The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

@pindac, @whart, and any others reading,

Thank-you for the kind words. 

Keep in-mind that what I present is a process - not a single chemistry.  My aqueous process is centered around pre-clean, rinse, final-clean, rinse and is the industry standard for precision cleaning with aqueous cleaner and as the book states Chapter II: 

The manual precision aqueous vinyl record cleaning procedure detailed by this document began with the cleaning process used by the United States Library of Congress to clean delicate lacquer records. That procedure was then modified following the fundamentals developed for MIL-STD-1330D Precision Cleaning and Testing of Shipboard Oxygen, Helium, Helium-Oxygen, Nitrogen, And Hydrogen Systems and MIL-STD-1622B Standard Practice for Cleaning of Shipboard Compressed Air Systems.   

To refresh:  I developed MIL-STD-1330D and MIL-STD-1622B as well as the jointly patented cleaning agent - Navy Oxygen Cleaner (NOC), and if you were to read NASA procedures for aqueous cleaning of high-pressure oxygen, you would see similar pre-clean, rinse, final clean, rinse processes.  

So, I present a 'process', not a single chemical.  The book presents various options for pre-cleaner and final cleaner chemistry, and as the book states:  All cleaning procedures specified herein are presented as only “a” way to clean a record. No claim is made there is only one way to approach the process. All methods & procedures specified here present opportunity for experimenting with different cleaning agents, different cleaning brushes, different drying cloths, and different cleaning equipment.

So, this whole hoopla has nothing to do with someone else's chemistry which the concept of alcohol + nonionic surfactant is nothing new.  If you read VIII.15.1 London Jazz Collector™ (LJC) LJC home recipe for vacuum record cleaning machines | LondonJazzCollector (wordpress.com) he indicates it's for vacuum record cleaning machines and does not recommend allowing to just evaporate to prevent leaving dissolved contaminants.  And if you analyze his formula (by volume), it's as follows: 25% IPA & 250 ppm nonionic surfactant (likely at 8 x CMC).   

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.  If you review and understand Table XIII Hansen Solubility Parameter Record Polymers & Solvents, you will see the differences between 100% IPA and 100% Ethanol.  Based on @wizzzard  'credentials' it should be child's-play for him to do a comparison of two formulas - IPA + Tegitol 15-S-9 (which are inexpensive & easy obtained) and Ethanol + Tergitol 15-S-7 (which may not as inexpensive or as easily obtained); and hopefully he could put this in both 'by-weight' and 'by-volume' to make it more accessible to the average person and let people decide for themselves.

But, because I have a name, and you can find me, for liability reasons I will not make any recommendation for use of alcohol above 2.5%.  Additionally, I am not here to formulate cleaning agents - I let others do that.  Otherwise, my background in some of the most intensive quality assurance programs in world (Navy SUBSAFE The U.S. Navy’s Submarine Safety Standards (bsee.gov) & Deep Submergence Diver Life Support) and my development of the MIL-STDs to clean high-pressure oxygen and life support systems and the need to have every final cleaner approved by a three-panel medical board (toxicology, internal medicine & industrial health) have left me acutely sensitive to being protective of human health.  If I am to be criticized for being overly protective - guilty as charged. So, I will advise of the risk - beyond that you are free to take as many risks as you wish but you are at least fully aware; that is my policy.

So, myself and @wizzzard are fundamentally different - he is presenting a chemistry, I am presenting a 'process'; and it's my experience with developing and implementing (world-wide) precision cleaning processes - that to effectively clean a record - you need a process, and every process be it manual cleaning, manual-cleaning with vacuum assistance or ultrasonic cleaning, and combinations thereof require a variation of the chemistry for best results. 

Beyond that, I am not here to defend or promote my process.  The book goes into excruciating detail trying to explain the whys behind the process including a deep dive (Chapter XI) into just how clean the record needs to be to extract all the music it contains.  If you agree, that's great, if you don't, that's OK.  I am selling nothing and make no income from the book, and it was a good exercise to keep my skillsets high when I 'was' retired - no more, back to work and I really do not have the time anymore to expend as I have in the past.  So, this is likely my last post on this forum.

Take care and stay-well,

Neil Antin

PS/Given the state of affairs in cyber-space, I have adopted the 'zero-trust' cyber position, and consequently, I am now being very careful as to just what personally identifiable information (PII) I disclose.  

@jasonbourne71 , just don't smoke while your doing it:-) Really, what I use is a fine artist brush which I trimmed the bristles back about 1/2 way to make them a bit stiffer. The longer handle makes it easier to use than brushes with short handles and you can brush any old which way without hurting anything. Having lost one stylus to the ozone, using anything but water or Lyra's stylus cleaning fluid makes me nervous as you do not want to do anything to weaken the glue.

@wizzzard : thank you for your reply to my question! I have been suspicious of the claims by LAST since their appearance decades back. I will stick to cleaning my styli using Magic Erasure. Also A.J.van den Hul recommended using some vodka on a fine brush for stylus cleaning. That I have on hand!

There is plenty of methods seen in use to clean a Vinyl LP.

My methods for the Cleaning of  Vinyl LP, have evolved, and I can categorically state, that when adopting the Manual Cleaning Method as advised in the attachment, the end product, using the outlined mixtures for producing a solution, has by far, outperformed any other past cleaning methods that involved producing a solution to act as a cleaning agent.

PACVR-3rd-Edition

The outcome being, I now view a Vinyl LP as having been 'purified', that has undergone the PACVR Manual Cleaning Method, using a outlined mixture mixture to produce a cleaning solution.

It does seem there is an alternative mixture proposed by @wizzzard, to produce a cleaning solution, that can offer similar capabilities to the mixture to produce a solution found in the PAVCR from @antinn. I don't doubt in any way the capability of the solutions for lifting contaminant from within a LP's Groove.

Where I struggle, is with the notion, if I were to use either of the mixtures I am now aware of. One being the mixture in use produced following the @antinn guidance, or the solution under discussion and presented by @wizzzard.

Would there an an audible difference, that one could claim to be a betterment, as a discovery made from a subjective evaluation of listening to a Cleaned LP using either of the solutions and adopted cleaning method.

@antinn I once again thank you for your excellent support offered, that has lead to a transformation in how I perceive a Cleaned Vinyl LP.

@wizzzard Thank You for bringing this new to me and alternative mixture, to produce a cleaning solution. Curiosity of how it will impact on a cleaning process is now raised.

I think an alcohol is a very important part of a proper record cleaning formula. I do not care for ultrasonic cleaning. It is messy, inconvenient and of questionable effectiveness. However, I do not think a 25% mixture of any alcohol in water is easily flammable if at all. Over 50% no question but 94 degrees F will not do it. I think most people will be in far more danger at their stovetop. 

My idea of a good record cleaning machine is the Clearaudio Double Matrix Sonic Pro. You put a record on it, clamp the record down and push a button. Come back 2 minutes later to a clean and dry record, both sides, with nary a drop spilled. There are many less expensive machines like the Nessie that are just as effective one side at a time.

@whart 

 

👍

Thanks @mijostyn and I absolutely agree that it is part of the process- the science is never "settled" in a sense. What struck me as odd is that the potential hazards of using alcohol in a US machine are well known- an open web search (not relying on scientific papers behind paywalls) reveals this by a simple search: "alcohol and ultrasonic cleaning." If that's the issue, I don't see much room for debate but there may be more to this that I'm missing. 

regards,

@whart , Overall I agree with you. However, it is important for knowledgeable people to point out errors when they see or hear them. Avoiding errors is a very important part of the learning process.  am extremely good at making them. For me the learning process is like bumper cars. Fortunately, I usually wind up at the right exit. You be right scientifically but very wrong from a functional basis. A great example of this is the Kirmuss method. The time involved in cleaning 3000 records that way is prohibitive. 

@wizzzard  Please take all the time you need. Please be well. 

I was a student of intellectual history long before I became a lawyer and am now retired from that and have been back in academia for the last ten years. One thing I learned along the way was that most successful learning processes were collaborations and despite the personalities involved, most of the successful collaborations were amicable. This particular discussion is an offshoot of a hobby for most of us-- the chemistry of record cleaning-- which is a niche within a niche.Presumably, this thread was begun by someone who wanted to contribute knowledge to the community. For some reason, it is turned into a pi**ing match. That is not the spirit in which I like to see the quest for knowledge pursued.

If you look at the history of scientific societies, they were non-profit enterprises that involved like minded individuals, sometimes from different fields of endeavor, sharing knowledge, conducting experiments and engaging in study that was not necessarily offered in the more formal institutes of learning at the time. This became a core principle in what we consider to be science today-- applied learning. In the field that we are discussing there is very little attention devoted to the topic by industry or the trade, including the AES. It is not taught in schools as far as I know (such as graduate courses on preservation of media in archival studies). I learned what I did by exhaustive study of old papers, spending time with archivists and visiting the Culpeper facility of the Packard Campus of the Library of Congress where intake is done for the collection- to meet and ask questions of the various specialists there.

I met Neil several years ago because our interests converged on the topic of record (LP) cleaning. I was honored to work with him as a publisher of several editions of his work on Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records. He is knowledgeable, has enormous cross disciplinary knowledge of applied science and developed the Mil-Spec for cleaning 02 systems on submarines, a life-critical function of the U.S. Naval Fleet. He brings a lot to the table and does so without arrogance or rancor. He is inquisitive and quite thorough in his approach. He is also a nice man, pleasant to deal with and willing to spend the time to discuss and think through various processes and challenges in this area.

I would suggest to Mr. Wizard (unless he insists on being addressed by the honorific "Dr." which I find to be pretentious except when applied to medical doctors), that he find a way to discuss his findings without acrimony. Wizard is new here, and while I have no role as moderator, I can tell you that it is counterproductive to argue based on appeals to authority or snide insults. You can share your knowledge and can disagree in the pursuit of knowledge without rancor. That is, to me, the level of professionalism one should exhibit in any serious endeavor.

Respectfully,

Bill Hart

@lewm 

You just caught me as I was turning off my Computer and preparing myself with my wife's assistance for an anticipated difficult period that will incapacitate me for a considerable time.  I just wanted to clarify a few things.  From my perspective no hostilities exist on my part.  and, yes I read what Neil Anton had prepared and presented in January of 2022 immediately after it was brought to my attention by someone else some time ago.  I assure you there are vast differences that you may not be aware of, and, more differences exist that similarities.

I was willing to point out his inconsistencies at a future date, but he no longer has any interests in what I have to offer.  And, that is O.K. by me.

I simply asked what his Academic Qualifications were, and, he never responded.

If he took offense because of my request that is unfortunate.  However, when someone makes a statement, such as, "the earth is flat".  By nature I feel compelled to respond, and, if that somehow comes across as an insult, because of my method of responding to such statements and those of comparative implications, I am truly sorry.

I have no ill feelings, nor, should I towards Anting.  And if others can not see that as well, I am sorry.  And, I was hoping that those contributing to these posts understood and appreciated somewhat humorous and sarcastic remarks.

I will not change however, simply because that is my nature, and. the way I respond to certain statements.  Perhaps others appreciate my remarks, in that case, they can stay tuned in and expect many others.

I hope you understan. And, now my "medical.demon" is demanding my presence.

Farewell for now and thank you.

Seems to me that except for the disagreement regarding the danger of heating 22% ethanol in a US machine and the competition over who is the more brilliant analytical chemist, Antinn and Wizzzard offer very similar recommendations. So there is no need for such hostility between them and among their assorted acolytes.

To all others I will respond to your to all you'r questions, and correct the errors of others who have decided to confiscate my forum, rather than creating their own.

But then again, my is based on truth, facts, and Science only.

I appreciate your understanding and having to wait longer for answers that you expected sooner.

Thank you again for your understanding!

@ drkinkfish

I am sorry I did not understand your use of the word "us" believing that it somehow related to an Ultrasonic Cleaner.  I have never come heard this expression before.  I am very familiar with Ultrasonic Cleaning baths.  I first used one is in 1961, and in every lab I have involved with has always had one or two baths available.  Today I have two at home (one is in storage), but they are not for record cleaning.  Please do not be concerned with other thing you may have read.  Reviewing charts and graphs is one thing. Understanding  what they mean is another.  The azeotropic effect mentioned does not even initiate until a Temperature of 173.3 degrees F.  I will respond in detail to your post most likely tomorrow du e to related medical issues that are just initiating.  Please be patient!  Thank you!

@wizzzard,  another sincere 'thank you' for a very interesting topic and amusing as well (considering the vast array of responses). 

Perhaps a topic for another day, regarding LAST (not the STYLAST) as a record 'preservative' in that it claims to change or preserve the record surface to extend the record's life.  I used it on a number of records in my collection back in the 80's and have found no ill effects, while keeping fidelity intact and reducing surface noise.

I would understand if this is not a topic you'd even want to breach.  Just thought I'd tap into your vast array of knowledge if you'd care to take this on.

@ mijostyn

 

I have prepared a detailed response including the graph I promised for all for you (hand written). However, I am entering a cycle related to my autoimmune condition, and will not be able to post my response until later today, or, most likely tomorrow.  As a Physician I am certain you understand.  You are first on the list. 

@mijostyn 

I have already prepared a detailed response for you (hand written) including the graph I promised for all.  Unfortunately today I am entering a "cycle" corresponding to my autoimmune condition, and, I will probably not be able to post my response until much later today, or, most likely tomorrow.As a Physician you most certainly understand.  So, please bear with me, I will respond as soon as possible.   You are first on the list.

@mijostyn,

If you ever took the time to read the book you would find a multitude of methods, beyond the in-expensive manual process; not everyone has your wealth. Also, its rather inexpensive to filter US tanks to 0.2-micron absolute keeping the bath clean (and the book has a table that lists all the parts required)  generally for 3-4 weeks until TDS/resistivity (that is easily measured accurately -Amazon.com: HM Digital 716160 COM-100 Waterproof Professional Series Combo Meter, 7", White/Purple : Industrial & Scientific) increases above levels where there is a risk of scale (using ASTM & MIL-STDs for guidance).   

Regarding your question of the possible benefit of Tergitol 15-S-7 (or 15-S-9) over your current Triton X-100 if you took the time to review the book Table X Nonionic Surfactant Performance Properties, as an educated individual you should see why the Tergitols are vastly superior.to Triton X-100 for the application you are using.

In the meantime, I recently did a quick deep dive into anti-statics such as BAK-50 and in the process, I came across this NASA Report you may find of interest 19890016725.pdf (nasa.gov); cationic surfactants can be corrosive to some materials.  The rest of the information and details I determined given your distain of me, I see no reason to share with you.  But overall, if you optimize your process, with the right surfactant at the right concentration and BAK-50 at the right concentration there is no reason you should be seeing any residue build-up on your stylus.

@wizzzard , Could you please respond to my last post, I think you might have missed it. 

I want to spend as little time cleaning records as possible. Antinn's method IMHO is either for extremely bored people or the neurologically deranged. 

Subjecting a record to any heat source is a potentially destructive thing to do. Records do not dewarp themselves. 

Ultrasonic cleaning is an unfortunate fad. Using the same solution over and over again is a great way to contaminate records as is air or fan drying. Do any of us live in clean rooms?

A good record cleaning method or machine should use fresh fluid with each cleaning, agitate the fluid so as to loosen debris, vacuum dry the record and be as fast as possible. Doing both sides at the same time is a big plus halving the cleaning time.    

@antinn 

Thank You for asking me not to waste any more time on you - I won't!

The Last line of record/stylus/tapehead products were not available in 1969. They were introduced in the early 1980's. Just the facts, mam. ;-)

I for one am sticking with Neil's (@antinn) method of LP cleaning, and his usc formula.

@wizzzard,

If you carefully read @drkingfish he mentioned ’us’ that is a common abbreviation for ultrasonic (tank).

Otherwise, here a phase diagram for ethanol-water - Ethanol-Phase-Diagram.jpg (800×695) (moonshinedistiller.com) and distillation discussion - Test01 (queensu.ca), it forms an azeotrope at about 95.6%, noting that I did not say that it did not form an azeotrope only implying that at any significant concentration in the context of your formula.

Otherwise, instead of keeping this professional, your immature attempts at insults I perceive only as an insult to your advertised intelligence; that’s a shame. But you are a world away, someone behind a forum handle and have no meaning or significance to me, and I will not waste any more of my time with you so and I suggest you do not waste yours.

@antinn 

@drkingfish 

@lewm 

I intend to get back to you later after I respond to others who have posted earlier.  I do promise to get back to you, it is simply a matter of priorities.  But, I have read Drkingfish's post to me, and I do not see any reference to his specific purchase of an ultrasonic cleaning machine, only his possession of an AR ES-1 and a Thorens 160.

I did no insult you as Lewm suggests, I merely asked what your Academic Qualifications were, and suggest that you relax.  However, you very emphatically stated that ethanol/water "does not form an azeotrope" !  Really? In the interim, please refer to any High School Chemistry book.  For that matter, I believe that this subject is now covered in Grade 8, and possibly Grade 7.  If ethanol and water do not form an azeotrope, you have just eliminated all the distilleries in tho world actively producing Liquor for human consumption, and ethanol for chemical reactions and other uses.

I stated my background at the very onset (perhaps, you missed that).  As I stated I will get back to you later.  Suggest, you relax, perhaps have a massage, but don't forget to warn the masseuses (male or female) not to rub to vigorously because rubbing alcohol usually contains anywhere from 70% isopropyl alcohol to 75% with water( which has a Flash Point that is more than 2 degrees lower than ethanol and burns at a considerably higher temperature than ethanol) , and you do not want to explode on the massage table.

In the meantime, stay safe till later.

Thank you for your comments!

@wizzzard, 

To the contrary - I know exactly what I am saying.  I am the author of this book - Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press with over 20-yrs experience in developing precision cleaning processes for ships and submarines.

Otherwise, the source of the data for Ethanol is specified in the book in Chapter VIII with appropriate references with links to the data.  Additionally, maybe you missed the fact the person was going to use your formula in a ultrasonic tank generally heated to 95F with often upwards of 200-400watts electrical power.  And, if you look at the phase diagram for ethanol & water at any significant concentration it does not form an azeotrope so the vapor concentration will be > the liquid concentration.  In the US, NFPA-70 and National Electrical Code (NEC) has strict requirements for electrical equipment use with anything flammable that is classified as >100F.  

That all being said, I do not know about you, but I do not drink my wine in a 1L glass at 95F and I do not have any significant ignition sources at mouth noting that a lit cigarette is not a credible ignition source - the book addresses.   And cooking with wine is at relatively low volumes and often with good ventilation.  

In the meantime, if you are who you claim to be - prove it.  Full name with something that verifies you are who you say you are.  If you read my bio that is as much as I will specify and most of what I have written is not in the public domain.

Neil Antin

Maybe if you would state your area of disagreement with Antinn, that would be more helpful to him and the rest of us, compared to another insult with vague implications.

@wizzard Thank you for your post. Very informative and I am being sincere, thank you.  

@antinn 

Why do people continue post things that they know absolutely nothing about?

What are your academic qualifications?  In the mean time be also cautious that your glass of wine does not "blow-up in your face while you are writing your response!

Sincerely,

@drkingfish 

WARNING:  22% Ethanol is flammable with a flashpoint of about 75F.  Using this concentration in an Ultrasonic Tank with 100’s or 1000’s of mL that is not explosion proof rated is dangerous. With an ultrasonic unit three mechanisms are in play - the heat that speeds up evaporation; the record rotating is drawing fluid out that is evaporating, and the ultrasonics are agitating the fluid surface and a mist/vapor is often produced. All of this has the potential to setup the necessary conditions to develop flammable AND potentially explosive vapors.  Additionally, in a common domestic setting, it is very unlikely that the high ventilation turn-over rates that are required in medical and industrial settings that prevent the accumulation of flammable/explosive vapors will be used. So, the risk in a domestic setting is much higher.  There are explosion-proof rated industrial US tanks, but these are very expensive and generally not sold to consumers.  

Otherwise, 'flammable' alcohol concentrations use with vacuum-RCM the risk is much less, mitigated by use at room temperature and by the very small quantity used – maybe 5- mL per side. 

Thank you wizzzard for your post.  I just bought a us cleaner and will use your formula.  I have a heavily modified AR-ES and a heavily modified Thorens 160.  Will give it a try with my fist batch.

I would never invade your privacy but you posted your condition.  I'm going out on a limb and assuming it is SOD1.  If so,and I don't know if it's available in Great Briton the FDA here just approved a drug   The drug Qalsody (tofersen) is expected to help people with a very specific mutation, SOD1, which applies to only 2% of the ALS population.

Studies showed that the drug reduced plasma neurofilament light (NfL), a blood-based biomarker of axonal (nerve) injury and neurodegeneration.

If I intruded I sincerely apologize and if I'm wrong I also apologize but I wanted to inform you if I was correct and you didn't know of this therapy.

My best to you!

Mark

@jasonbourne71 

Did you find my comments helpful or do require more information?

Notes from a previous life: benzalkonium chloride is used in sore throat lozenges and spermicidal creams. Maybe we shall see nonoxynol-9 used on LPs one day (a new way of "being careful" with your records)?

@wizzzard , This is a continuation of the last post.

Is the BAK detrimental in any way? The effect on static was a total surprise! As I said before my turntable uses vacuum clamping, a great way to generate static. The charges were so high that in removing the record sparks would jump to the tonearm causing a loud pop through the system. I had to mute the system every time I removed a record. I use a conductive sweep arm which discharges the top side of the record fine and the platter is grounded. If I leave the record on the turntable for 20 minutes the static dissipates. When I started using this formula the static stopped entirely. The effect persists over at least a year without recleaning the record. If the BAK is not detrimental I would like to continue it. Suggestions on formulation are appreciated.

I think you should keep the formula in grams as it is far more accurate than measuring in volume which is why I use that method for more critical formulas. If the concentrations are that important leave it in grams. Kitchen scales are cheap. The only problem is that best of them only measure down to a 10th of a gram. More accurate scales would be a lot more expensive. So, you may want to round the formula off to 0.1 gm. 

Another reason why vacuum drying is important for me at least is that my formula is leaving a residue on the record and I want to minimize this. I study my styluses under high magnification and have tracked the deposition of residue on the stylus and after a week there is usually enough on the stylus to clean it. For obvious reasons the residue only accumulates on the pivot side of the stylus. One swipe back to front with a stylus brush is enough to take it off, no fluid required. 

@wizzzard , Thank you for your extended response. Yes, it is Triton X 100 which I got from my hospitals lab. I am a retired family doc. 

I use supermarket distilled water. If you let 1cc dry on a black plate you will see a white residue. My point is that if records are allowed to air or fan dry this and any other residue will be left on the record. Since I have no idea what this is I would have to assume it is abrasive. Vacuum drying will remove the bulk of this. 

Why is Tergitol better than Triton X100?  

I will swap the isopropanol for ethanol immediately. 

People with large record collections may listen to any particular record once a decade. Records left for prolonged periods are notorious for growing fungus. The BAK will prevent fungal grow under normal (not excessively humid) conditions. I went to medical school in Miami, Florida. I made living designing and installing Hi Fi systems in the homes of very wealthy people. I would pull records out of large collections to listen noticing that mildew smell that everyone is familiar with when they leave their laundry in the washing machine too long. 

@Wizzard- I’m fascinated by archival techniques including those used for LPs (not shellac). Most of what I did was compare sonic results using different commercially available fluids and methods. I met Neil Antin (@Antinn) on these fora - he is the author of that tome on record cleaning methods, chemistry, materials science and the like. (His background is engineering based and he developed the Mil-Spec for use by the Navy in cleaning life critical o2 systems).  Neil is also an audiophile and during a brief retirement period put together his thoughts on cleaning LPs in a methodical way, starting with the basics.

One thing that Neil confirmed in his extensive studies was the value of a pure water rinse step to remove residue, including the contaminants left by the cleaning fluid itself. You might find it an enjoyable read.

One other thing of note- Certain cartridge manufacturers warn against any liquid stylus cleaner (Ortofon, for one) as it can loosen the glue that is used to bond the stylus to the cantilever shank. There is at least one commercial manufacturer who is offering a stylus fluid (proprietary, of course) that is supposed to be safe even for these types of cartridges.

Best,

Bill Hart

@mijostyn 

Good day Mijostyn,

 

I will address your four most recent posts at the same time.  First, I need to make some adjustments.  You have presented very good and clear questions, however, there are a few very minor deviations in the formulations you presented.

 

My first assumption is that you stated that you are using "Triton X" as a surfactant.  I believe that I am correct to assume that you are using "Triton X 100".

 

Triton X 100 is the most commonly used Triton surfactants manufactured by Dow Chemical.  You may not be aware of this trivial bit of information and history about Triton X 100, but, sometime around 1960, TritonX 100 was the Reference Standard of nonionic surfactants.  It was the base to which all other nonionic surfactants were compared.  In fact, to this day, it is the "Medical Standard" that is used in Medical experimentations.  Even if other surfactants are used ( and, they mostly are not), Triton X 100 is also used.  This is very important because Medical Research that is done today can accurately be compared and judged to studies that were done more than 63 years ago.  This is very important in Medical Research.

 

Nevertheless, the selection of Triton X 100 for cleaning vinyl records is a good choice, not the best or close to the best, but a good choice.  And, if you already have access to Triton X 100, I do not see any reason to make a change unless you are interested in making the "Very Best".  Stick with the Triton X 100, but you proportionally need to incorporate more into your formulation.  I thought that I would first alter what you are using and make it more relatable to the "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" that I initially presented, and then I though to also provide a comparison, and then make comments about the ingredients in question.  I decided to refer to your formulation as "Mijostyn’s Good Record cleaning Formula"

 

                                          "Mijostyn’s Good Record Cleaning Formula

 

                    Ingredients:                                             Parts by Weight (Grams)

 

                 Distilled Water                                                   779.772

         

                 Ethanol                                                               220.000

 

                 Triton X 100 (Dow Chemical)                               0.228

 

                 Benzalkonium Chloride                                         0.000

                                                                                       

                                                                                          1,000.000

 

Now, if I were to take my formulation and relate it to what you have been using it would read as follows for comparative purposes only.

 

                    Ingredients:                                              Parts by Weight (Grams)

 

                Distilled Water                                                      941.499

 

                Denatured Alcohol                                                  50.900

 

                Benzalkonium Chloride                                            7.600

 

                Triton X 100 (Dow Chemical)                                  0.001

 

                                                                                            1,000.000

 

You should not be concerned with the "Distilled Water" that you purchase at a supermarket, or drugstore, or Walmart.  As long as it is stated as distilled and not deionized.

 

I do not know if your intent to use Benzalkonium was as a "antimicrobial agent" or as an "anti-static agent", or both?  Nevertheless, you do not need an antimicrobial agent.  Also, the selection of this agent as an anti-static agent can only cause problems, also, if intended for such a purpose, the amount used is extremely excessive.  There are much better and easier ways to control static, and, they should never be incorporated within a cleaning formulation.

 

Now to the denatured alcohol versus "Pure Ethanol" aspect.  In one respect using denatured alcohol is LESS DESTRUCTIVE than using another alcohol such as, isopropanol, because it first depends upon the concentration of ethyl alcohol in the denatured.  The Ethyl alcohol concentration can be as low as 60%, or 90%, or most often 95%.  The majority of the denaturant is "Methyl alcohol".  And, I mentioned that ethanol has NO EFFECT on vinyl records, methyl alcohol does, but, although it is destructive - it is the least destructive of the more common alcohols.  However, you should use Ethanol purchased at a liquor store ONLY.  It is not worth saving a few pennies and progressively damaging your records over time. The other ingredients used to make alcohol denatured are copper sulphate (used for coloring only, and not a big problem), Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, and denatunium (to make it bitter tasting), and pyridine (to make it smell to high heaven).  There are also others.  The exact quantities are no longer governed and benzine has been banned.  But it is important to note that even in very minute quantities they are extremely effective.  Please, please use only ethanol for numerous reasons.  I will be preparing a graph for all to see why the level of 22.000% is important, and not just a number I picked out of a hat.  The graph will (or should) make it clear.

 

So, scrap the BAK, feel confident in your distilled water purchases, purchase and use only ethanol, and significantly increase you level of Triton X 100 by a factor of 5+.

 

I noticed that many use volumetric methods of making their formulations, I intend to convert my presented formulation in a volumetric format as well very shortly.

 

I hope this has cleared some things up for you and has been helpful.  If you follow what I have stated, you will no longer have any residue problems.  Also, Triton X 100 is not as low foaming as the Tergitol 15-S-7, but it is manageable and will not produce unnecessary spotting and quickly dry spot-free.

@wizzzard , I forgot to mention BAK (benzalconium chloride) as a cationic surfactant helps prevent static buildup on the record. This formula does leave a residue on the record which if used with a vacuum machine is very slight. I have to clean styluses once weekly. I get the impression records are quieter after treatment but I need proof of that and will have to devise an experiment. The anti static nature of the solution has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt. I use a turntable with vacuum clamping. It generates huge static voltage charges on the bottom of the record. After treatment there is no significant charge generated.

 

@wizzzard , excuse me, I missed your comment on denatured alcohol. I was using isopropyl alcohol and will switch to pure ethanol. To Orient you correctly my formula was 1 gallon water, 1 cup isopropyl alcohol. 2 drops Triton X and 2 tablespoons BAK. I do have a scale I use to mix epoxy and catalized lacquer and will switch to your proportions. I would very much appreciate your comments on Triton X and BAK. I use a Clearaudio Double Matrix Sonic Pro, worth every cent. You 

The AR XA was a tour de force of original turntable design and I think Edgar Villchur’s  best work. It is a turntable design every audiophile should study. It has been copied initially by Thorens and Linn, then improved by David Fletcher’s SOTA Sapphire and gussied it up by AJ Conti’s Basis, SME, Avid, Oracle and finally Mark Dohmann with the Helix. The only error is the XA’s lack of an anti skating mechanism. Everything else is commensurate with is price. 

Can I interest you in a set of cable elevators? They only cost $8500:-)

I learned at the Gangster Museum, NYC this about Denatured Alcohol

Alcohol had been subject to excise taxes as a beverage in the United States until 1906, when a process borrowed from Europe added “denaturants,” or substances that made grain-based (ethyl) alcohol taste or smell bad, to deter its use in drinks. The “denatured” alcohol could then be used, tax free, in manufacturing.

USA, during prohibition, those without bathtubs, or moon-lit nights (origin of moon shine) drank denatured alcohol, many became sick, yet ...

Interesting post.  I've been using 91% isopropyl alcohol in my "mix" for a long time with what seems like reasonable results.  I'll give your formula with the Everclear a try (on records, not on myself). I've not drank that stuff since college days and do not recommend it for human consumption.  I've been using a bit of Triton-X instead of Tergitol.  Thanks.  

I use a product called Shaklee Basic H to wash windows, my car etc. Very clean rinsing and environmentally friendly. It's supposed to make 'water wetter' reduces the surface tension. I've seen how well it cleans windows and my car, no visable residue on the windows which would show up fairly well.

So very interested in trying Wizzzards formula in my spin clean, I've seen the benefits of reducing water surface tension, couldn't find the exact amount like Wiz provided. Thanks for that. Here's the link to Basic H ingredients:

Basic H2 Green Biodegradable All-Purpose Cleaner | Shaklee

Anything and everything coming from Last is GARBAGE.

@wizzzard Thank you for taking the time to teach us about cleaning fluid. I have been making my own for over a year. It is very similar to yours. I have some questions. Is there a problem using denatured ethanol? It’s more available to us. I have been using Triton X as a surfactant. Is there any reason to change? I also add 10 cc BAK to suppress fungal growth. One other comment is the distilled water most of us use is not lab grade and will leave a residue. For this reason I greatly prefer vacuum drying. Your comment is greatly appreciated!

 

@dogberry 

The use of the Vodka is excellent, and is less than if you purchased or ordered the Ethanol alone.  However your calculations require some minor modifications because "Proof" is expressed as parts by volume, as is normal for most Algol concentrations.  And the formulation is in parts by weight (not volume).  Also, you need to adhere to the exact 22.000% parts by weight expressed in the formulation.

 

I gave some explanation the lewm, but it should be more detailed for you.  The 22.000% represents the exact primary inflection point.  I have never posted on any websites in the past.  This is my first time which explains my errors that I attempted to correct.

 

I will prepare a graph, and find some way to post it and that should convince you why the 22.000% is important.  I will also adjust the corrections for you regarding the volume versus weight.  I hope to provide you with this tomorrow. If all goes well.

 

The selection of Ethanol is the only correct selection.  I actually am the author of the first book written about the calculations of "Solubility Parameters".  This boob is somewhat exclusive unfortunately. I can also state that I have authored actually two books, however, the one still remains "Classified", and is the property. To the U.S.A. Department of Defense, and none of that information can be discussed, and it is actually not absolutely necessary in this particular matter.

 

Till a later date then!

 

Dr. S.N.W.      BA, MA, MChem, MBA, DPhil, DSc.

@rhg3 

Thank you for your significant, detailed, and meaningful submission.

 

Although it somewhat deviates from the intent of my Forum Post, it, nevertheless captures the spirit of my post, and, is very detailed and meaningful and an appropriate ADDITION to my post for those who are interested in a somewhat different approach to my exclusive designed selection method. My intent was to  present only one formulation that is determined to be "The very Best", and to present a document that entailed 5,239 words supporting that determination.  Which, as of this writing, and, on the response posts I have received, I am glad that I did not squander my time doing that presentation.

 

However the document you presented only substantiates my initial intent, and also demonstrates the complexities of developing meaningful products.

 

I sincerely appreciate your post of this comprehensive publication that permits others to review very viable alternatives.

 

Thank you very much!

 

Dr. S.N.W.      BA, MA, MChem, MBA, DPhil, DSc.

@duckmanst3 

 

 

I do not know if you are being a "Smart Ass" with your mention of two drops of urine, nor, do I know who you are addressing.

 

If you are addressing me , I do not care what you use.  I provided a formulation for "The very best record cleaner", and am willing to answer questions about it, and I also offered to to provide other scientific based truths and knowledge about about other areas such as record mats, lubricants, contact materials, dampening agents, etc., if such interests exist.

 

Proper etiquette requires that I allow myself to believe that you have some interest however you may have expressed yourself.  It does not address any questions, therefor, I will make some assumptions and address your posting.

 

Distilled water at 20 C. Exhibits a surface tension of only 72.72 dynes/centimeter.  Dawn is a very powerful surfactant and is excellent for washing cooking and eating utensils, as well as being mild enough to wash your vehicle.  However 2 drops only reduces the surface tension to 42.82 dynes/centimeter.  A very far cry from the 28.5 dynes/centimeter of the formulation presented.  It is also intended to be a high-foaming surfactant - the exact opposite in what you are looking for in a record cleaning formulation.

 

Dawn should absolutely not be used on records.  It contains 8 ingredients in addition to water.  A significant portion of the surfactants are "Anionic" surfactants which are forbidden in such applications.  I will gladly supply you the list of ingredients if you are serious and how they behave.  The addition of two drops of urine is the puzzle!  If you are meant to be serious, it offers no benefits.  Most people realize that urine is sterile upon release, however, it is also that aspect that eventually makes it conducive as an excellent bacterial and mold growth medium.  Its addition offers no benefits only potential problems.

@jasonbourne71 ​​​​@lewm 

 

Good day sir,

 

Your had made posts to my submission. Although your posts somewhat deviate from my intended purpose, I am very willing to provide you with information that will properly guide you with your concerns.  You had touched on 4 separate issues and I intend to address them individually as well as indicating a potential caution for you if it happens to apply.

 

1.). You mentioned the "LAST factory" and my familiarity and specifically you use of "Stylast".  I am aware "Last". I recall when I purchased my first AR-XA Turntable in 1969 that I wast provided a sample of "Last". I do not recall if I ever used it or not. I was impressed with the AR Turntable that I decided to buy 6 others as presents. I was informed that if I purchased 10 I would receive a 35 % discount. And, that is what I did. I gave five away and sold the others to acquaintances at the price that I paid which. They appreciated. I was given significant quantities of "Last" cleaner and stylus brushes. I do not know why I mention this, but your question precipitated old memories.

I was unfamiliar with your product "Stylast", so I went to their website and did some further investigating.  Their website about this product is extremely misleading. It can not be interpreted any other way other than as it is presented. And, I feel sorry that you were misled. I had thought that they had a commendable reputation, and, again I find myself disturbed by some entities in this industry.

 

There are two separate parts to the knowledge that I will share with you, actually, three.  The stylus is made of diamond, the hardest substance known to man. Other than a soft brush to remove accumulated debris, I do not see a need for a "Stylus cleaner". If you feel compelled to "clean your stylus" I can recommend the "Very best Record Cleaner Formulation" I provided, or, a product similar inn approach to the "Stylast" that you are using, only, that it is much better, much cheaper, and can be used for many other applications that you may come across.  Your operative words and statements were:  "claims", "apparently", and "some scientists.

 

Let me address your first question - "Does the application of Stylast to the diamond stylus actually reduce wear?" Answer, "Absolutely NOT!" Thank you for a good question and you have a precise answer. Now you share your practical experience about lubricating a drill bit - and, you are absolutely correct in your thinking. I am a member of STLE (Society of Tribologists and Lubricating Engineers), as well as previous involvement in Argonne National Laboratories and continuing interests. A Cutting/Drilling fluid is applied continuously, or, as frequently as necessary. And, you are correct, it is not only for cutting but for cooling as well, however, a "one-time" application of anything means nothing in relationship to this analogy.

 

I do not know what cartridge you have mounted on your tonearm, so I will make some assumptions. The following list is a number of styluses and their configurational dimensions:

 

   Micro Line             2.5    x     75   Microns

   Micro Ridge          3.8     x     75   Microns

   VanDenHull          4.0     x     70   Microns

   FritzGeiger           5.0     x     70   Microns

   SAS                      2.5     x     75   Microns

   Paratrace              4.0     x     70   Microns

 

I could have selected just one Ortofon Stylus, but I thought it best that a full cross section well better demonstrate my point.

 

Using these dimensions as an average, it can be determined that if you use 2.0 grams to obtain your desired tracking. Force the pressure exerted by the diamond stylus on the record is 10,811.7 pounds per square inch.  Your application of Stylast or anything else for that matter is GONE within the first few millimeters.  There is NO further cleaning effect.  The Stylast presentation is extremely misleading, even absurd.  I am as. Disappointed in them as you may be.  This is a terrible abuse of marketing ethics.

 

Further investigation reveals that Stylast is more than 90%  perfluorotributylamine, and they claim about 10 % proprietary ingredients.  Which is nothing more then a deceptive method of implying the necessary solvating ingredients and covalent ingredients.  At least they supply a S.D.S., give them credit for that for supplying information which is a commendable 95 % accurate Data Sheet.  Most. Of the "charlatans" do not even trouble themselves, or simply supply a two page "Proprietary Data" sheet containing nothing.  Do not ever purchase anything from a company that does not supply a proper S.D.S.

 

What this product is a very common intermediate compound, 3tributylamine, and substitute the Hydrogen atoms with Fluorine atoms.  It makes an excellent agent for specialized soldering techniques, and an excellent electrical contact cleaner.  It has recently found a important medical imagining material that allows itself the be encapsulated in lipid microspheres thereby cheating an image enhancing compound for echocardiograms.  A specialized individual must inject this in you blood to present an ultrasound image that is far superior to a typical echocardiogram.

 

But that is of no interest to you.  The CRC corporation uses perfluorotributlyamine in their premium contact cleaner along with other superior electrical contact cleaning ingredients that is superior.  If you insist on sticking with Stylast type materials, I suggest that you rather purchase the CRC material.  It is better as a contact cleaner and has many other uses at home, your computer, your automobile.  It is available at Industrial supply houses such as Grangers, and Fastenal, or at automotive supply houses such as NAPA.  It is expensive, it costs about $50.00 for a 13 Fluid Ounce can.  Although expensive, that is ridiculously cheap for what you were paying Stylast for almost next to nothing, relatively speaking.

 

Also, on a very serious note!  If you a re a smoker, or someone in the household is - DO NOT use either Stylast or the CRC electrical contact cleaner while smoking.  IT is Extremely Dangerous!  Depending upon your genetic make-up, it may even be Deadly,  And, I am NOT exaggerating!!!

 

Using a simple brush on your stylus is all you really need to do.  But, that is only to remove the debris from the stylus.  If you need to clean your records, I suggest you use my formulation

Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition

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