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!
Dear Wizzzard, of course osmolality does not describe the level of “particles”, and I never said it did. I did say that osmolality is used as a measure of the degree of deionization of water. Then Mijostyn conflated ions with particles, and I corrected him. In our labs (collectively) osmolality was automatically monitored by measuring electrical conductivity of water passing the outlet of the deionizer, on the premise that the lower the conductivity, the lower is the concentration of metal ions. As you might imagine, deionization of the water used in in vitro reactions is more important for biological experimentation than it is for record cleaning.
I don't apologize for asking about deionization, because in your earliest presentations you said more than once that only distilled, not deionized, water should be used, or words to that effect. This left the impression that there is something wrong with deionized water, when you really only meant to say that the water must be distilled, whether deionized or not. You make a point of your own precision, yet in that regard your original directive was not precise. I do thank you for the clarification.
Wizzzard, sorry to say you did misunderstand me, not that it’s any obligation of yours to deal with every idea here. What I am trying to ask is whether there’s any problem with deionized water, if and only if it’s also distilled. I get that you’re strongly advising distilled water. I don’t have any “supplier”. I am a retired MD and molecular biologist, and I have many liters of distilled and deionized water from my lab at my former workplace. Every lab at NIH has its own source for distilled and deionized water. I’ve never had to buy water for record cleaning.
I hate being diminutive. If I hold up a tennis ball and let go, which way is it going to go? The chemistry of a record cleaning solution is at least a subject that holds some challenge for a simple minded person like myself.
Ultrasound machines are a wonderful canvas for painting pictures of record cleaning nirvana. Let me get my smoking jacket and a Cuban.
@whart
Hell Bill... yes that was me. I decided to use better custom parts to upgrade/modify the Keith Monks and glad I did, as it is a much better machine now.
We also had a conversation here on this site a few years ago, as I was having trouble getting in touch with Elina, of Lamm Industries.
@rich121- are you the gent who had the older Monks double and we talked about sourcing parts? If so, I’m glad you got it fettled.
One the issues that came up on the SH Forums when Neil’s first edition was published was that distilled water was not commonly available in the UK and perhaps other countries.
When I visited the Culpeper facility, I asked them about water purity:
Q: You also suggest using “deionized water”- what properties does this have over “distilled” water of the type you buy in the grocery store?
A: I can’t speak to the quality of grocery store distilled water. In general, distilling removes organic and inorganic impurities from water. In deionization, the emphasis is more upon removing minerals. Deionization tends to be less expensive than distillation. For the purposes of cleaning records, there is less need for the purity of distilled water because the primary concern is to not leave any mineral residue on a disc, which can happen with tap water.
Quote from Hart interview with Larry Miller, Recorded Sound Preservation Specialist at the LOC’s Packard Campus, in Cleaning and Archival Standards of Care, TheVinylPress, Feb. 2015.
My suspicion is that the LOC was doing its own water purification given the volume of material they process.
Neil’s book goes into this in some depth as well because he encountered questions (over a thousand as I recall) on various fora about issues including sources of water for rinsing.
@wizzzard
RO/DI water is Reverse Osmosis/De-iodized water... which is what I use. I use a 7-Stage system that gives me a zero ppm reading on my TDS meter..
RO/DI is the process used to get water in the purest form, Ultrapure, ASTM Type 1 regeant grade, which impurities are measured in parts per trillion.
Figure 39 – Water + Alcohol Surface Tensions of at 25°C from PACVR
(adapted with permission copyright 1995, American Chemical Society)
Data for Figure 39 is from “Surface Tension of Alcohol + Water from 20 to 50°C”, Gonzalo Vazquez, Estrella Alvarez, Jose M. Navaza, Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data. 1 May 1995.
And, a problem exists? I was not talking down to @lewm
How did you ever get that impression? I was agreeing with him and encouraging him to be confident in his suppliers. And, that confidence is important. (I sometimes question myself as to why I respond to such posts.)
I do not NEED to PROVE that distilled water is better than deionized. And I do not NEED to PROVE that double distilled water is better than distilled water. I have not voiced ANY OPINIONS. I only present facts and well established data.
I posted this forum to present "The Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation", and any other technicnical areas if requested. Ant to answer questions about my formulation, and not what other people say to each other. Please discuss that amoung yourselves, and, perhaps discuss it at a better and more appropriate location.
I initially thought it would be best to resolve the selection of ethanol and the specific concentration of 22.000% before discussing other matters. And, I thought the best and easiest way was to prepare a very accurate and detailed graphs demonstrating the transition points. One being extremely significant and the others less so important.
And, that is exactly what I had done, however, I am unable to post this graph or a pdf. I contacted the Administrator on how to proceed, however, I have not as yet received a response. So, I am going to ask you to prepare your own graphs on either graph paper, or quadrille paper, or a simple sheet of 8.5 x 11 paper. I will provide you with only the 4 key points and describe how to prepare the graph to see the significant slopes related to the 22.000% value.
If you choose the 11 inch vertical side as you y-axis representing the Surface Tension at 20 degrees C and expressed as dynes per centimeter into 75 segments, and then select the horizontal 8.5 inch bottom to represent the x-axis indicating the percentage of Ethanol from 0% to 95.6% at 20 degrees C in parts by weight into 100 segments, we can begin.
At 0.00% Ethanol on the x-axis, the corresponding Surface Tension is: 72.72 dynes per centimeter on the y-axis.
At 22.00% Ethanol on the x-axis, the corresponding Surface Tension is: 30.28 dynes per centimeter on the y-axis.
At 41.50% Ethanol on the x-axis, the corresponding Surface Tension is: 27.59 dynes per centimeter on the y-axis.
At 95.60% Ethanol on the x-axis, the corresponding Surface Tension is: 26.63 dynes per centimeter on the y-axis.
(I will explain the reason why the values are to two decimal places rather than my original three decimal formulation a bit later).
You can immediately see the very steep slope between 0.00% Ethanol concentration and the 22.00% concentration. At 41.50% Ethanol you notice a slight decline, and, at 95.60% the additional decline is even less significant. Many people, would have considered only one inflection point, but, I choose not to deviate from established mathematical guidelines.
From 0.00% Ethanol to 22.00% represents a drop in Surface Tension of a phenomenal 42.44 dynes per centimeter.
Going to than 41.50% represents a rather meaningless drop of only an additional 2.70 dynes per centimeter. And going the max of 95.60% represents a drop of only 0.93 dynes per centimeter.
Now, I hope EVERYONE on the Planet understands the selection and significance of 22.000%
This data is available from many reference sources such as "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics", "Lange’s Chemical Handbook", etc. However, I choose the most comprehensive study of alcohols and water starting at 20 degrees C to 50 degrees C, at 5 degree. C intervals, and the Surface Tension done at 20 C. The slopes of the 25 C graph are identical only the values are different. They presented their representations in two decimal places, and, that is why I conformed to their numbers. Other resources clearly establish 22.000% , that is why in is in the formulation.
I do not take any credit for any of the values stated. The credit need to be given to Dr. Gonzalo Vazquez, Dr. Estrella Alvarez and Jose M. Navaza that was recorded in "The Journal of Chemical Engineering". All products were supplied by Merck Laboratories and all solutions were prepared to 4 decimal places on identical Sartorius Analytical Balances, but the results were chosen to be represented to only 2 decimal places.
Now @mijostyn we have established your reasoning for your selection of BAK. Thank you for making that clear, and, in your case, it is TRULY a VERY SIGNIFICANT matter, and one that can not be ignored. You asked if the BAK is detrimental in any way. The only detrimental effect is the resultant residue, but more significantly, your level of 7.600% parts by weight is "off the charts" so to speak, which now leads to a more significant level of residue resultant.
But most importantly you need something that will not only will kill the mildew and mold, but also something that will prevent it from further happening.
I have the PERFECT solution for you, and, it is something with which you are very familiar. The additive is: 2-phenoxyethanol. It is a hand antiseptic for surgeries, and is in some hand antiseptics, and, is used as a preservative in IV medications and vaccines.
A 1.00% addition is over kill. A 0.500% represents a 87.5% potency of a 1.00% addition. (It is non-linear). Therefore if you were to use 0.500% of 2-phenoxyethanol, it would be much less than the 7.600% BAK you were using. But you would have NO residue, and the effectiveness is even difficult to compare because the 2-phenoxyethanol is so much more effective.
"I wold like to continue but my "medical demon" is summoning me." The rest will have to wait until Wednesday.
In the interim, find out how easy it is for you to obtain the 2-phenoxyethanol. It is commonly used in labs as well, my wife has some here at home, but. Its’ best before date has long passed. It is still good and effective but not to the same degree. Good Luck! Till later…
@mijostyn
Comprehension? Also, making assumptions will cause you to be wrong.... along with your other non-thoughtful comments.
"You go through all this trouble making ultrapure water only to contaminate it with dirty records over and over again. Then, you use an evaporative drying technique that redeposits all that stuff that was not in the ultrapure water to begin with, back on the record. Yes, there is some contaminate in store bought distilled water and a good record cleaning machine with vacuum drying will suck it all off".
At no point in my post did I say I used UltraPure water.
I stated:
"I tired of buying distilled water from the store to make record cleaning fluid for my Keith Monks RCM, so I made an investment in a 7-stage RO/DI system"
To make UltraPure water, it would take another piece of equipment, called a polisher, that costs about 20 times what I paid for my RO/DI system (less than $350). This system also supplies drinking water, as it has a tap between the RO and DI part of the system to be used for drinking water.
This is actually cheaper than purchasing distilled water and filtered drinking water, it I am not driving anywhere to purchase distilled water/drinking water.
As I stated... I use a Keith Monks RCM (dual platter Gemini series) and have been for well over 30 years.
A few years ago I upgraded/modified my Keith Monks. I replaced all electric motors. including the Thread drive and arm drive, with heavy duty Industrial ’Hurst’ custom motors, I replaced the vacuum pump with a new, more powerful KNF vacuum pump, I modified the platter speed from 100rpm down to 55rpm had new pulleys machined for both the thread spooling pulley and arm pulley (lower speed 50%) to add 100% more surface cleaning time and reduce the amount of water being ’flung’, added quality vac gauge etc. I would put this up against any RCM, and if I could only have one RCM, this would be it.... but, it still has its limitations.
That is where ultrasonic comes in... it makes a wonderful accessory to a physical RCM.
I have spent MANY years experimenting and cleaning records. Like many here, I have been collecting for over 50 years, have a collection exceeding 25K and have had many cleaning devices.
I also stated that I "added" the Degritter (twice, as first failed, which is not uncommon with that machine) and now I am "adding" the Klaudio.
At what point did you comprehend that I "air dry" my records? I never stated my cleaning regime, but you rather assume.
For someone who never even cleaned their records before, and now being an ’expert’ on the evils of air drying... amazing. So, was it the (recent?) purchase of your Clearaudio Matrix Pro RCM what made you the expert?
I am very curious of your experience and knowledge of both the Degritter and Klaudio machines? How long have you used either?
Your comments show your lack of knowledge of these devices and your obvious, admitted lack of experience, as you you only recently started to clean your records.
With regard to your most recent post 12 June 2023 at 8:28 PM. Sorry I did not get to your earlier post that I had read, but I just logged on to submit my answers to @mijostyn and others and noticed the above post, and thought to respond immediately rather than later.
You are correct in mentioning that I diid not intend to mean that deionized MUST be avoided. I am highly recommending distilled water over deionized water. On the other hand you can assume correctly that all the other alternatives such as rain and tap water, etc MUST be avoided. As I interpreted you previous post, and I hope I got this correct. Is that you did not have the same confidence level in your distilled water supplier, but, felt more comfortable in your deionized water supplier.
If you have a higher level of confidence in the deionized water to you, then by all means choose the deionized water source. Your confidence in what you are doing may not have a tangible value, but it is important, and continue to "follow your gut" in this matter. In the interim seek out a distilled water supplier that you can be confident in using.
I hope this clarifies my position to you and others.
i was probably missing some context. Sorry about that.
There have had recent discussions comparing the AudioGon forum to others. Your deep dive into record cleaning solution is certainly a great example of resources and information for the benefit of audiophiles on this forum.
Mijo, I wrote that deionized water is commonly evaluated for the degree of deionization by measuring its osmalility. Note the root word, “ion”. Ions are in solution by definition. So what has this got to do with particles, which are not in solution? My question to Wizzzard is whether he really meant to say deionized water is per se to be avoided. I think he meant to say that distillation is critical whereas deionization is optional but not verboten. We shall see.
Let me get this straight. You go through all this trouble making ultrapure water only to contaminate it with dirty records over and over again. Then, you use an evaporative drying technique that redeposits all that stuff that was not in the ultrapure water to begin with, back on the record. Yes, there is some contaminate in store bought distilled water and a good record cleaning machine with vacuum drying will suck it all off.
The fact is, bottled distilled water will do the job just as well at a lower price assuming you clean your records correctly. Vacuum drying was instituted, I believe by Keith Monks for a very good reason. It works, no data needed. You can see it work. Now there is junk on the record, now there is not. How do you know an Ultrasonic cleaner is working on a record. Because some soap salesman says it does? The KLaudio unit in particular is a Rube Goldberg device bettered only by the Kirmuss Restoration Method. Let's break out the Cubans and scrub records.
I do not believe osmolality describes particulate matter or any substance not in solution.
I cleaned 5 Analog Productions album with brake cleaning fluid. They are the shiniest records you've ever seen and they sound fantastic. Even the labels survived it. Just point the can and spray away. Please keep your nose upwind and wear gloves, those thick rubber ones with the long cuffs.
@rsf507
They have been back for about a year.
They stopped selling because sales didn’t match their cost, but Chad of Acoustic Sounds talked them into starting again and he paid up front for the first batch of machines. Chad now is the sole sales for everywhere except China and Korea.
Just to say that deionization and distillation are two different processes. You can have one without the other. Hence my question to Wizzzard. (Careful to get those 3 Z's in there.) You (Rich) make a good point regarding store-bought distilled water; it comes with no data. The purity of deionized water, that is to say the degree to which it is deionized, is usually measured in terms of its osmolality, the lower the better, obviously.
@wizzzard
"Deionized water is no where near the purity of distilled and will affect the surface tension as well. as likely also leaving residue behind"
Just so you know... the purest lab grade of water, Type 1 (Ultrapure) is made using RO/DI. The impurities in Ultrapure water are measured in parts per trillion.
Years ago, I tired of buying distilled water from the store to make record cleaning fluid for my Keith Monks RCM, so I made an investment in a 7-stage RO/DI system.
This is as pure of water as needed to make a record cleaning solution. I have fairly uncontaminated tap water to begin (it tests in the mid 70’s ppm with my TDS meter) with and after going thru the system I have never gotten a reading higher than ’0’ and that is measuring in parts per million.
The bottled water in the store has no rating, no history... no information of the amount of impurities, so your comment is not ’fact’, just a generalization.
A few years ago I added a Degritter ultrasonic machine (now on my 2nd) and this Thursday I pick up my new Klaudio US machine.
I can’t imagine getting a cleaner record.
Dear Wizzzard, as regards water, I gather you would approve of water that is both distilled and deionized. I think what you’re trying to convey is the notion that deionization alone is insufficient. Is that correct?
Distilled and deionized water is standard in any molecular biology lab, to be used as a medium for enzymatic reactions, and etc, so I have to believe it’s ok for washing LPs.
As regards your typing issue, I often dictate into my cell phone, because I have a hard time typing on the tiny keyboard. Is that a possibility for you?
A good vacuum machine will not leave any water in the groove. If you do not see any water or humidity on the record you are good to go. The other approach would be to continue vacuuming a little longer. Mold will grow on the record and record cover under conditions of prolonged moisture with records stored for long periods. Records stored in damp basements are a good example. I saw several severe examples when I lived in Miami, FL. I was given an old collection of records that was stored in a basement near Boston and they were riddled with mold. If your records are stored in a living area where the humidity does not exceed 60% for prolonged periods you do not have to worry about it. If your humidity does exceed 60% air conditioning or a dehumidifier will fix it. If your record looks dry go ahead and put it in the sleeve. I only clean a record before I intend on playing it, so it is out at least another 20 minutes. If your record is still wet after vacuuming there is a problem with your machine.
I do not mean to sound as derogatory or evasive, but drying depends upon many factors. Temperature, Relative Humidity, Air movement, etc. But the simple answer is that " when it is dry "
You need to make a judgement call.
But, it is always better to error on the side of waiting "a bit longer", than being eager.
Does that answer your question. I hope it does, if not please post back, I will try harder and better if necessary.
I should expand my question with some details... I have a record Dr. cleaner that vacuums while cleaning. But i feel like there may still be moisture deep in the grooves even after the vacuum anda microfiber cloth. So I usually wave them in the air or let sit for a few minutes after cleaning and drying before placing them back in the sleeve just to make sure I'm not locking in the moisture which could lead to mold or other? bad stuff. So, how does everyone dry?
I tried copy and paste and everything else I could think of including using several different applications. Nothing seemed to work. Never heard of Dragon Dictate - will investigate. I am committed to Dvorak (Left Hand), however, because it drove me crazy switching between keyboards, and I gave that up several years ago.
Appreciate the typist humor! We all must need to retain our sense of humor. And, I am sorry that nefarious forces have overtaken my forum posting. However, there is nothing that I can do nor do I intend to. I mention this at this point because it relates to the necessity of humor, which is apparently lacking in the "nefarious force group", but provides amusement to those who do not belong to that group.
I resubmitted because my Dvorak spell-check took over again.
I tried copy and paste and everything else I could think of including singing several different applications. Nothing seemed to work. Never heard of Dragon Dictate - will investigate. I am committed to Dvorak (Left Hand), however, because it drove me crazy switching between keyboards, and I gave that up several years ago.
Appreciate the typist humor! We all must need to retain our sense of humor. And, I am sorry that nefarious forces have overtaken my forum posting. However, there is nothing that I can do nor do I intent to. I mention this at this point because it relates to the necessity of humor which is apparently lacking in the "nefarious force group", but provides amusement to those who do not belong to the group.
@mojo771 Air or fan drying a record is never a good idea. The water evaporates leaving whatever was in the water on the record. Even distilled water has some residue in it. Vacuum drying is the state of the art at this time. It removes the bulk of the fluid and residue. People who use an Ultrasonic unit should transfer the record to a vacuum drying machine which admittedly is messy as only one machine I know of will dry both sides at the same time. I think the best value in a vacuum unit is the Nessie which you hardly ever see mentioned here. The Clearaudio Matrix is also a fine machine. It uses the vacuum motor from the Double Matrix which will suck your fingernails off.
Not only store bought distilled water, but also laboratory grade distilled, and laboratory grade double-distilled.
But store bought distilled water is just fine. Deionized water is no where near the purity of distilled and will affect the surface tension as well. as likely also leaving residue behind.
@wizzzard, please take your time. I believe you can copy and paste the graphs.
I thought I had trouble with 9 fingers and a fused wrist. You might check out Dragon Dictate. I have used the Medical version and it is really quite good now.
You are at the VERY TOP of my list no respond to, however, I have been waiting to hear from the administrator on how to post graphs and pdfs. I have yet to hear back from him.
I believe I will need to respond in a different way. Your response has been written by hand many, many days ago.
I should inform you that I do not have the ability to use use ten fingers as most, for the simple reason, that I have only 5 and a half fingers to key with. I write all my "lengthly" responses by hand first, and then it takes me a considerable time to keyboard my responses. I can not use dictation. because I have to use a Dvorak (Left Hand) keyboard on my Mac. When dictating, the system defaults to QWERTY, which results in a bunch of gibberish.
I also needed to adapt to writing with my left hand. I am originally a right-handed individual. But, on the "Bright side" 5.5 fingers represents a majority - so I have nothing to complain about. As in "Brian's Song", "Always look on the bright side of life". But I do need to apologize to you for the delay.
I will try to respond to you today, if not, then Wednesday, because I am going to Hospital to have an scheduled MRI tomorrow.
Till later! Thank you very much for your understanding.
I recollect, It was an edge of the seat ride producing the mixtures, the wanting to get the ratio as correct as my 'inexperienced person could' was high up the chain of importance. Hence, I bought a weigh scale that I believe does .001 or definitely .01 increments of a Gram.
Hopefully a new mixture ratio will be supplied for Ethanol and I get to carry out another procedure.
In the interest of accuracy, in my last post I stated - " The formula provided by @wizzzard is by weight 22% ethanol and 0.038% Tergitol 15-S-7 which ~380 ppm which is 10 x CMC." I made an error, the concentration of Tergitol 15-S-7 is 38 mg, and for the resulting volume of about 1-L is + ~38 ppm which is the CMC for Tergitol 15-S-7. Apologies for any confusion this may have caused.
Note that the 2-drops specified appears too much for 38-mg noting the conversion mg = ml * 1000 * d. The smallest near calibrated drop from the Nalgene Dropper Bottle is 0.04-ml/drop - Factors to consider in accuracy and precision of Nalgene Dropper Bottles (thermofisher.com). Two drops = 0.08ml x 1000 x 0.91 (spg of 15-S-7) = 72.8 mg. Standard eyedroppers can deliver as much as 2X that amount.
Pindac, I was not giving you advice; I was merely trying to point out that the world of nonionic detergents can be confusing because sometimes the different chemical companies use different names for the same molecule. Ergo I thought you might want to check the relation between the product you’re using, made by BASF, to Tergitol 15S7or 9, made I think by Dow. I did so in the interim. Turns out your NID is at least very similar to 15S9. But you’ll probably get definitive advice you seek from Wizzzard or Antinn or both.
May I finish your statement for you. After they overcame the smell from the pyridine, and the bitterness due to the denatonium, they became blind due to the high (about 4+%) of methanol that was incorporated. After becoming blind they died within a matter of time. Depending upon how much and how often they drank.
Thank you for trying. I can assure you that by abandoning the isopropyl alcohol you will not be prematurely de destroying your records, and you will discover that the ethanol does provide better cleaning. You may not be able to discern this at. first, but I believe you should begin to notice improvements.
Thank you for your input and trying the formulation. Best wishes
On the surface the product you have been using called "Shaklee Basic H", which I previously have not been aware of until you mentioned it in this post, appears to be a very good product for what you have been using it for, especially as a car wash because it is pH balanced as well, which is very important. Many car washes sold, unfortunately, are not pH balanced properly for use as a car wash. But, that again, is yet another story.
And it only contains nonionic surfactants, and, is truly safe for the environment. My complements, an excellent choice of cleaner, and, thank you for making me aware of its existence.
And yes the surface tension achieved by its’ use is no were near as low as the formulation I presented. Keep in mind, that the concentration of "cleaning agent" in my formulation is established to clean the minor concentration of contaminants that a record would acquire.
Not saying that you keep a dirty car or have dirty widows, but, even though the surface tension is less the prepared solution you will use will become contaminated more rapidly, and you may simply need to apply more, or, perhaps not.
I am interested in the results you will achieve. Please keep me informed.
@lewmThere are two very experienced individuals now commenting on this thread.
I would like to be advised by either of these contributors, as I do intend on doing a trial between the two mixtures for a cleaning solution. The idea, that each constituent and ratio for it used in the mixture is recognised as acceptable.
It seems to me that only this type of preparation will cut it, and as long I use a repetitive cleaning method without creating cross contamination on the implements used, will be the next discipline, to offer an assurance control measures are being addressed.
The option on the Vinyl to be cleaned can be done as two methods.
One is to purchase 2 x the same Vinyl LP as a New Item Purchase.
The other to search out 2 x same 'used' Vinyl LP and hope they have a similar timeline of usage, with being out of the protective cover for a similar period of time. This one will be very difficult to verify.
I also have Vinyl LP's that have been owned for 40ish years and have become very usable following the manual cleaning method. I do believe the PAVCR method successfully removed all residuals embedded into the LP from previous method used to carry out cleaning.
It would be interesting to learn if a change of solution, along with the same cleaning method, is able to produce a 'purification' that is perceived as being improved on the already very impressive condition achieved. Bearing in mind, after experiencing the end product of my most recent cleaning activities, I have completely abandoned the idea of a US Tank final rinse following the manual method, as I sense it can not add any further improvement, that would be audible.
@cleeds, I was given a large collection of 78 rpm and old LPs. In order to deal with them I had to buy a record cleaning machine and deal with the peculiarities of of record cleaning. Had this not happened I would still be merrily plugging along with my sweep arm. 1st off, I have to qualify the alcohol comment. It is limited solely to PVC records. If you use alcohol on old 78s you will melt them.
In the mean while I discovered that vacuum clamping generates large static charges on the bottom of the record, strong enough to jump sparks to the head shell when removing the record. In playing with cleaning solutions I stumbled into the use of ionic agents to prevent static accumulation. BAK does exactly this and the effect is lasting.
I looked carefully at the KL Audio and Degritter units before going the way I did. It is a mistake to air or fan dry a record. Doing so leaves whatever is in the water on the record. Reuse the water in an ultrasonic cleaner and you will wind up with a lot of garbage on the record. Filtering is not good enough because many contaminants will be in solution and will not filter out. In short you would have to buy a vacuum drying machine in addition. The Clearaudio Double Matrix Sonic Pro not only uses fresh fluid with each cleaning it actually rinses the record three times each cycle before drying and it is doing both sides at the same time. 2 minutes and the record is clean and dry both sides. It is expensive but I stumbled over an open box deal for a 20% discount. Sometimes you have to be lucky. Unfortunately, whoever opened the box put some ungodly fluid in it, unknown to me that caused the water pump to fail. Musical Surroundings asked if I though I could take it apart and sent me a new pump. I opened it up and there was white junk all through the water lines and water tank. I cleaned it all out, installed the new pump and it has been perfect ever since. I can also take it apart with my eyes closed. The pump was covered under warranty.
Sometimes life drives you in funny directions.
The Wizzard's Formula was strikingly close to the one I landed on. It is obvious to me that he knows in detail exactly what he is talking about and I plan on incorporating some of his changes. I suspect he is of eastern European origin and culturally they are a bit on the gruff side. So am I.
I do not care for ultrasonic cleaning. It is messy, inconvenient and of questionable effectiveness.
US cleaning is just about all I've used after buying a Klaudio US machine. Its one-button simplicity just can't be beat, imo. Nothing could be easier or more tidy.
I think an alcohol is a very important part of a proper record cleaning formula.
That's a remarkable statement from someone who until recently insisted nothing other than a conductive sweep brush was needed to ensure a clean LP.
I can't help but wonder what contamination these LPs have accumulated that require substantial amounts of alcohol to remove.
Pindac, very often identical nonionic detergents are sold under different names, depending upon the manufacturer or patent holders. You might check to determine the chemical relationship between your preferred preparation and either tergitol S7 or S9. Maybe there is chemical identity to one or the other or maybe there are only small differences in properties that are of little consequence.
Due to my location, I have used BASF™ Dehypon® LS 54 nonionic surfactant. as a substitute for Tergitol 15-S-9.
I see that Tergitol 15-S-7 is the recommended substance within this thread.
As previous experience showed it was going to be expensive to acquire Tergitol, and it is not readily available in the UK. The acquiring the alternative Dehypon came with a large proportion of monies outlaid for the assembling the materials to enable the Manual Cleaning Method to be put in place.
I would be happiest if the Dehypon was identified as being usable with the mixture being proposed by @wizzzard. Acquiring the Ethanol as per the Purity suggested, is looking relatively easy, and is available at a fair cost.
I invested in a accurate weighing scale, and would like to know the mixture in weight of grams of Dehypon per 220 grams of Ethanol, if this is considered a mixture worthwhile producing.
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.
