The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

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

@mijostyn 

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

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

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

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

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

Wizzzard 

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome.  

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

@lewm 

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

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

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

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

Wizzzard

@lewm 

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

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

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

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

@mijostyn 

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

Till later!

@lewm 

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

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

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

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

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

Wizzzard 

Wow!

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

@wizzzard 

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

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

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

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

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

@wizzzard

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

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

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

@wizzzard 

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

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

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

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

@lewm 

You are correct regarding the effectiveness of distilled or deionized water be itself in the ultrasonic bath. Refer to my post on 06-21-2023 at 4:05pm. 
 

i don’t know whether there is a right frequency or wattage but my experiments @ 40 kHz demonstrate that water alone in the bath is very effective in most cases.

I did something different today with a 1979 LP (new to me). I used AI Enzymatic formula on the Loricraft and then just distilled water in the Degritter. I did this because the record looked dirty (and had a superficial scratch on one side). Came out silent - even the scratch was not audible, though the cleaning can't take credit for that. I'm impressed with the Enzymatic formula and have saved it so far for my dirtiest finds. It really is good, and maybe, if I were feeling flush, I would substitute it for my usual PhotoFlo/ethanol/DW mix in the Loricraft.

cleeds, You are apparently using an Ultra Sonic RCM. That’s a completely different approach from using a conventional RCM that relies upon "scrubbing" using a solution that can solubilize typical contaminants and which makes the water wetter to facilitate deep cleaning. In a US cleaner, the ultrasound itself (ideally) does what the additives do in a conventional RCM. ljgerens said it best. So, yes, you don’t necessarily need alcohol in your US RCM.

lewm

You are apparently using an Ultra Sonic RCM. That’s a completely different approach from using a conventional RCM that relies upon "scrubbing" using a solution ... In a US cleaner, the ultrasound itself (ideally) does what the additives do in a conventional RCM.

As I mentioned @lewm , I use a Klaudio US cleaner and have a conventional OG Nitty-Gritty. I don’t find that either cleaner requires alcohol to remove common contaminants. Hence my question that no one has answered: What has contaminated these LPs that alcohol is required for removal? Or, are you guys just having fun experimenting and mixing various solutions?

@lewm , I totally agree with your hobby argument. I also think I continue with vinyl because it is so imbedded in my head. One of the happiest events in my childhood was getting a new record. As a teen I would spend hours in record stores flipping through records. I do not get the same rush buying online.

I find your "do not want to be bothered," argument a bit silly. Digital is EASY, it is vinyl that is a PITA. You can load a playlist and not have to touch the system all day. I can send music all over the house, the shop in particular. Running up and down stairs every twenty minutes while I am working on a piece would be a real PITA. You don't have to worry about being screwed with a defective $10,000 cartridge (more on that in another post.)

@lewm,

The KL Audio is 40kHz, with four 50W horizontally positioned transducers, two each side (200W total) with a UT tank volume of only about 0.78L - that is it's a very powerful machine.  Note that the reservoir is 2.4L, but someone recently measured the change in reservoir volume to fill the unit - ergo the UT tank volume.  With the very small volume and amount of power available, it does not need any enhancement with chemistry.

Here is a quick summary of UT concepts and some basic thumb rules:

Ultrasonic tanks 'grow' bubbles Principle-of-ultrasound-cavitation-16-The-initiated-bubbles-grow-due-to-evaporation.png (850×553) (researchgate.net) until the bubble collapses. Watch this video between 6:19 and 8:30 Cavitation - Easily explained! - Bing video to see how the bubble collapses.

Here are the basic thumb rules for ultrasonic tanks:

-The power to produce cavitation is proportional to the kHz, so a 120kHz UT needs more power than a 40kHz.
-For ultrasonic tanks, the bubble diameter is inversely proportional to the kHz, so a 40 kHz UT produces a large bubble than a 120kHz UT.
-The cavitation intensity is proportional to the bubble diameter and the tank power (watts/L) but there is a maximum power above which no addition cavitation intensity is obtained.
-The number of cavitation bubbles produced is proportional to kHz, so a 120kHz produces more bubbles than a 40kHz, but smaller bubbles.
-The smaller the tank volume, the more power that is required. It has to do with the ratio of the tank volume to its interior surface area.
-For lower kHz units (<60kHz), if the tank bath flow rate (from filtering or spinning) >50% of the tank volume per minute, cavitation intensity decreases.

For records, in general, the most difficult items to clean/remove are particulate.  The paper Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces, Aerosol Science and Technology, M. B. Ranade, 1987 (Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces: Aerosol Science and Technology: Vol 7, No 2 (tandfonline.com) shows for aluminum oxide particles, the force (acceleration) required to remove a 10-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^4 g’s, a 1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^6 g’s and a 0.1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^8 g’s. A simple brush or wipe is not going to get the smallest particles/debris that can ‘hide’ in the valleys between the groove side wall ridges. As fluid flows past a surface, a boundary layer is developed and depending on its thickness (upwards of 5 microns) it will essentially shield any particles within it. So, agitation is critical in reducing the boundary layer to expose the surface with its particles to the cleaning fluid and the fluid velocity (shear force) that can remove them.

-The boundary layer thickness is dependent on the ultrasonic frequency (high kHz = thinner boundary layer), acoustic energy, and fluid properties (viscosity & density). To get the most effective cleaning, the complete cleaning process has to penetrate the boundary layer to remove the soil and particles that are contained within it. At 40-kHz, the boundary layer 'can' be as thick as 5 microns, while at 120-kHz, the boundary layer 'can' be as thin as 2 microns.

-Lowering the surface tension of the fluid reduces the energy needed for cavitation and can improve cleaning efficiency - better opportunity to penetrate the boundary layer.  The KL Audio unit does it by brute power.

-But there is a delicate balance with using chemistry and UT that can improve the cleaning efficiency more than the small expense to the cavitation intensity (more an issue with low power units). But use too much chemistry or the wrong chemistry and it's all downhill.

There is an entire science about particle adhesion and removal and if you wish to entertain yourself here is a good book to start with - Particle Adhesion and Removal | Wiley Online Books.  

Beyond all this, if you are going to get into an academic discussion on record cleaning, there is the existential question of just how clean a record needs to be to provide maximum playback fidelity?   From my research, the answer is quite complex and a topic unto itself.  But absent the details, people default to trial and error, and what they hear.   Which is perfectly acceptable, and which is why when someone asks me what is best, I will always say, what is best for you.

Now back to the regular scheduled programming.  

I used a VPI 16.5 since 1981 (with 28,500 LPs and 7,000 78s).  Various solutions were used including one which used ethyl alcohol for LPs as well.  Lastly Disc Doctor.  Then I began using the Kirmuss US with drying in the VPI.  With many used LPs, I found that the sound was uniformly enhanced using just water and/or the water/alcohol solution.  HOWEVER, what is revealed on some used LPs is noise and damage that was done.  So, previous debris covered divits or other imperfections are now exposed and make more noise.  Overall, I love using it and most of my LPs are just quieter with enhanced sound.  

Maybe the only thing we can all agree upon is that a clean record is a bigger upgrade than money spent on downstream components. I have certainly found it so.

cleeds, Have you really experimented with mixtures such as the one recommended by Wizzzard, for your Nitty Gritty, and compared such a mixture with plain water? If you find no difference between the two, using the NG, then I am surprised.  And can only say good for you, or something like that.  I have no US RCM.  I use a VPI HW17, and have done for the past 25 years at least.  My go-to mixture has been distilled deionized water plus IPA plus Triton X100. (Despite Wizzzard's antagonistic attitude toward my posts, I may change the formula thanks to him.) I do find a big improvement with that solution vs water only. I do buy mostly used LPs, but my standards for purchase are very high.  I only buy LPs that appear perfect to my visual inspection and/or are "A" rated by the seller, and I really only buy from one local vendor who has been reliable or from Disc Union, in Tokyo, on occasions when we are visiting our son who lives there.  Which is to say I don't buy junk from Goodwill or sight unseen off eBay.  And yet the alcohol and nonionic detergent containing solution obviously works better than plain water.  I do also rinse with plain distilled water after the first wash cycle.  That clearly makes a difference too.

Are your assertions supported by clinical trials, control groups, or pier review? If not, any claim to ' proof of efficacy ' OR lack of long term consequences is specious.

lewm

cleeds, Have you really experimented with mixtures such as the one recommended by Wizzzard, for your Nitty Gritty, and compared such a mixture with plain water ...

I use commercially available cleaners for the NG, such as VPI. But since buying the the Klaudio a few years back, I rarely use the NG.

cleeds, Now I am a bit confused.  Above, you wrote, "As I mentioned @lewm , I use a Klaudio US cleaner and have a conventional OG Nitty-Gritty. I don’t find that either cleaner requires alcohol to remove common contaminants."

Here you are saying you do use a solution with a water base (e.g., the VPI RCM concoction, whatever that may be) with your NG.  If so, we are in accord.  My earlier point was that US RCMs don't or certainly may not require anything but water in the tank because of the very nature of how US works.  Whereas, I mentioned I do use a water plus alcohol plus nonionic detergent solution with my VPI HW17.  So, no problem.

@kylehildebrant 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Luck, and keep in touch!

Wizzzard 

@wizzzard,

You can say what you wish, but the law (29 CFR 1910.106) is very specific as to what is classified as flammable - NFPA_30_Fact_Sheet_2021.ashx. And, in larger volumes, in small spaces, flammable vapors can be build up - NFPA Journal - Safe Distilling, Mar Apr 2018.

Yes, as you have implied the flame speed and heat of combustion of water alcohol solutions are low, but the minimum ignition energy is well within the range of a 120V electrical contact. But are you familiar with what is now available for ultrasonic tanks - Amazon.com: VEVOR Ultrasonic Vinyl Record Cleaner 6L 40kHz Vinyl Ultrasonic Cleaning Machine Knob Control Record Ultrasonic Cleaner 4 Records Vinyl Sonic Cleaner Stainless Steel Tank w/Mechanical Heater & Timer : Industrial & Scientific. Do you think these low-cost PRC manufactured UT tanks are UL listed?

You have no idea of people’s domestic use situation. Some people put these low-cost UT tanks in closets or small bathrooms (w/o venting) because they are so noisy.

I have education in fire science and I have firefighting training from when I was in the Navy, and I would not make any general recommendation for use of any fluid in larger quantities such as in a UT tank that the law classifies as flammable, without a whole lot of caveats, and I suspect that the NFPA would not even think that was safe. But that is me, and of course you and anyone reading is free to take exception.   And with this being said, I have nothing else to say.

@wizzzard Thank you for the detailed reply. I do think I grasp some of the significance, reading back through the thread. 

As for the UltraSonic cleaner I have, it is the HumminGuru.

And with regard to minds exploding—and rooms exploding—I'm not sure what to think. For you, not a concern. For @antinn it seems to be a big concern.

@lewm 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deionized Water.                           803.650  grams

Isopropyl Alcohol (98.0%).            196.350  grams

Triton X-100                                     ?.???  grams

Total Weight                             1,000.00+.  grams

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

Deionized Water.                        804.772. grams

Isopropyl Alcohol (98.0%).         195.000. grams

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

Total Weight:                          1,000.000. grams

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

Deionized Water                        779.772  grams

Ethanol  (99.5%)                       220.000. grams

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

Total Weight:                         1,000.000. grams      

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

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

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

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

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

I have to go!

To all.

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

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

Till another time.

Thank you for your understanding.

Wizzzard,

@kylehildebrant .

My reference for a concern was an open top UT tank with 6000-ml and larger volume. Your HG contains 350-ml in a mostly closed tank. Ask the manufacturer who is very responsive to requests what they think.  Beyond flammability that unit uses a lot of plastic that may not be compatible with the alcohol.

Dear Wizzzard , I am very sorry that you are plagued by your illness. I wish you well, and I also hope your wife will soon conquer her medical problems. As for me, I release you from any perceived obligation to respond to any of my real or imagined questions. Probably, when the effects of your affliction and the medications you are obliged to take in order to combat it are stripped away, you are a very decent chap. At the moment, however, we should not take this any further. The odd part is I haven’t disagreed with anything you wrote as regards chemistry or record cleaning solutions. Carry on.

@wizzzard,

The discourse with using Hansen solubility parameters is not unknown - Hansen solubility parameter - Wikipedia.  My use of it within this forum was only as a prediction.  If your feelings on this subject are so intense, you have a possible avenue through Wikipedia to set the story straight if it needs to be.  

However, not to cause you any further grief, you may wish to check the math on the drops.  Drops can be 0.04 to 0.06 ml each (for those reading 1-ml water = 1-g).  I like the Nalgene Dropper Bottle that delivers a fairly accurate 0.04-ml/drop - Factors to consider in accuracy and precision of Nalgene Dropper Bottles (thermofisher.com).  

Peace

@wizzzard 

I think most of us on the forum just want to enjoy listening to music.  Any recommendations to help us along our musical journey are always welcome.  I hope you are able to enjoy listening to music as well.  There’s no need to get overwhelmed by anything on these forums, but I suppose if you get overwhelmed by anything, it’s best to be overwhelmed by good music!  I can recommend Chopin’s Nocturnes played by Claudio Arrau for starters. Enjoy!

Interesting thread.  Didn't read every single entry but have a few comments.

The Very Best uses Ethanol which commercial cleaners avoid. I assume that this have to do with alcohol regulations around the country. 

The function of Ethanol in the cleaner is a solvent to remove any greasy contamination on the record. Water is also a solvent but not as efficient for some types of contaminants.  Both distilled water and ethanol evaporates without leaving a trace on the vinyl - very good. 20% Ethanol also lowers the surface tension of water from 72 to 39. 

Adding surfactant reduces the surface tension further and helps get the liquid into the groves. Question is if Tergitol 15-S-7 leaves any residue behind on the record surface? Does anyone know?

If Tergitol has high solubility it may be removed with final a wash of distilled water or Water-Ethanol mix.  (Perhaps we should use distilled water with some Ethanol added as our standard final rinse? It might dry faster than just water and the lower surface tension should make it easier to remove with a vacuum machine.)

Lots of details on Ultrasonic cleaning has been reported in this thread. It appears that should be possible to design an optimized machine for USC of vinyl records. What bothers me is the extremely long time required for cleaning. An optimized cleaner would clean the record in a single revolution! One bubble collapsing will perfectly clean that spot.

So the commercial machines rely on some random cleaning and longer times increase the probability that a high percent of the surface gets impacted. Perhaps longer times also helps with regular cleaning by diffusion.

I had a few records USC by others and they sound better (subjectively). Thinking about getting a variable frequency tank with an LP attachment. The automated machines like Audio Desk would be more convenient. With the information in this thread it gets more confusing as commercial machines use different frequencies. Haven't found any direct comparison testing. Would it be hard to clean identical LPs and then record the spectrum?

@kylehildebrant 

Getting the Tergitol online is going to be a problem. None of the lab supply companies will ship to a residential address. What I did was order it and send it to my brothers company. But, the company has to be involved in science or medicine. You will have to get creative.

@mrthunder 

The amount of Tergitol is so slight that rinsing would be an unnecessary step. It is also very soluble and will dissolve into the next cleaning. It will not build up on the record. 
What we need here is a test of cleaning records contaminated with a calibrated formula of the usual contaminants by various methods. 

As mentioned several times above, I have been using 25% IPA in water plus about 0.1% Triton X100 for many years before now. About 10-15 years ago, I started to worry whether the mixture left an undesirable residue on my LPs, even after vacuum drying (not air drying) on my VPI HW17. I then instituted a rinse with pure deionized distilled water, to follow vacuum drying after the initial cleaning with the above solution. I had and still have the distinct impression that the pure water rinse makes a very audible difference in the positive direction. I think, back when this happened, my experiment was to clean both sides of one LP and follow up with water rinsing only one side of that LP. Then I listened to both sides. Results were in favor of the water rinse, decidedly, and I haven’t looked back.

FWIW:

The benefit of the nonionic surfactant Tergitols 15-S-7 & 15-S-9 are their very high performance as compared to the older Triton X100.

-Surface tension of the water is ~72 dynes/cm.

-Surface tension of the record is ~37 dynes/cm.

-10 ppm (0.001%) Tergitol 15-S-9 reduces the surface tension of water to ~45 dynes/cm.

-20 ppm (0.002%) Tergitol 15-S-9 reduces the surface tension of water to ~37 dynes/cm. This is enough to quickly 'wet' the record. For UT cleaning, wetting the record has the advantage that water runs off the record and does not bead-up on the record significantly quickening the drying time. Drops take a long time to evaporate.

-52 ppm (0.0052%) Tergitol 15-S-9 reduces the surface tension of water to ~30 dynes/cm. Adding anymore will not lower the surface tension any further and is known as the critical micelle concentration (CMC) and at >52 ppm, and you begin to get detergency.

-3X to 5X CMC will give the full detergency that the surfactant can give.

The CMC for Tergitol 15-S-7 is 38 ppm and the resultant surface tension is 28 dynes/cm.  The CMC for Triton X100 is 189 ppm, and the resultant surface tension is 33 dynes/cm.  

For surfactant residue (assuming specific gravity of 1.0 for ease of use), a simple thumb rule is 1-mg of residue uniformly applied to the record surface will yield a residue film thickness of 0.1-micron.  From my research, the surface roughness of the record is about 0.01-micron and smallest recorded modulation is 0.1-micron (high frequencies).  From working with people across the globe in setting up record cleaning processes, the threshold for hearing soft 'viscous' nonionic surfactant residue is about 0.03-micron or 0.3-mg and it's noticed as a dulling of the high frequencies. 

Everyone's threshold of hearing residue is different based on physiological differences in hearing sensitivity as well as the playback system and the person's experience.  There is the obvious point when the residue is so high that it is now apparent on the stylus.  The big benefit of the Tergitols (15-S-7 & 15-S-9) over Triton X100 is that much less is needed, so the risk of audible residue is less.  Triton X100 should not be used w/o a rinse step.

This last Xmas I worked with someone in the UK, and we did a qualitative study of the vacuum efficiency of a German made high quality blower-style vacuum-RCM, similar to VPI.  Cleaners of known concentration were spiked with a high-performance UV dye (sensitivity in the ppb).  The vacuum-RCM was only on average 80% efficient in removing all fluid from the record.   About 20% was evaporated in-place.  For vacuum-RCM, if using a cleaner with high concentrations of surfactant (>50 ppm), at least one post rinse is recommended.

@antinn , 

Great dissertation on Ultrasonic cleaning, Thanx!

@wizzzard 

Finally got the Tergitol. I could only get 150 proof ethanol so I had to mix the formula by the seat of my pants. It works fine in my machine, spreads out over the record perfectly and when we run out of Vodka we have another option:-) 

@mijostyn

If you can get it in your area, this is 192 proof:

https://www.totalwine.com/spirits/white-whiskeymoonshine/spirytus-rektyfikowany/p/216932750

@antinn 
Curious what German made RCM you referred to in you last post?