I am providing this formulation for all who are interested in the very best, and can be proven and demonstrated to be the "Very Best". It can easily be made from available ingredients. On the surface, it appears to be very simple. However, it is based on extensive complex chemistry along with precise mathematical calculations and verifiable data.
You may use it with absolute confidence and be truly assured that it is beyond doubt the "Very Best". You may use it for your personal needs. Or, archival entities may use it for their purposes with confidence. Or, you may choose to start an enterprise that makes and packages quantities as either a "ready-to-use" or a "Semi-concentrated" version for sale and distribution knowing that nothing better exists. You have my blessings and encouragement with one condition. And, that is, that the pricing represents a "fair margin", and, not an obscene gouging, typical for such products.
Initially, I had prepared a presentation that briefly introduced myself, and provided the thought processes, design parameters, and the necessary basics of chemistry, physics, and mathematics to assure you and allow you to be absolutely confident in this formulation. I made a considerable effort to keep it as simple, but, also as thorough enough to achieve this confidence. However, that presentation entailed 5,239 words, typical of such a requirement, however, unacceptable in length by this website forum.
I have no option other than to offer the formulation as a 100% parts by weight version suitable to produce 1 Kilogram of the cleaner, and, invite you to question me about any aspect of the formulation.
Professionally, I am a Chemist, more specifically a Polyurethane Chemist. I have a Doctorate in Chemistry as well as two other Doctorates and a M.B.A.. I held prominent positions in significant corporations before being encouraged to start our (wife and I) manufacturing facility servicing those I previously worked for. We started, owned, and fully operated this business. We eventually obtained 85+% Market Share in our sector in Medical, Automotive, Sporting Goods, and Footwear areas before retirement.
The Audio Industry is extremely technical and many brilliant minds have contributed their talents over the decades in order that we may enjoy music today as we choose. Like many other technical industries, those of lesser minds and values invade the arena with their "magical" inspired revelations and offer their "magical" ingredients and items to all at extremely high prices. They promise that if only we are willing to part with our money - they can provide these items to you that make your audio system sound as if the orchestra, or vocalist, is in your room with you. And, after all, "magical items" must be expensive, otherwise, they would not be "magical".
This disturbs me enormously, and, it is for such reasons, I feel compelled to provide realistic and truthful information that conforms to basic Engineering, Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematical Principals in those areas with which I am very knowledgeable and familiar.
1.) Distilled Water ONLY. Do not use deionized, tap, rain, or spring water. Distilled Water is readily available in most grocery stores. Check labeling to be certain that it is distilled and not deionized. The pricing is comparable.
2.) Ethanol must be purchased at a "Liquor Store" or a "Liquor Control Board" that is suitable for human consumption, and the appropriate taxes must be paid. This assures that the alcohol consists of only Ethyl Alcohol and water. You need to purchase the 95+% version, also known as 180+ Proof. NOTHING ELSE is acceptable. (100% Ethyl Alcohol is not available under "normal" circumstances). Denatured alcohol from a Hardware Store or elsewhere is PROHIBITED, as well as ANY other alcohols.
3.) Tergitol 15-S-7 is made by Dow and is available on the internet in small quantities from Laboratory Supply Houses such as Fisher and Advance, etc.. I have no affiliations with either Dow Chemical, or Fisher, or Advance. You MUST use Tergitol 15-S-7 ONLY. No other Tergitol product is acceptable for this designed formula, and you need to acquire the undiluted form only.
4.) The above cleaner formula will result in a non-foaming (VLF) Surfactant Formulation that exhibits the following:
Surface Tension of 28.5 dynes/centimeter @ 20 C. (68.0 F.)
Surface Tension of 28.2 dynes/centimeter @ 25 C. (77.0 F.)
5.). A Surface Tension of 28.5 dynes/centimeter is Remarkable and will properly clean records of all organic soilings, and all oily substances, as well as very significant amounts of inorganic soilings. This available Surface Tension coupled with the Azeotropic Characteristics of very rapid evaporation and spotless drying occur because of the selection of Ethyl Alcohol and the very specific concentration determined as 22.00% p.b.w., further improves the products abilities. The "Ease-of-Use" and "Spot-Free" results are to be accepted.
6.). Be aware that an "ideal temperature of use" also exists for this formulation. And, that reasonable temperature is 40 C. (104.0 F.). Further increases in temperature offers no improvement, therefore, confirming the proper use of the term "ideal". I mention this not because of of any substantial improvement, but, only to be aware of its’ existence. And, if you have a choice to utilize a room that is warmer than another, select the warmer room closer to 104.0 F. There is no need to elevate the temperature of the records or the materials. Simply be aware that 104.0 F. Is ideal.
If interest is expressed in this submission, I am willing to provide additional submissions regarding other materials, and, other areas of interest. Such as"Best Contact Substance", "Best lubricants for turntables", " Better Dampening Materials" for turntables and tonearms, and, most significantly, "Best" material for "Turntable Platter/Vinyl Record Interface" usually called "Record Mats". The last item will certainly disturb many individuals and anger many suppliers.
Whatever I may contribute is substantiated by Science and Testing, and Verifiable. Science has no Opinions. Opinions in these matters are best reserved for those who rely on their imagination and wishful thinking.
Also, I have no vested interests in this Industry. Simply possess some scientific knowledge that also relates to some aspects of the Audio Area, and I am willing to share that information if requested!
I have been using a Keith Monks (have had 2 in my lifetime) for over 30 years and still think it is the best, if I had to choose just one machine.
But... even after using my Keith Monks I can say I almost always find another level of quiet background, less pops/clicks and more noticeable detail after the use of an UltraSonic cleaner.
That’s very interesting. My first exposure to proper record cleaning was with a Keith Monks machine. My local ARC dealer (at the time) had one and sold coupons you exchanged to clean your LPs on his machine. It did a fantastic job.
A while later, Nitty-Gritty introduced its machine and I snapped up one of the first. (That was before VPI entered the RCM market.) I still have and occasionally use it, but the Klaudio US cleaner can handle most any record I’m playing these days. And it is so-oooo much more convenient.
With 28,500 LPs and 7,000 78s, I often must clean records prior to play. I used the VPI 16.5 for 35+ years using a few formulations including disc doctor. Then I bought Kirmuss ultrasonic cleaner. Much quieter and easier with just distilled water, dried on the VPI. It cleans vinyl and shellac. No problem with the process, unfortunately, it also uncovers damage hidden by dirt and debris in the grooves of used records. So, I often end up with a noisier record post-cleaning. The benefit of the ultrasonic cleaning is superior resolution and overall sound quality from the record. Using a high end audio system, the "new" noise from wear and damage is obvious, for many listeners it may not be. So I do recommend ultrasonic cleaners that safely work at cleaning records despite the potential increased noise(s) from damaged/worn records.
lewm posted "Have you identified molecules that elute with IPA? In this regard, is ethanol safer? Thx."
@lewm The main additives diffusing to the surface with concentrated alcohols were identified as plasticizers as well as some stabilizers, scavengers and conditioners. Ethanol and Propanol behaved similarly in this regard although I did not study this in great detail with vinyl records so there may be subtle differences. I was not able to detect any leaching of additives with alcohol concentrations <10% for a few minutes exposure.
Can you describe exactly how you did these experiments?
As noted, I am only concerned about very short term exposure to 22% Ethanol vs 25% IPA. I certainly don't expect you to repeat your work to appease me, but it would help to better understand your methodology for studying the effects of lower concentrations of various short chain alcohols.
Just returned home earlier today. Have some appointments tomorrow. Intend on posting some responses Wednesday, 5 July 2023. Have no more time today.
However your last post is staring me right in my face as I type. If you are going to ask ljgerens a question at least get your question correct. Apples to apples, and, oranges to oranges. Remember that one?
You finally stated a few posts earlier that you are using deionized water, and "laboratory grade isopropyl alcohol that is 98.00% alcohol. You also stated that you are using Triton X-100, but, you did not state how much you incorporate. And, you stated that your formulation is by volume.
If you are comparing your formulation to The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" that I posted, than you question to ljgerens should read: "...exposure to 22.000% Ethanol vs 19.635% IPA". The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" is stated in parts by weight, not by volume.
Also, if you persist on "beating this dead horse", and insist on using your 98.00% IPA with your deionized water (recall, I told you I have no difficulties with your deionized water), and Triton X-100 (which is acceptable (refer to my post to @mijostyn)), then, at least formulate it at the "best correct balance".
Your formulation in parts by weight, would then be as follows:
Deionized water. 804.772 grams
Isopropyl alcohol (98.0%). 195.000 grams
Triton X-100 0.228 grams
Total Weight: 1,000.000 grams
There is no need to use more than 19.5% of your 98.00% in parts by weight, or, which is byvolume 24% not 25%
The primary inflection point of your IPA with regard to Surface Tension at 20 degrees C.
PLEASE, look back when you first asked the question about "Why Ethyl alcohol versus Isopropyl alcohol". I answered your question to you directly on 6 June 2023 at 6:25 PM. You first asked the question only 2 days earlier on 4 June 2023. And, you persist on asking the same question over and over again. And, you ask it of others as well. If you did not understand the answer, why did you not ask a specific question of me about the answer. Because it was answered. I don't understand why you keep asking the same question. Are you expecting a different answer? Because, guess what you already have the CORRECT ANSWER, and had it for 27 days now. It is a different matter if you do not understand the answer.
I suspect @wizzzardis not doing experiments but is following charts that specify the behavior of various chemicals and mixtures thereof. This is all well known to scientists that deal with it on a regular basis, the Dow Chemical types. I suspect wizzard belongs to this group. In medicine we all know the 1/2 life of the drugs we use by heart, information that is lost on a lawyer.
@wizzzard, I have a couple of yards of very conductive fabric, zero ohms over 10 cm. I am talking with Christan at Sota over making me a platter with this fabric instead of the standard fabric. I do not care to take the platter apart on my own without backup.
Great post. As a chemist myself (now retired) and having experimented with many formulations over the years, I find your simple formula is very good and effective. I have used a similar one substituting 100% isopropyl versus ethanol, but I believe Ethanol is a better alternative after reading the post. Thanks for your info.
Dear Wizzz, Here is what you wrote on June 6 at 6:25 PM, at the end of your tirade: "All materials including resins and resin blends, whether natural synthetic, have many characteristic parameters. I have correctly restricted myself to include the parameters that are of relevance. Because we are using solvents (and diluents) one of our primary objectives in not to alter or damage the substrate (vinyl recording). We want something that will clean the record the very best without causing harm, hence, "The Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation".The parameters are: Hildebrand Parameter , Dipole Moment, Dielectric Constant, Polarity, Fractional Polarity, and Hydrogen Bonding (van Der Waals forces).As we review ALL the alcohols available and other ingredients, only 2 ingredients have NO detrimental effect to vinyl records, and they are, distilled water and ethanol."
In the above passage, you clearly do imply that IPA is harmful to a vinyl LP. I guess you think that answered my question. But my question is and always was as follows: Exactly what is the nature of the harm that IPA (at about a 25% concentration at room temperature and with an exposure time of approximately 2 minutes) could do to a vinyl LP? This question you have not answered. But as I also wrote many times, you are under no obligation to provide any response. As noted previously, I do take umbrage that you excoriated me on June 6 in your post of 6:25 PM for claiming that the stylus exerts 300 lbs per square inch pressure on an LP. For the second time, I am not the individual who made that obviously and patently erroneous claim. And most any of us would know how to calculate the stylus pressure per square inch, given the dimensions of the contact patch and the VTF. Including the individual who made the innocent error in the first place. It would behoove you to keep in mind that your audience here on this forum is not a bunch of idiots.
As far as I know there is no evidence that Alconox Liquinox detergent and/or Talas Tergitol 15-S-9 surfactant damage PVC/Vinyl LP’s. And who needs alcohol of ANY kind? (except to drink, of course.) My sources tell me 15-S-9 is the best Tergitol in terms of the leaving of residue on the LP, hence easier final rinsing.
Just to be clear about my own position. I have no reason to criticize Wizzzard’s recommendations, and I do respect that in the field of analytical chemistry his knowledge is much greater than mine. However, before he laid down his wisdom here, I have been using 25% IPA plus about 0.1% Triton X100 exclusively for more than two decades. Any LP I have ever washed was washed with the foregoing solution. So naturally when Wizzzard implies that IPA is potentially damaging, I want to know why and how and what would be the consequences. It is not enough, at least for me, just to be told that only Ethanol among all other alcohols and water do not damage vinyl. If Wizzzard does not have the information, that is OK by me, and he only needs to say so. But I object to being excoriated for asking.
Without going into the details, if you were to model the record which is a co-polymer of PVC and PVA, determine its solubility sphere radius, and then compare with the alcohol-water solvents above using the Hansen procedures, you would see that the alcohol-water solvents are a safe distance away with no real risk of damaging the record (at room temp) consistent with many users experience.
Note that when building the record model, it’s important to do a stepped proportional analysis where PVCa at the allowable variation using the RCA patent as a guide (1498409551006799538-03960790 (storage.googleapis.com) is first determined. Otherwise, doing just an analysis of the total PVC + PVA will yield a solubility sphere much larger making the record appear less compatible than it likely is based on years of user experience.
Otherwise, how the record will be attacked by a solvent follows a fairly well-defined path - The paper A review of polymer dissolution, Beth A. Miller-Chou, Jack L. Koenig, Prog. Polym. Sci. 28 (2003) 1223–1270 states: “First, the solvent begins its aggression by pushing the swollen polymer substance into the solvent, and, as time progresses, a more dilute upper layer is pushed in the direction of the solvent stream. Further penetration of the solvent into the solid polymer increases the swollen surface layer until, at the end of the swelling time, a quasistationary state is reached where the transport of the macromolecules from the surface into the solution prevents a further increase of the layer.”. So, for a polymer, evidence of swell and maybe weight gain should be the first evidence of attack.
What about extracting plasticizer - that should be unlikely. From the RCA Patent the small amount of plasticizer used is 1% of a soybean oil epoxide (ESO). Plasticizers can migrate from polymers based on three general mechanisms 1) evaporation to the ambient – same as off-gassing; 2) extracted by being soluble with liquids in contact; and 3) transfer from one surface of another. If the record had any significant % plasticizer it could never last as long as it does, and the ESO plasticizer is very stable.
The paper Kinetics Study of the Migration of Bio-Based Plasticizers in Flexible PVC, Ching-Feng Mao and De-Bin Chan, 2012 International Conference on Life Science and Engineering IPCBEE vol.45 (2012) tested the migration of five different plasticizers (at concentrations about 30%) from very thin flexible PVC of 1 mm under contact with polystrene sheets at 190°C for 10 min. The plasticizers tested were acetyl tributyl citrate (ATBC), di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), di (2-ethylhexyl), adipate (DEHA), and epoxidized soybean oil (ESO). The PVC/DEHP weight loss was about 2%, PVC/ATBC was about 7% weight loss, PVC/DEHA was about 12% weight loss, and the PVC/ESO showed no weight loss.
Most of the above was excerpted from the book if that is of any interest. Regardless, above are sufficient references to read on your own, and hopefully guide you on you making your own assessment. Enjoy the deep-dive.
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?
My experience of Neil's guidelines on formulation of a Mixtures to produce a Solution to serve as a Cleaning Agent, does without doubt cause extraction.
The extraction I am experiencing is more details from within the Groove during a albums replay.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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 wouldbethepoint"?
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.
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 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!
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!
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.
@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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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)
@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.
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.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
