. I personally do not care for it because done correctly it is a PITA and messy ...

That's what I like about the Klaudio US machine. It's an easy, tidy, convenient solution to record cleaning. Push one button and walk away. A few minutes later yields a clean and dry LP.

@lewm 

The analytical techniques that I discussed in my last post were not used on vinyl records. We were discussing the analysis of perfluoropolyethers in the LAST record preservative formulation and how one could determine the chemical composition of the formulation. I just listed the analytical techniques that I had used to study perfluoropolyethers as lubricants on magnetic media in my laboratory. 

I did not operate or interpret the results from the supporting analytical techniques that I mentioned. These were operated and the data interpreted by colleagues in my laboratory.

My expertise is with Photoelectron Spectroscopy and Auger Spectroscopy.

The analysis I did on vinyl records was back in the late 70s when I built my first ultrasonic record cleaner. I primarily used Photoelectron Spectroscopy and Optical Microscopy to evaluate the effects of ultrasonic cleaning of vinyl records as discussed in my post on 06-21-2023 at 04:05PM.

Because you asked what I worked on. Some of my research entailed corona, plasma, ion beam, UV and gas phase modification of polymer surfaces, mechanistic studies of metal/polymer interfaces with relevance to adhesion, surface properties of self-assembled monolayers and surfactants, chemical and electronic properties of catalytic metal nanoparticles, characterization of the chemical and electronic structure of OLEDs.

@lewm 

Go Lew!

@rich121 

You have to read more carefully Rich. I said "Many believe" I did not say I know for a fact ultrasonic cleaning damages records. I do not, nor do I care to prove it. I personally do not care for it because done correctly it is a PITA and messy. You can not fan or air dry records. They will rapidly collect contaminants from the air. Records have to be vacuum dried. Vacuum drying machines (with one exception) will only dry one side at a time leaving the other side to drip all over the place. If you get the machine that does dry both sides at the same time you do not need the ultrasonic cleaner because this machine does a very adequate job of cleaning records itself. You clamp a record on, twist the cleaning head in place and press a button. In about two minutes you get a perfectly dry and clean record, both sides. It is handily the most convenient, mess free, record cleaning device made. The secret to cleaning records aside from Wizzazard's record cleaning fluid, is spending as little time and effort doing it. There are a few fundamentals I adhere to and they are, fresh fluid need to be used for each cleaning and the record must be vacuum dried. There are many machines the adhere to these fundamentals doing one side at a time. I like the Nessie best followed by the Clearaudio Matrix. IMHO the best machine made by a country mile is the Clearaudio Double Matrix Sonic Pro not because it cleans the record better but because it is by far the most convenient, fast machine on the market. Brilliant design.  

@wizzzard 

I just read that you requested information from me. I do not know what information you requested. I must have missed it. 

You exist. It is enough.

What did I do?????

@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 

ljgerens, You cannot possibly have access to those sophisticated techniques, knowledge of how to analyze the results therefrom, and the costly instruments needed to implement them just for the sole purpose of examining LP surfaces. Are you at liberty to say where you work and on what you work? I’m only curious.  For example, I am a retired molecular biologist/MD. I ran a laboratory at NIH and FDA, where we studied certain viruses.  This gave me access to an unlimited supply of distilled, deionized water, various nonionic detergents, and lab grade alcohols.

As I posted here before, a good UltraSonic machine is a great partner for my Keith Monks RCM... the UltraSonic adds another level of detail and quieter background.
A properly designed UltraSonic cleaner does no damage to a record and I final rinse on my Keith Monks.
I change the bath with each use on the Degritter and with the Klaudio, I also change the over 1 gallon of water in the reservoir tank each use, it also has a filter... there are no contaminants in the water to worry about.
On occasion, I just run a new purchase through my Degritter or Klaudio and let it also dry the record... I doubt there is a lot of difference between a final rinse and the UltraSonic drying the record.

@mijostyn
Please tell us your experience with records being damaged by UltraSonic cleaning.. or are you again just stating a misinformed opinion with no experience?

@rich121 

There are numerous problems with ultrasonic cleaning that go beyond the physics of ultrasonic cleaning. Repeated use of contaminated solution and evaporative drying techniques to name two. 

Vinyl is relatively soft. It does not take much of an insult to permanently scratch the record. There are many who feel that ultrasound strong enough to clean the vinyl will damage the vinyl. Given that ultrasonic cleaning of jewelry removes some metal I think this is a reasonable concern. 

Mechanical agitation with the appropriate cleaning solution and microfiber brush are more than adequate to clean vinyl in combination with vacuum drying using fresh fluid with each cleaning. There are numerous machines on the market at competitive prices that function this way.   

@wizzzard

I never mentioned using an electron microscope for my analysis of perfluoropolyethers although I have used SEMs and TEMs as supporting techniques for other experiments. The main techniques that I used are Photoelectron Spectroscopy and Staic Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry. Both techniques can easily detect coatings less than a few nanometers thick. In fact they can detect surface species as low as 0.01 of an atomic layer depending on the chemical composition of the coating. They would have no trouble detecting the LAST perfluoropolyether on a glass slide even if it was less than a molecular layer. Besides detecting sub atomic coatings, they can determine the chemical and electronic structure of the coating as well as a quantitative determination of the coating. Supporting techniques that I used and mentioned are Spectroscopic Ellipsometry and Atomic Force Microscopy.

WOW!!!  this is amazing.  What a discussion.   All over how to clean vinyl.  I am amazed at all the scientific discussion.  This is all good.  Regarding chemistry I am knowledgeable but not to this extent.  I think it is healthy and informative.  Can someone tell me how to keep my dog from pissing in the house.  He is a Basenji and will take suggestions but never orders.  Thnxs

Mark

@wizzzard

From your earlier post:
"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"

To properly understand cleaning potential of an UltraSonic device, more information is needed than you stated.
Not only watts/power, but also bath volume. Distance between Lp(s) and transducer is also very important, especially if multiple Lps in the bath.

@wizzzard
From your last post:
"I know all I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning"
Apparently not:
"

antinn 338 posts 06-09-2023 at 12:01pm @drkingfish WARNING: 22% Ethanol is flammable with a flashpoint of about 75F. Using this concentration in an Ultrasonic Tank with 100’s or 1000’s of mL that is not explosion proof rated is dangerous. With an ultrasonic unit three mechanisms are in play - the heat that speeds up evaporation; the record rotating is drawing fluid out that is evaporating, and the ultrasonics are agitating the fluid surface and a mist/vapor is often produced. All of this has the potential to setup the necessary conditions to develop flammable AND potentially explosive vapors. Additionally, in a common domestic setting, it is very unlikely that the high ventilation turn-over rates that are required in medical and industrial settings that prevent the accumulation of flammable/explosive vapors will be used. So, the risk in a domestic setting is much higher. There are explosion-proof rated industrial US tanks, but these are very expensive and generally not sold to consumers. Otherwise, ’flammable’ alcohol concentrations use with vacuum-RCM the risk is much less, mitigated by use at room temperature and by the very small quantity used – maybe 5- mL per side.

wizzzard OP 114 posts 06-09-2023 at 02:44pm @antinn Why do people continue post things that they know absolutely nothing about? What are your academic qualifications? In the mean time be also cautious that your glass of wine does not "blow-up in your face while you are writing your response! Sincerely,"

Posted many times in this thread:
https://thevinylpress.com/precision-aqueous-cleaning-of-vinyl-records-3rd-edition/

@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

@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

@mijostyn 

As I stated in a previous post these perfluoropolyether lubricants are typically only a few nanometers thick. Assuming the LAST record preservative is a similar thickness, you would not be able to see it on your slide.

@wizzzard 

I guess human noses are not all that accurate. It must be the fluorine that has a characteristic odor. They are all very volatile substances. As for the "lubricant," is that volatile also or do you think the concentration is so low I could not see it on the slide. I was always talking about the preservative which predates the cleaner by several years. 

The high pricing of the LAST products is another method used frequently on the audiophile community to convince us that something really works or sounds better. Ridiculous pricing should always set off alarm bells. 

I apologize for not being completely accurate, but the end result remains unchanged. LAST preservative is a rather typical audiophile aimed scam. When a product makes claims that are very difficult to validate, alarm bells should go off.  

@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 

Oh, I’m not offended @wizzzard , and don’t consider your case against Walter Davies’ ethics to be proven, nor that he even has an "other side." Even if Last products are what you or anyone else may consider grossly over-priced, that is not (to me at least) what constitutes a lack of ethics. Greed perhaps 😉. Now mis-representing the ingredients of a liquid product is an entirely different matter.

In a trial the jury doesn’t render a verdict after hearing only the prosecutor’s case against the defendant. I don’t consider the case you make against Last Record Preservative and/or Walter Davies to be proven just because you say it is. I prefer to withhold judgement until the defendant has presented his rebuttal.

You state a lot of opinions---and have reached conclusions---that you expect everyone else to accept as facts. You use cold, hard numbers to make your case, with which I have no problem (to me the most important information contained in Stereophile reviews is John Atkinson’s test bench findings). But I don’t assume your information to be correct, or even complete.

You obviously consider your numbers to be irrefutable proof of another’s lack of ethics and honesty, and seem to relish revealing that fact to the world. You remind me of Peter Aczel 😉 .