The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

@whart 

Thank you anyway, and thank you for responding.  So, perhaps someone else may be able to further comment on the patent issue.

Sincerely,

Wizzzard

@bdp24 

Sorry about any misunderstanding!  But, when one usually states that they consider them as "most ethical", that usually implies that one is ethical at all times.  It is not as if you are "ethical" at work, but you are "unethical" at home.

That is an inconsistency that can not possibly exist.  Basic logic must prevail throughout.  And, I understand that you may feel offended, and I am truly sorry to have exposed Walter E. Davies's "other side" to you.  I can understand why you may feel conflicted, but, facts are facts.  Only an "opinion" can alter reality.

Sorry!

Wizzzard

Regarding my statement that Walter Davies "was one of the most ethical persons I have ever known", that was obviously (it seems to me) said in regard to my interactions with him as a hi-fi shop owner. To then take that opinion and by the use of transference apply it to Walter’s (accused) business practices as owner of The Last Factory says more about @wizzzard than it does about my perception of Walter’s sense of ethics.

I happened to make my first visit to Walter’s hi-fi shop on the day Bill Johnson was delivering and installing his complete ARC/Magneplanar system in the shop’s excellent sound room. I was only 22 years old, but wise enough to keep my mouth shut and my ears open. Beside getting a real education that day in all things hi-fi by listening to the two talk, I got my first exposure to a true high end system. The sound I heard that day transformed my life. Thank you Bill and Walter.

Damn @wizzzard, you put some time and effort into this!

Though Walter Davies passed away a few years ago---and had sold the Last company shortly before he did, I'd love to hear the current owner(s) reply to your critique. I'll check into it.

Sorry, Il Dottore, I am a copyright lawyer, not a patent lawyer. Yes, I can read a patent, but do not profess any expertise in the area. There were a few long time members here that did have patent expertise- I think Fred Crowder was one. 

My main area of concentration was the protection of artistic content, and not inventions, per se. 

Good luck. 

@bdp24  ​​@ljgerens   @mijostyn   @whart 

Not something that I thought I would find myself doing.  But I feel the need to step in as moderator. My justification in doing so is actually stated in the very initial post about one of the quintessential reasons I posted my “Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation”  was in order that people should not be found paying ridiculous high prices for products that cost pennies to make, and for products that may not even provide the claims made by these companies or individuals.

@mijostyn , a person I have learned to respect from his posts, has stated his position about these products produced by The LAST Factory.  And, he is correct in doing so. I may be mistaken, but, in his response to @ljgerens  he may have gotten the “LAST preservative” mixed up with the “LAST cleaner”.   In his brazen enmity and disdain for the worthlessness of the products I find it very easy to understand and accept.

And also Ljgerens  did not appear to support any of the products or validate them in any of my readings of his posts.  It is exactly as he had stated and that he was only commenting on what is included in the patent and brochures that he has viewed.  Nothing more, nothing less.

And @bdp24 , I know you had stated that he “was one of the most ethical persons I have ever known”.  He was an excellent hi-fi storeowner Livermore, California.  You obviously knew Walter E Davis and was very impressed by him, and, as you state, that he had an extensive technical background and education.  I am truly sorry that I must make some “Factual Statements” as has Ljgerens has already made some, I intend to further expound,

First there is no” binder” (whatever that may imply) in The Record Preservative. Mijostyn stated: “lying is an art form among human beings, and that the products are a hoax”. I fully agree with the exception that he should have inserted the word “some” between “among—-and—-human”.

I can only go by the presented information posted the “LAST Factory website”, and the list of products and their claims and their pricing. And by the patent filed by Walter E. Davies and Marion M. Fulk on 1 November 1993 and issued on 14 February 1995. and, that is, U.S. Patent number 5,389,281.  First I would like to inform you that my first employer after completing my initial academics chose several people to attend law classes in Patent Law at a nearby University that had an excellent Law School.   This is not an unusual activity for some major Corporations, and, do not mistake and I know Patent Law “inside and out”.  But, I am surprise that such a Patent was even issued, and, how it slipped by the reviewers to be issued.  Any Lawyer knows that the value of the patent is only truly established when it is challenged (if that ever occurs).   But there are minimum standards for all claims, the lack of any unrelated or similar existing patents, etc., etc..Perhaps @whart  may be interested to contribute with regard to this matter. He did state he was a retired Lawyer, and I realize Patent Law is a Speciality, but, he is certainly better qualified to provide accurate information related to this discussion.  I hope he has something to contribute and is willing to do so.  It would be sincerely appreciated by me as well as others because my knowledge is limited to several classes in Patent Law.  Especially his input with regard to the “claims” made in the patent.

I will discuss “The all-purpose cleaner” and “The record preservative”.  “The all-purpose cleaner” is sold in 2 packages.  A 2 oz. bottle sells for $38.95, and, a 4 oz. bottle for $58.95.  “The record preservative” is available as 2 oz. for $64.95, as 8 oz. for $228.95, and a 16 oz. bottle for $432.95.

“The record cleaner contains 4 ingredients.  It is more than 97% deionized water, 2.34% Isopropyl alcohol, 0.01% of an anionic surfactant, and 0.48% of 3,5-dimethyl-1-hexyn-3-ol (a relatively common alcohol).  Both the Aerosol OT-75, and the Sulfynol 61 are both very “cheap”.  Both commonly used in low cost automotive windshield washer fluid among many other products that require a flow agent and surfactant.

“The record preservative contains only 2 ingredients.  The one ingredient is perfluoropolyether (which is covered in a previous post), and as Ligerens also stated as a fluorinated lubricant which he is familiar with as well.  This lubricant was originally developed by DuPont Chemical.  It is incorporated at a level of 0.055%, and the other 99.945% is a blend of perfluorohexane, perfluoroheptane, and perfluorooctane.  The majority of which is perfluorooctane.  A blend such as this perfluoroalkane in “Industrial Circles’ is frequently called a “DAG”, which is a various blend allowing the product to be about 50% to 60% lower in cost than a specific ingredient, as in this case, that would be perfluorooctane.  Another way of lowering the cost.  For the benefit of Mijosyyn in his discussion with Ligerens, it is not a CFC because it contains no Chlorine, not that it matters much, but just to be precise.

Nevertheless, I took the liberty to calculate the raw material costs based on current pricing of materials in what would be considered relatively small quantities, that is, 5 gallon containers versus 55 gallon drum price which would be far significantly lower in price,

The 2 oz. All-purpose record cleaner that sells for $38.95 per bottle contains $0.030 worth of materials.

The 4 oz. All-purpose cleaner that sells for $58.95 per bottle contains $0.060 worth of raw materials.

The 2 oz. of LAST record preservative that sells for $64.95 contains $0.094 worth of raw materials.

The 8 oz. version that sells for $228.95 contains $0.374 worth of raw materials, and the 16 oz. “best value for your dollar” selling for $432.95 contains only $0.748 worth of raw materials.

And, if you believe a major investment in equipment is required, you would be wrong.  A 5 gallon Plastic bucket and a stir stick and two scales, a funnel, and a few coffee filters and you are in business.  A semi-sophisticated (meaning non-automatic) which would require a variable mixer, and a 25 litre stainless steel mixing vessel, with more accurate scales, and a variable volumetric manual filling device with proper industrial filters, wold cost no more than $2,000.00.

I took only the 16 oz. Record preservative  as an example and contacted people that we use to purchase high quality “peel and stick” labels, and a company we purchased bottles from (colorred glass in this case).  I am speaking high quality labels, better than those of The LAST factory, and they would be impervious because they would be coated and in three colour printing.  I considered employing someone at $55,000.00 annually including all benefits and insurance, including Workers Compensation Insurance, and I calculated the Total Cost to produce a 16 oz. bottle of LAST record preservative to cost only $1.936 per bottle.  The same product that you are expected to pay $432.95.  That is a whopping  5,595 % Margin.  I hope I made my point.

Now, @bdp24, if you believe this to be “ethical" , you need to re-evaluate your meaning of the word.  I believe it is abhorrent, and almost criminal.  I know it is not criminal, but my beliefs are different than the Law.

The claims, on the other hand, is another matter.  Again, I ask if @wart to weigh in with his understanding.  Fact, the “preservative” is a lubricant.  It provides no preservation of the actual vinyl.  And, their statement that it “bonds to the records” is an absolute impossibility.  It is a surface application only, no bonding!  Also, NO penetration takes place.  And, certainly no bonding, even remotely, can take place.  The Chemical bond between a Fluoride and another Carbon atom is one of the strongest chemical bonds to exist.  In order for bonding to take place, this chemical bond needs the be “altered”, even just slightly, and that is a TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITY!   Therefore, this claim is absolutely false.

I stated that I have no intension to ever express any opinions, so, anything else I would have to offer would only offensive.  So I will make no other comments other than everything stated is factual and verifiable.

I realize my explanations are, at times lengthy, but I do want to be understood by everyone, and I find it necessary to at least provide enough information in order that I may be understood.  I could have been even more detailed, and more technical, and provide even additional information, but I believe this is sufficiently adequate.  And, if you have any additional specific questions, I will gladly provide you the necessary answers.

Thank you for your time.  I hope this is finally laid to rest!

Wizzzard

@bdp24 

Sorry to disappoint you, but, yes it is a "surface only" perfluoropolyether lubricant.  I have prepared a very detailed response that I will submit on Sunday 23 July 2023.  I do not have time now because of a family emergency.  So, I hope that you and @mijostyn  and @ljgerens  can wait till then you will have everything that you need to know, that should satisfy everyone.  I ask for your patience.  Till later!

Thank you,

Sincerely, Wizzzard 

Last were very adamant in stating their Record preservative is NOT a lubricant. What it is is explained in their technical papers, for those sincerely interested.

@mijostyn

I never stated an opinion regarding the LAST record preservative. I have never used it or analyzed it. I only stated what they claim in their patent and brochure for your information regarding its chemical composition. You stated this in a previous post on 07-15-2023:

"LAST the record preservative is mostly if not entirely a CFC"

Their patent does not list the use of a CFC in their formulation. Their patent using a perfluoropolyether as a lubricant in a suitable perfluoroalkane carrier is not unusual. Perfluoropolyethers are widely used as lubricants in a variety of industrial applications, for example the Magnetic Recording Media industry where they are used as lubricants on HD drive surfaces. These coatings are typically only a few nanometers thick. In fact in my laboratory we analyzed several perfluoropolyethers which were coated to lower the surface energy of various substrates. Typically these coatings were between 1 to 2 nanometers thick. We had no problem characterizing these coatings with the proper analytical techniques. The LAST formulation can easily be characterized in a similar fashion to what I would typically do with the coatings in my laboratory. To determine the chemical structure, composition and thickness of these coatings I typically used several analytical techniques including: Photoelectron Spectroscopy, Static Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry, Spectroscopic Ellipsometry, and Atomic Force Microscopy.

@joenies 

Yes, I mentioned "Record Mats".  This happens to actually be an extensive study.  And because it was so extensive, I will be getting back to it later after clearing up a few other matters first.  I hope that it will not be that long from now.  But I will give you some advance notice because it is restricted in one very specific way, that is, it is related to turntables with aluminum platters.

Any other platters will be an extrapolation only.  All the testing was done on an AR-ES1 and an Oracle Delphi Model IV.

The results are surprising, I assure you.

But if you have a turntable that is Acrylic, or Glass, or anything else, its value is not as significant.  I just wanted to inform you of that at the onset.

Till later,

@dogberry 

I accept your’Apology!  And, I also should apologize to you as well because I obviously was not totally clear in my response to you.

Recall that my initial response was not intended for you as previously stated.  Also my primary point was not to correct your  spelling.  Believe me my spelling skills are pathetic, or I could have understood that you made a typo error, to which I can also relate.

My concern was exclusively that you believed it to be French and not Latin.  Also, the College at Oxford I was making reference to taught certain subjects in Latin and, a few, even in ancient Greek.  Not unusual for me, because the High School and Grammar School (last 3 years) taught Latin as a language so I was prepared.  When I was invited for the 500 year anniversary of the College some 6 years ago, the Opening Address by the President was in Latin not English.  So, I want you to understand also where I am coming from.

One last thing.  Your last sentence suggests discussing vinyl.  I would like you to be the first to know that I will be addressing this subject, and intend to speak of vinyls (plural).  I will make myself clear and understood in a few days.  It is this one misunderstanding that appears to relate to a number of issues that result in conflicting statements that I hope to clarify.  So, yes I agree "Vinyls", and I also hope you do not ignore the other subjects in which I possess knowledge that I am willing to share.

So can we both agree "to better days and better communication"!  I will do my best, and, I am fairly confident that you will as well.

I thank you for listening, and appreciating, and understanding.

Sincerely,

"Wizzzard"

@wizzzard 

please read my last post.

@ljgerens 

And you believe that garbage? lj, look at you email inbox tomorrow AM and think it over. Anytime a human makes a claim that is impossible to prove or disprove it is sure to be a hoax. Lying is an art form among human beings. The real good liers get to be President of the greatest country on earth.  

Here is a very good pdf - 200pages - on cleaning records. Including formula for cleaner - both manual and using US RCM. I am about 100p into it, just providing this as part of the discussion. YMMV of course. 

https://thevinylpress.com/precision-aqueous-cleaning-of-vinyl-records-3rd-edition/

@mijostyn 

I do not mean to be a pest, but, you just stated that you used "a Freon", and, you have no idea what kind it was.  Whether it was 113, or 11, or some other number.  The HOW did you become associated with cleaning your vinyl records with "CFC-113?

@mijostyn

I have no association with LAST and I have never used it. I am just posting what I found on one of their patents and one of their brochures at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 1982.

One of the patents that I found was issued to Walter E. Davies, one of the founders of the LAST company. The patent states the following:

"Compositions for preserving records and reducing the friction thereon, have now been invented. Compositions for preserving records comprise about 0.05% to about 0.2% by volume perfluoropolyether having an average molecular weight of about 2,000 to about 6,000, such as Fomblin® Y25, and a perfluoroalkane carrier."

A quote from a LAST brochure at CES 1982:

"LAST effects a change in the surface of the vinyl to a depth of ~ 10 moleculer units which has the effect of reducing the surface free energy of the vinyl record which reduces friction and provides better traceability of the stylus."

Reducing the surface free energy makes sense if the active species is a fluorocarbon similar to the patents which describe using a perfluoropolyether as the lubricant.

I had a vinyl record from years ago that I kept for sentimental reasons... it had pops clicks and skips all over but I couldn't bring myself to let it go. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap cleaning mechanism (you know water and dawn dish water soap and you turn it clockwise 10 times and counter clockwise 10 times) and I watched youtube videos for suggestions too. I decided to try it on this record because I had nothing to lose. After I used the cleaning wash, I also used WD 40 on it as a youtube video suggested and wiped it off with a microfiber cloth. You know when I played it, it sounded as if it were brand new without a click pop or skip on it. Now I believe in fairies and only use this method... I'm not saying a $1200 or $2500 cleaning machine wouldn't do as good and probably will.

1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane is also officially identified as CFC-113 by the EPA such as Ozone-Depleting Substances | US EPA, by ASHRAE STD -34, Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, and by CDC such as Preventing Death from Excessive Exposure to Chlorofluorocarbon 113 (CFC-113) | NIOSH | CDC, to name just a few.  Freon is a DuPont trademark, which is why it's officially not identified as Freon-113 although it's acknowledged that this is another term.  In some circles CFC-113 was also known as Freon PCA (precision cleaning agent).

I was part of the Navy's CFC Elimination Program and spent too many years developing solutions to eliminate CFC-113, but for the most part was successful being awarded an EPA Ozone Protection Award in 1995 - Document Display | NEPIS | US EPA

I know more about CFC-113 than I care to admit.   I also assisted with establishing the DOD CFC-113 Mission Critical Reserve and here is one piece of trivia, kept in sealed contained away from moisture CFC-113 has an 'indefinite' shelf life.

Now back to your regular scheduled programming....

@wizzzard 

Way back in the 60's it was easy to get Freon. It was the cleaning fluid of choice for Ampex tape machines and I was in charge of cleaning and demagnetizing my father's Ampex. I had a brown medicine bottle full of Freon. I would dip a Q-tip in it and gently clean the heads and tape path. I think my father purchased it from the HiFi store, but I have no way of being sure. Back then nobody knew it was damaging the Ozone layer. HVAC guys would vent the stuff directly into the air! I have no idea if it was Freon 113. It was labeled "Freon." When I worked for dBx as a wiring technician they had a big bath that circulated a solvent which smelled and acted like Freon. They placed all their circuit boards in it to clean off the flux from soldering. It was open to the air! 

Last Record Preservative contains a "binder" which bonds the PVC/etc. molecules together. The Library Of Congress uses the stuff. Walter Davies was the owner of the Last company, and co-creator of the Last products. He had earlier been an excellent hi-fi store owner in Livermore, CA (named Audio Arts). He had an extensive technical background and education, and was one of the most ethical persons I've ever known.

@mijostyn 

At some point I will explain more.  But, for not, I have one very specific question for you.  I need to be careful on how I phrase my question and to whom it relates to as well.  I will explain that to you as well, and, that will be sooner rather than later.  And, that explanation will not only be for you but for others as well.  You will understand when it becomes known.  But, for now, do not think that I am being "strange", but I need to know something from you specifically before I am able to provide an accurate response to some matters.

You had been "accused" (I know that may not be the best word), or you have stated (again, not knowing any history) that you used  - "CFC-113", or, " incidental use of CFC-113".

I can only imagine that this relates to "Freon 113" , which is 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane, is that correct?  If not, please correct.  If so, please state how you had access to Freon 113, and how was it containerized, and in what year that may have been.

I have never heard Freon 113 referred to as CFC-113.  That does not mean that it was not the case, it only means that I never heard of it expressed that way.  I am curious though, that "in some circles" that may have been the case.  Please note that I have purchased, either through our own business, or, for companies where I was employed, that I had purchased well over 2 million pounds of Freon 113 from DuPont over a relatively short period of time in my history.  I need to know what is correct, and where material came from, or, who made what statements and when.  Please, do not think that I am reacting strangely.  I just need to know for now.

I await your response.  Thank you.

@wolf_garcia 

You just made PVC flypaper. You have to use dry pistachio nuts. Peanuts are to hard to hold onto.  

@ljgerens , I would think you would know by now that I use microscopes on a regular basis to do a lot of things. Yes I did. I use chlorinated brake cleaning fluid only. I can't stand the smell of the other stuff. It is great for cleaning bicycle components. That other stuff sucks. They tried to take the good stuff off the market. They failed. 

There in NO lubricant in LAST. LAST leaves absolutely NOTHING on the record. Flood the surface of a fresh microscope slide with LAST and let the solvent evaporate at room temperature. It will only take a minute or two. Then have a look under the scope. All you will see is some incidental dust. That solvent smells exactly like Freon which smells a whole lot like the brake cleaning fluid I use. We use to diagnose diabetic ketoacidosis by smelling the acetone on their breath. There are many diagnoses you can make by smell alone. I know it is very empirical but when a manufacturer does not list components it is all you have.  

@wizzzard 

Life is convoluted. You know that better than most. I am just a lay chemist. I know my biochemistry well and aced inorganic chemistry but promptly forgot all of it. Same for math. What the heck were you making? Sounds like chemical warfare. 

@mijostyn 

"CORRECTED"      -   To Late in the evening!

O.K. This is going to require some clarification and will take some time.  I promise to get back to this subject soon.

But first, you are convoluting several very distinct classes into one grouping.  You have managed to combine "Chlorofluorocarbons", with "Chlorinated Solvents", with "Fluorinated Solvents", and with "aerospace lubricants developed in in 1959 by DuPont" that have found there way into a commercial lines somewhat later. The Molykote products in 1965 and the Krytox in 1981products.

I am going to avoid some "people" from trying to correct me.  I am fully aware that Molykote was first developed in August of 1948 and the Krytox in September of 1959.  And yes, I am aware that the U.S. Air Force was. able to acquire Molykote lubricants in 1960 (a well kept secret at the time), and was also used the Krytox products on the Apollo mission in 1965 and on aircraft.  So, no need to try and correct me.  And I was purchasing large quantities of Krytox in early 1981 (one of DuPont's first commercial customers).

But the primary issues are the solvents.  And again to prevent others from attempting to correct me, I had a 2,500 gallon tank installed by Dupont outside our own business and purchased Freon 113 in large quantities.  We were also purchasing truckload ( 80 drums) quantities of 1,1,1 Trichloroethane on a regular basis.  I decided to use 1,1,1 versus Trichloroethylene even though there were no restrictions on its purchase, and was significantly cheaper.  But, I chose Safety for our employees over cost and efficiency.  I even was instrumental in trying the get Trichloroethylene banned long before anyone considered its dangerous.  You need to know this did not help make me a "popular guy" in the Societies.  I often was booed long before I was able to stand up to walk to the podium to give my presentation.  And yes, even objects were hurled at me.

But I drifted.  But in is complicated, and I need to present it well.  In the mean time, Mijostyn, you are basically more correct than those that choose to try and correct you.  Just wanted you to know that.  

And, on the "brake fluids" there are those that are Chlorinated and much, much better for for cleaning brakes and parts.  And, there are the "flammable brake fluids" in spray cans that do not have a respectable position among auto technicians anywhere.

Till later - I promise  (Sorry about having to correct)

@mijostyn 

O.K. This is going to require some clarification and will take some time.  I promise to get back to this subject soon.

But first, you are convoluting several very distinct classes into one grouping.  You have managed to combine "Chlorofluorocarbons", with "Chlorinated Solvents", with "Fluorinated Solvents", and with "aerospace lubricants developed in in 1959 by DuPont" that have found there way into a commercial lines somewhat later. The Molykote products in 1965 and the Krytox in 1981products.

I am going to avoid some "people" from trying to correct me.  I am fully aware that Molykote was first developed in August of 1948 and the Krytox in September of 1959.  And yes, I am aware that the U.S. Air Force was. able to acquire Molykote lubricants in 1960 (a well kept secret at the time), and was also used the Krytox products on the Apollo mission in 1965 and on aircraft.  So, no need to try and correct me.  And I was purchasing large quantities of Krytox in early 1981 (one of DuPont's first commercial customers).

But the primary issues are the solvents.  And again to prevent others from attempting to correct me, I had a 2,500 gallon tank installed by Dupont outside our own business and purchased Freon 113 in large quantities.  We were also purchasing truckload ( 80 drums) quantities of 1,1,1 Trichloroethane on a regular basis.  I decided to use 1,1,1 versus Trichloroethylene even though there were no restrictions on its purchase, and was significantly cheaper.  But, I chose Safety for our employees over cost and efficiency.  I even was instrumental in trying the get Trichloroethylene banned long before anyone considered its dangerous.  You need to know this did not help make me a "popular guy" in the Societies.  I often was booed long before I was able to stand up to walk to the podium to give my presentation.  And yes, even objects were hurled at me.

But I drifted.  But in is complicated, and I need to present it well.  In the mean time, Mijostyn, you are basically more correct than those that choose to try and correct you.  Just wanted you to know that.  

And, on the "brake fluids" there are those that are Chlorinated and much, much better for for cleaning brakes and parts.  And, there are the "nonflammable brake fluids" in spray cans that do not have a respectable position among auto technicians anywhere.

Till later - I promise 

@rich121, Thanks!  

I still say the "cover the vinyl with peanut butter and let ants clean it off" method remains the best. Also, brevity...we need more brevity around here...

Just to add my two cents, since it came up. 

I have an original Discwasher system. Brush, stylus brush and mirror, Zerostat gun and tester bulb. All in a very nice walnut holder. I lived in central Missouri at the time Discwasher came on the market. It was invented by a University of Missouri Phd microbiology professor named Bruce Maier.

He patented his formula and founded the company around 1972 in Columbia and operated until 1982 when he sold the operation to Jensen. Jenson then moved it to Texas and I've lost track. I don't think they are around anymore.

@mijostyn

Regarding your use of brake cleaning fluid on records. I have no idea what brake cleaning fluid you used, but I have only seen two types of brake cleaning fluid. Chlorinated which typically contain Perchloroethylene, Methylene Chloride or Trichloroethylene as the active solvent. Non-chlorinated which typically contain acetone, heptane, isopropyl alcohol, mineral spirits or toluene as the active solvent. The chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) that you refer to may be the propellant in the aerosol can.

You mention you haven"t observed any cracks after using brake cleaner on your records. Did you analyze your records with a high magnification microscope and look for micro cracks, pits or any changes to the record surface?

I don’t know the chemical composition of "LAST" record preservative, but the patents for record preservatives that I am familiar with typically list a perfluoropolyether as the lubricant in a suitable carrier. The purpose of these preservatives is to coat and lubricate the record surface and protect it from friction and wear from the stylus. These record preservatives are very different from brake cleaners and contain no chlorinated species and no chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that I am aware of.

mijostyn -  Thanks very much.  I placed my order.

@normantaylor 

Lab Depot. 

I want to try this formula.  I acquired the alcohol.  I have not found anyone who will sell me Tergitol 15-S-7 because I am not from a laboratory.  Any suggestions on how I can acquire this?

This is off-topic and I apologise. The post that I reply to has been removed but was intemperate and insulting.

I agree that "chirurgerie" is an archaism, and that most modern results for a search on the meaning of B.Ch. will show "chirurgie," but I stand by my statement that "chirurgerie" is the word contracted into that B.Ch. Let me give some examples that pre-date google:

https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/ex_libris_2.pdf

https://archive.org/details/b30321220

https://archive.org/details/b30330750

https://jufa.piopend.info/TheMostExcellentWorkesOfChirurgerieMadeAndSetFoortheByMaisterJohnVigonHeadChirurgienOfOureTymeInItalieTranslatedIntoEnglish...Symples,BelongyngToTheArte.(1571)%7CBartholomewTraheron.htm

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A05049.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Now let us discuss vinyl and stop being distracted.

Greetings 

@wizzzard Thank you for sharing your record cleaning process. I look forward to trying your method.

In your OP you mentioned information on record mats. I’m very interested in your recommendations.

Respectfully,

Joe Nies

As a movie buff, I cannot resist making a minor correction.  Paul Newman as "Cool Hand Luke" did not utter the lines, "What we've got here is a failure to communicate".  Those lines were spoken TO the Newman character by the prison Captain or warden, after one of his sadistic punishments failed to "improve" Luke's rebellious behavior.  I think the Captain's role was played by Strother Martin.

@wizzzard, PVC is very sturdy stuff. It is hard to hurt it. There was a huge argument over alcohol damaging the PVC. I ranted on about cleaning records with brake cleaning fluid, a CFC. Always willing to put my money where my mouth is I took 5 Analog Productions albums and wasted an entire can spraying them, both sides. They still sound like the day I got them. 

"LAST" the record preservative is mostly if not entirely a CFC. It has the characteristic smell and evaporates almost instantly. How might a CFC decrease record wear? If you remove any of the plasticizer you harden the record. The plasticizer is in there to make the PVC more moldable. Antinn believes removing the plasticizer will cause cracking. There is none of this in the records I treated with brake cleaning fluid.  I also have no way of showing if record wear is actually reduced. I have always been of the opinion that LAST is a joke. What do you think?

Getting the Tergitol is not so easy. Most of the sites online require documentation and they will not ship it to e residential address. I finally found one that will.

@wizzzard In a previous post, there was a possibility made known, that a weight of BASF Dehypon LS 54 could be made known as an alternative to 15-S-7.

Is this still a info being pursued? 

@mijostyn 

Forgive me, but why, out of the "clear blue sky" are you bringing up chlorofluorocarbons at tis time.  And what specific CFC are you relating to?  There are many and they are all very, very different.

What may be your reasoning?

Wizzzard

@pindac 

Please forgive me but I did not quite understand what you actually meant.  And, this is totally my problem.

Thankyou,

@whart 

You stated the following:  "There is no "best" in my experience."

Are you intending to contact the people at Webster's, (The World Publishing Company), and, the Oxford Dictionary (Oxford Press), and properly correct them?

Or, would you rather that I relay your "Expert Knowledge" about this major error that has existed for over hundreds of years.  I think it should. be you, after all, you deserve the Credit!  Or, is Credit  the correct word and not something else like R....e, or, S.....y!

Your call!  

Regards,

Wizzzard

@rich121 

I am pleased that you seem to be having a pleasant exchange with @whart , but, I do not see how it relates to this post.  Perhaps it would be more appropriate to communicate in a different manner, or, on another post!

@rich121 

Why do you continue to bring up Tergitol 15-S-9, when my formulation calls for Tergitol 15-S-7?

@lloydc 

Do not take this as a silly question but what Country are you located in?  Also, how much Tergitol 15-S-7 are you interested in, or, how much are you willing to spend?  It is an either /or question.  Also, may I ask who have you already contacted and how?  Have you tried to phone the local Dow Distributor or Representative?

Also, you should be aware that this is originally a Union Carbide development, and product still exist with their name as well.  Dow purchased the formulations and technologies of all Tergitol products from Union Carbide.  Although Union Carbide was not functioning in North America for a very long time since the "Bopal Fiasco", they continued production in some other Nations.

I await you info!   

@bdp24   @cleeds    @dogberry   @drkingfish    @ericsch    @gemoody    @lewm    @ljgerens  @mijostyn  @noromance  @pindac ​@rhg3 ​@rich121 @boothroyd 

@duckmanst3 @jasonbourne71 @jm-audiophilemusiclover ​@jwillox ​@kennyc 

@lloydc @mojo771 ​@moonwatcher ​@recklesskelly ​@richmon ​@thecarpathian 

@whart 

To All:

I’m back!  Or rather, I should state that I will be back!

I just wanted to make those aware that were awaiting my return, that I will be returning.  I will be attending to requests and questions very soon.  Just a few other matters to attend to, and I am looking forward to sharing my knowledge with whoever is interested.  And, to those who had hoped to never hear from me again -  "Live with it"!

While away at two distant Hospitals that we were attending to address my wife’s current needs, and, away for a much longer period of time that we were originally anticipating.  I had opportunity to reflect on a number of important (and not so important) matters.  This period of contemplative time was very beneficial.  It also became a wonderful total period because my wife’s status was eventually determined to be very positive and we were both pleased.

During these "contemplative periods", whether I was alone or in a public arena, and, whether I was well, or affected by my medical condition, entailing paralysis and pain - my thoughts kept being invaded by two different lines from two different movies.  One was from "Cool Hand Luke" spoken by Paul Newman playing Luke Jack Jackson.  And, it was:  "What we have here is a failure to communicate" (BANG!).  The other is from "A Few Good Men" spoken by Jack Nicholson playing Colonel Nathan Jessup as he shouted in the Courtroom - "You can’t handle the truth".  Famous lines for certain in Cinema, however, totally irrelevant to all the things that I was thinking about.  It made no sense, until, one day, while in a Public Area at the Hospital, and, unfortunately during one of my cycles that caught me off-guard, creating alarm and concern to others that required explanation and assurances to those around me.  Suddenly, a gentleman appeared with another individual and began to speak very loudly.  People are normally offended by such mannerism, however, at the time, it was a welcomed distraction for me.  He than began to complain about his stupid son who just purchased these giant speakers that cost five times more than what he paid for his first car.

It was at that exact moment that I realized that the forum I initiated in early June was subconsciously revealing itself as a "disturbance", and, that was why these particular movie lines kept interrupting my thoughts.  My mind immediately jumped to all the wonderful people who were writing to me regarding my decision to share my knowledge about audio elements, but, they were writing to me using the "Insider" selection of the Audiogon website.  I could not understand why!  The letters were lengthy and extensive.  They were all very complimentary and always encouraging (as if I was to quit).  They were very comprehensive, well written with considerable effort expressing their appreciation.  I was grateful for all of them and appreciated their concern and gratitude and responded accordingly.  BUT, none of these individuals ever stated anything on the forum itself.  I noted that many of these individuals had their own Forums and were members for a very considerable time.  It was if I was involved in two very different forums that did not have any resemblance to each other, considering what I was contending with on the actual forum with certain individuals.

Self appointed experts who even had the audacity to "correct me" about matters even unrelated to the purpose of the post, but, clearly demonstrating their animosities by making absolute ridiculous statements, such as, discussing Medical degrees at British Universities, specifically Oxford.  Correcting me, when I stated, "that the Ch" in "BCh" stands for "Bachelor of Surgery" and not "Bachelor in Chemistry".  And state that the "Ch" is in relation to the old Latin terminology.  Some Yahoo had to speak out with all the authoritative expertise he could possibly muster, that, the "Ch" is not from Latin, but is French "Chirurgerie" (even mis-spelling the French "Chirurgie" while attempting to correct me, and, if he intended Old French, he got that wrong as well because the correct spelling is "Cirurgie").  And, of all languages to state, he selected French, no less.  Absolutely incredible!  Also, it never crosses his mind that I may be fluent in several languages, and functional in several others.  He also makes no assumption that perhaps this "Wizzzard" guy may have attended one of those 27 Colleges (at that time) at Oxford University that provided Medical degrees but chose to concentrate on Chemistry in it’s stead. upon arrival.

I selected this as my "chosen example", because it is totally unrelated to the concept and objective of the Forum as outlined at the very beginning.  And, it is a prime example of one’s "soul" being so vitriolic and overtaken with oppugnant contempt, and, in the process distracting and diverting other potentially interested parties in participating in this forum to ask any pertinent questions.  To someone that viewed this forum for the very first time and possibly wishes to ask a question, I can only imagine that person being DRIVEN AWAY from this "Circus Atmosphere", by those already contributing.  I think, and I believe, that I would most likely be dissuaded from participating, and move on, after all, who has time for such crap?  I would not blame them one bit, because I would most likely obtain the same impression.

I happen to be a very knowledgeable person in some areas, who simply wants to share the valuable information that I possess with others, and that relates to the Audio Sector.  I wish to share what I know, but, on a request basis.  Rather than selecting what I believe to be significant or important, and then to pontificate about my selection, I would prefer that participants choose what is important to them.  I am not qualified to make any contributions regarding electronics.  This has already been covered by many experts over the decades.

My intent is to address anyone and everyone who enjoys listening to music, whether it be classical, opera, jazz, folk, popular, or, any other form of music.  And, I wish to best utilize their existing collections or recordings to provide the best sounding music possible with what they have.  They can be musicians, singers, or creators of recordings, or, simply listeners.

I also am addressing those that are interested in the products that are intended to reproduce music in their listening environments to sound as realistic as possible, and as the artists intended, and to experience the sound as if the artists are in the recipient’s environment.  This is nothing new and no different than all other devices and their developers.  My input is to maximize some of these same goals with realistic simple scientific technologies that may have been overlooked using previous unaddressed scientific methods, and to accomplish these goals without annoying subsequent distractions.

I am also specifically addressing those who do not wish to be conned by "expensive "gimmicks" and costly "magical materials".  Whether your finances are "hard-earned" (as most are), or, if it fell from the heavens.  Nobody should be fooled by charlatans.  This was the single most specific point that prompted me to start this post.  For a few dollars you can make your system sound better.

Some of us are fortunate to be able to afford very expensive equipment, at times, even ridiculously expensive equipment.  My spirit lies with those who are not as fortunate to have unlimited disposable incomes, but, those that have moderately priced equipment that can be improved upon easily without spending much money.

I want my forum to appeal to everyone, you do not need to have a post-graduate degree, or a college degree, or, for that matter a high school diploma.  You ONLY NEED to LOVE MUSIC and appreciate its’ accurate reproduction.

I posted my multiple degrees and experience not to boast, or to demonstrate arrogance, but, for the mere reason that you become aware that the source of information is coming from a very qualified individual for the very specific reason, that you can have a level of confidence in me and what I post.  That was the only, and exclusive reason, for that brief introduction.  Otherwise, you could conclude that I am just another "shmuck" with some usual B.S. to spread.

I also wish to explain my remarks with some basic reasoning and explanations.  That anyone and everyone can understand. I only request that you have an open mind. Otherwise, I am not failing you, but you are failing yourself by adhering to preconceived notions. This failing aspect has already displayed itself on several occasions I cannot "get to you" if you are not willing to "open the door". So, please do not cling to prior adages and stubbornly refute something that is new to you, or that you may have not heard before.  Now, I want everyone to know that I can bury anyone with technical data and technical processes and established fundamentals of reactivity, etc.. And, to such a depth that they can begin to feel the enormous temperatures of the iron core of our planet. I can also destroy any conflicting suppositions by similar means, but "what would be the point"?

I am not submitting a paper to be published in a technical journal that is expected to be peer reviewed, anticipating accolades from Associations, and recognition from the American chemical Society and other Societies.  I have written and submitted many of these in the past.  Now, I am simply sharing some knowledge that has value and is helpful to those that express interest.

I realized that I had made a mistake and allowed myself to be distracted by those who were only wishing to debate issues.  I truly apologize to others and everyone I temporarily neglected.  However, do not be mistaken, I will inject myself in certain matters that are incorrect, and perhaps, provide a simple remark in order that it not be mistaken that I am comfortable with incorrect data and statements being made and going unchecked.  Also, at times, I may "drift" to some extent because that is my nature, and, it may be more for my benefit rather than yours.  You may read these "drifts", or, you may ignore them.  For my "drifting" I apologize in advance, consider them a characteristic flaw of an elder!

My new approach was to begin on 4 July 2023, Independence Day, an appropriate date, but, I recently encountered some medical issues of my own that delayed matters.  But, I am. Alive!  I will not forget people like @gemoody, and I intend to respond in a reverse order.  It may sound unusual but, I believe, it will be more efficient and easier for me as well.

Please keep in mind, I can not prevent others who wish to debate each other.  I can only point out mistakes and flawed thinking and conclusions.

I would like, and I would wish that this site contains only accurate and verifiable data and information, but, I now realize this too, is an impossibility.  And, to think that it started with a simple and straightforward formulation to produce "The Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation".  Not anything complicated, just a simple formulation.

I promise to do my best in the coming days, and I hope that you still "respect my intentions" and continue to participate in this Forum as it was intended.

Respectfully yours, "Wizzzard".

@lloydc 
Per Neil Antin @antinn :

Tergitol 15-S-9.

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

Update: I couldn't buy Tergitol 15-S-7 anywhere that I tried.  Orders accepted were cancelled.  It looks like you have to be a laboratory with certain credentials to buy it.

Is there a formula using Infotol?  Much more readily available.

@mijostyn, 

RE:  Is there any data on the extraction of ESO by Chlorofluorocarbons? Granted it is only 1% of the formulation but wouldn't extraction of ESO actually harden the PVC?

Not that I am aware of. 

The Navy in 1994 reported testing of Non-Rigid PVC immersed in CFC-113 (the CFC solvent you have used for record cleaning) for 24-hours @70F.  The average tensile strength loss was 3% and the average weight loss was 2.47%.   The particular nonrigid PVC tested was ASTM-D2287; nonrigid vinyl chloride polymer and copolymer classes in which the resin portion of the composition contains at least 90 % vinyl chloride. The remaining 10 % can include one or more monomers copolymerized with vinyl chloride or consist of other resins mechanically blended with polyvinyl chloride or copolymers thereof.  These nonrigid vinyl compounds are defined by a hardness range and include the necessary stabilizers, plasticizers, fillers, dyes, and pigments to meet the designated requirements.  No other details regarding the specific plasticizer are available.   However, the probability that ESO was the plasticizer for the ASTM D2287 sample is remote - it's not frequently used - July 2010 Phthalates CHAP Meeting: Uses of Phthalates and Other Plasticizers, Allen Godwin (cpsc.gov)

If the plasticizer is extracted, the results can be surface cracks - recall the cracking of older car dashboards.  

Knowing your history from prior posts of a few years back, and anticipating the reason for your question, has your incidental use of CFC-113 as a simple, short spray wash of a record caused damage, extremely unlikely.  

@whart
My experience with cleaning and opinion pretty much mirror most everything you stated in your post.
In fact, so much, that I too have a Keith Monks (dual platter) string RCM have both Degritter and new model Klaudio.
In many of these discussions, on multiple sites, about record cleaning, I have also stated that if I could only keep one machine, it would be the Keith Monks, hands down... an amazing machine.
The model I have is especially convenient, as with having dual platters I can either clean records using both platters, or, what I normally do is use the left side platter for cleaning and use the right side specifically for the final rinse/vacuum... this way, it is always clean and no worries of having to clean each time or cross contamination.

Neil (@Antinn) is good because his approach is cross-disciplinary- materials science and chemistry, applied. I don’t use alcohol to clean records and would certainly advise against it in a US machine due to risk of vapor explosion.

There is no "best" in my experience. I am, I guess, a collector of LPs, an audiophile and have spent more than a little time dealing with the practical realities of getting a record clean to play cleanly -since most of my buys are older copies. Dr. Wizzard can claim what he wants.

I vote for what works in application. I play back over a good system where I can hear small differences. I can hear the gremlins in vinyl manufacture, which no amount of cleaning will resuscitate. I’ve also had the experience, using a combo of Monks + US of reviving old copies that would have been written off as damaged due to groove chew.

I’m open to new methods- most of this is method, not fancy machinery- but certain constants remain- whatever fluid you are using to bind and remove contaminants must itself be removed, since it is, itself, a contaminant.

That means a rinse step.

Ultrasonic adds an additional dimension to cleaning. I’ve been using it since pretty early on, starting with the Audio Desk and still have the KL.

If I had to choose one machine and one commercial fluid, it would be the Monks (with string) and AIVS No. 15, followed by a rinse.

Some of Neil’s observations go far beyond that, and include an acid wash to address what US does, and also involves multiple steps for those who are relying primarily on US as their method for cleaning.

My ultimate test is playability over a highly sensitive horn based system using quality components, tubes, and cartridges throughout the chain.