The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

The Wizzzard has been quiet. I hope he is all right!

As in all things that require a Specific Temperature Control for an application to take place. 

Both the Substrate and Coating Material are ideally in an environment that allows for both to be of a similar optimised Temperature. 

Failures of certain types of Coatings adhesive properties, when applied to a Substrate, are usually attributed to the Substrates surface temperature not being acclimatised/optimised to receive a Coating, as per the Coating Manufacturers guidance.

The Temperature for the coating material to be used must be  as per manufacturers guidance and the ambient temperature where the application occurs must be as per manufacturers guidance. 

Maybe the Coating Solution, Substrate to be Coated and Ambient Temperature are all required to be the 140 Fahrenheit. If so there are additional practices required as control measures if this solution is to be used as the ' Very Best' Record Cleaning Formulation. 

Maybe there are other solutions able to surpass this proposed one, when the alternative solution is being used at a more typical ambient temperature of 15-18 Celsius. 

 

For heating the solution you could conceivably use a sous vide machine.

@wizzzard ,

I got the 200 proof ETOH online and found a source for the Lorastat 264A in Chelmsford MA. They are sending me two 8 oz sample bottles otherwise I would have to buy a drum for $3000.00. Their minimum effective concentration is 5% and it is supplied in a 35% aqueous solution. Each liter of formula would have to have about  140cc of Lorastat. 8 oz is not going to go far. I will try a lot less first.

Did you get the Double Matrix yet? The pump I repaired is starting to go. I have a brand new pump standing by. This seems to be the machine's weakest link. Having a spare on hand is advised. The American importer, Musical Surroundings keeps them in stock which should tell you something. They are $250 each. 

The Larastat has the consistency of wax. I may actually serve as a groove lubricant and could, at least theoretically reduce background noise. The question is how much will it gum up the stylus.  

I also meant to ask: I believe you mentioned that your formula works optimally at 104 degrees Fahrenheit.  I doubt that anyone voluntarily lives in an environment or listens the stereo when it’s 104, and certainly not a tube amp!  So is any adjustment to your formula suggested for use at a more normal temperature, say 72 degrees Fahrenheit?

Wizzard, I would like to make your solution in a 100 ml graduated cylinder, for use in a VPI vacuum drying device. How much 95% ethanol should I use (with the rest distilled H2O and a tiny amount of surfactant/wetting agent). I realize this won’t be as precise as your formula. 95% ethanol is readily available here, but I can’t get Tergitol 15 S-7. They will only ship it to a real lab in the US, and I have no such contacts. I will probably try it with Ilford Ilfotol as a wetting agent, because that’s what I have on hand. I am guessing about 1/5 drop per 100 ml would be about right. If anyone has a better suggestion for a readily available surfactant, please suggest it, and a source. I understand that this will not be “Wizzard’s Best” precise formula. You make a persuasive argument for an ethanol/water cleaner, but no one sells, as far as I know, an ethanol-based record cleaner (for legal reasons, presumably); this compromise might still be at least as good as anything commercially available. Thank you for your contribution to this subject. I hope you get to feeling better.

@wizzzard 

Any news on the Larostat?

The arm wand section is only 6 inches because the tonearm we are working on is a straight line tracker based on a new motor design used by the semiconductor industry in robots that position chips under lasers. Our motor is about 1/10th the size of the original. It is a linear motor that has no mechanical contacts, floating on opposing magnetic fields. No friction, no noise. It can be controlled within nanometers. We should be able to maintain tangency within a few seconds and level will not bother it at all. It could actually track a record vertically. There are three of us involved, a robotic mechanical engineer, a retired electronics engineer who specializes in robotic control systems and me. We have not decided yet if this is practical to do. We have to finish our CAD drawings then price everything out. We need to keep it under $50,000. I'm hoping for $20,000. If we can bring it in that low we will sell a pile of them. The other problem is the possible effect of all that magnetism and control noise noise on the cartridge. We won't know this until we build one. 

I was suffering from a illness when I posted, which may have caused my typo. 

The reference should have been to Korf and not Korg.

I am a fan boy of Korg, the Link I posted has an embedded link to Korf.

@pindac 

Please forgive me, but I am having difficulty in understanding your last post to this forum, especially the last to paragraphs and the relevance of "Korg Investigations" in this matter.

Can you please elaborate or clarify your posting.  I have read and re-read this post more than several times and have difficulty relating.  This is my problem and not years.

Thank you for understanding.  I want and need to understand.

 

Wizzzard

@wizzzard  on this matter of material type, I am not material prejudiced or critical.

I have heard Tonearms with different metals used as Wands from materials being Organic, Metallic and Composite. I myself don't see the Arm Wand as being the detriment of SQ, there is so much more that will impede the Tonearms optimised function. 

My own experiences to date are certainly leaving me with the certainty, that friction is 'a/the' debilitating factor in how a Tonearm is able to function, especially in allowing the Cart' to work to its optimised when interfacing with the Groove Modulation.   

I am for quite some time, familiar with Korg Investigations of materials and have over the past years been in occasional discussion, where Wand Materials, Wand Length and Damping Methods have taken place with individuals who have used their acquired  knowledge and skills from chosen careers to be thoroughly investigative, with the result being they have produced Tonearm Designs.  

None of the above makes me an expert or authority, it just shows I have an interest.

What I was very correct in presuming to occur, is the type of response I have received to the post I have made about the use of 7075 - T6.

As a side, when I was heavily involved in Target Shooting Competition, nearly all ancillaries to assist with accuracy, would not be considered valuable if not a 7075 Material, with this in mind, there is a time in my life I have been an advocate oof this Alloy.    

@pindac 

You do not offer any explanation as to "Why" it is not either a good or preferred material, other, than to make an issue that 7075 Aluminum alloy was first used in 1943.  You need to do better.

Are you "Age Biased", if so, you should also have a low opinion of "Diamonds" which were first known, and spoken of, to be made into a gemstones, because of their brilliance, beauty, and hardness very early in the 4th. Century B.C. (320 B.C. I believe).  Does this aspect render them now useless and undesirable?

Also, anodizing of Aluminum (Type I) was first discovered in 1923.  It is still in use today.  Besides we now also know that we can anodize Aluminum with other chemicals, not just Sulphuric Acid.  And, different resultants are produced with different chemical acceleration ingredients, very different. In 1943 the processes of extrusion and casting of Aluminum were in their developmental stages.  The process has a significant bearing on the end result.

Just because the same additional metals were recognized and designated as 7075 does not also make it the same as well.  Especially the concentration of Copper.  And the methodology of incorporation has varied.  Basically the 7075 of 1943 is not exactly the same as the 7075 of 2023.  Subtle, but nevertheless, somewhat different.

If you are to be critical, you need to present more details, and, you dispense with your "Age Bias". That is all I am saying.

I was not asked to explain my selection for a tonearm, only, what I would choose.  But you, on the other hand, are critical of my selection - that normally requires details and arguments of worth, not just to mention to development initiated in 1943.  That is insufficient as a "Criticism".

 

Wizzzard 

As a history the 7075 Alloy came into production in 1943, I am not sure when the T6 Tempering was selected as a Hardness.

 With the above in mind, I would question 7075 - T6 as being the ideal Arm Wand?

It does appear periodically as a Alloy Material used for Wand or a MC Body, but this might be for voicing reasons only and not being too closely voiced to the other Alloy Materials seen in use.

As an Arm Wand material selection, it has been an available material throughout the period in time when some the most famous Japanese Audio producers were carrying out extensive R&D.

I am working on the basis, that the Alloy 7075 is a material that was subjected to R&R within the Japanese Companies investigations and is one that did not find a place in the mainstream, as a component to be used for the structure of a Tonearm.

 The Link is to a research carried out not too many years past with 7075 as the material under investigation.

  https://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=27814.0   

@mijostyn 

I am sorry Mijostyn, but, I did not understand anything about what you meant by your very last post.

I obviously am missing something because I have no idea what you are talking about.  Could you please explain yourself in order that I may understand what you mean.

The person I wished ho speak to in Lowell was not in and is only returning on Wednesday, 11 October 2023.  I will call him back again that day.

Till later,

"Wizzzard"

@wizzzard 

Grease will dampen the bearing. A hardened steel needle in a ruby cup is a very simple reliable design. Any 4 Point user will tell you that. 

As for the length of the wand, that is a long story, but it ends in straight line tracker. 

@mijostyn 

I hope you fully realize the enormous amount of restraint required not to have to ask you why your's is only 6 inches long!

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

Things that are only 6 inches long have cost a lot of men an absolute fortune.  Not to mention the lawyers portion.

There is no reason to add another 6 inch tonearm item to that list.

I am sorry to inform you that I have had no thoughts about materials that are also not practical or impossible for a significant number of people to be able to purchase such an item.  I must have some filter in my brain that prevents me from thinking that way.  I am sorry to disappoint you.  I cannot even begin to consider it as an interesting puzzle to be solved.  Sorry to disappoint you in this area.  Also, needle bearings do not provide any additional benefits to a well designed bearing that is packed with the proper Krytox based grease.  Especially one that contains a "Nano Boron based additive" ( which are available ) .  I would also discount the speciality lanolin greases because there is no high speed involvement in a tonearm

Wizzzard

@wizzzard 

Thanx Wiz, 

I would use needle bearings, no stiction. The only problem with aluminum is that it is boring. Audiophiles want something glamorous, something with a really high Young’s modulus like ……Diamond😎 Titanium nitride would work. You would have to grow it on an aluminum form. Forget machining it. Nice gold color. Some form of alumina might work. Cost is not a factor. It is only 6 inches long.

@mijostyn 

I neglected to mention one other aspect of 7075-T6, and, that is, that it is an excellent metal to machine.  Another very important aspect because it is extremely important to maintain close tolerances, and precission when constructing an article such as a tonearm.

I should not have missed that important quality when it was first previously mentioned.

I hope this is satisfactory information for you to consider for now.  Until later!

 

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

Oh heck with it!  Dismissing the details for now - the answer is 7075-T6 Aluminum.

It can either be cast or extruded.  If cast it must be under cover of Argon.  Also the Aluminum alloy would be best if anodized, and, anodized thoroughly to make it even stronger.

Yes Tungsten is the strongest and most rigid but brittle and difficult to work with. And, yes Titanium and Carbon fiber are all the rage now.  And Magnesium is also bantered about.  But, pound for pound you cannot do any better than 7075-T6 for a tonearm.  I have no idea if anyone is using this alloy for making tonearms - you would best to check that out yourself.  I am just considering the end product and what I would choose if I were to make tonearms. At this point, I would not consider anything else. It is also extremely conductive for an aluminum product.               The anodizing assists dramatically making it almost impossible to distort.  Its disadvantages (although few) are not relevant if you were to use it to make a tonearm.  Also, it is far, far less expensive than any of the other alternatives mentioned.  So, both cheap, easy to work, choices of processing, and, the very best choice.  It has it all.

That is my answer.

Wizzzard

P.S. Also, I would avoid any consideration of using ceramic bearings.  Great for Formula 1 Race cars, but not for tonearms. Too often we ignore products that have a proven record only to bee swayed by what is now fashionable.  Fashion is important. if you are Giorgio Armani or Miuccia Prada, but not a tonearm manufacturer wanting to produce the best tonearm.

@mijostyn 

Sorry about that - we had a power failure in our area and I did not finish my message to you and was checking if anything got through.  

Anyway, what I was attempting to point out is that companies most frequently avoid any charges related to shipping small quantities of material.  The paper work is not wort the extra effort. and it contributes confusion to the accounting.  That is why a company, if it is willing to send you a small quantity of material, there would never be any charges.  And, by small quantities can be also quite substantial.  It was not unusual for us to send 5 gallon "No-Charge" samples.  Even on some occasions we would ship a 55 gal drum that either had 250 lbs. or a full 500 lbs. at no charge as a trial.  So, a company such as BASF would normally ship such a sample as the Larostat 264A to us at no charge, and the amount could vary from a 250 ml. sample, or a 1,000 ml. or, even 2,500 ml. quantity.  If I specifically requested a minimum of 5 gallons there may be a charge, but, most likely not if justified.  The point being is "If they are willing to send, or, not to send a sample quantity.  And, if you wanted to pay, you would have to go through the total process of setting up an account, whether it be for $100.00 dollars or $1,000,000.00 - the application and process would be the same. That is why samples are typically sent at "No Charge".

I will be making a call tomorrow to someone in Lowell and find out if you can pick up Anti-static surfactant.  If they are reluctant, my final option is to send it to you when we eventually get to Western New York.  I do not know when that will be.  For certain it will not happen in the next three weeks.  I will keep you informed, and then you can provide your address.

Sincerely,

Wizzzard

P.S. I will answer your question over the weekend regarding the tonearm material selection, and my reasoning.  The reasoning aspect is important because it has a significant bearing on the eventual costs involved.  But, I do have an answer. 

@mijostyn 

No.  I am expecting it early next week.  A shipping agent and friend I have relied on for many years is attending to the shipping.  I did not buy the item from the distributor.  It was purchased directly along with some of the "Ready to use" cleaner.  He has been shipping items for me from Europe since 1984.  In the field of Polyurethanes most equipment came from either Germany or Italy along with some other more Countries as well.

I wanted some of the cleaner to verify what I have been told.  I have a very sufficient Laboratory set up at my home.  Even though I am retired and have a number of Medical issues, I still do consult with some people and companies that request information.  Often I need to test items, and/or, develop formulations for those that require my input.  But, since I am approaching 80 years of age, many of the people that I associated with are no longer with us.  Now, it is either their sons or daughters, or, those that have taken their position still require my input.

With regard to the Larostat 264A, it has nothing to do with "payment".  Money only clouds the issue.  It is the "Border", and coincidently getting examined by Customs.  This would jeopardize my current status. 

@lewm 

Thank you for your input!

I was wondering if you had yet to try Ethanol as a substitute for the Isopropyl alcohol you are / have been using.  I take no offense if you have not tried Ethanol to note any differences.  I certainly understand the concept of "Don't fix anything if it ain't broke".  I was simply curious, and, thank you again.

Wizzzard

Dear Wizzzard, You might start by taking a look at the topics of long-lasting threads here on the Audiogon Analog forum.  You probably would note that the same or very similar issues arise over and over again.  For some topics there is seemingly an insatiable appetite for commentary or for making comments.  Any of those is a good bet.

@wizzzard 

I am not far from Lowell at all. I can drive there or you can send me some. I am perfectly happy to pay for it. 

Did you get your Sonic Pro yet??

"Wizzzard Banter."  Here is your first question. What do you think a tonearm wand should be made of?

@mijostyn ​@lewm ​@cleeds ​@bdp24 

I am requesting some advice.  As I stated at the onset I would like to share the knowledge that I have in certain areas in which I am qualified.  I had stated record mats, lubricants, dampening fluids, contact agents for any electrical contacts, etc.  I have also been receiving "private messages" from those who have their reasons for not exposing themselves to certain individuals that contribute to this forum.  As you well know, I can certainly relate to that.  Rather than repeating myself, I would like this to be known on one sight.  Having a forum that starts by revealing a record cleaning formulation, is not conducive to attract attention to other areas.

I am sending this post to you because you all have "been around" and have extensive experience and are very capable of supplying me some appropriate titles.  So I am asking you this favor.  I know there are others that are as capable, and, I hope I had not offended anyone by ignoring them.

I do have a sense of humor, so if you have some sarcastic suggestions, please feel free to include them as a joke if you wish.  "Mister Know-It-All-Speaks" immediately came to mind as I was writing this.

I sincerely appreciate your input.  I have already received some suggestions privately, but, I thought it best to open up this question to those that have already been publicly involved.

Thank you for any and all suggestions in advance.  You should know the nickname "Wizard" and "Wiz" well given to me by the C.E.O. of the first company I worked for, and, it has stuck with many others ever since.  So, this name was given to me.

@mijostyn 

Have you had any success in obtaining the higher percent Ethanol from your Liquor Stores?

Also, with regard to the Larostat 264A, did you obtain any?  If not, you stated you reside in New Hampshire - how long of a drive would it be for you to get the the following three locations, and, would you be willing to drive to pick some up.  I ask this because of "The Border Situation", and, I do not wish to upset the apple cart at either the US Customs or Canada Customs.

The locations are:  Sherbrooke, Quebec.  -   Lowell, Massachusetts.  -   and, Lewiston, Maine.  I am thinking of calling those that I know that use this Larostat and ask them if you could pick some up.  There would be no charges of course, I just need to know if one is close and I can phone and see if I can make some arrangement for you.  My other option would be to send you some when we are in Western New York, and I can send some to you from there.  We may very likely be going in late November if that becomes the case.  Another option is to see if I can have BASF shif you some from Michigan.  It has been some time since I dealt with BASF in the US, but, they "should" be able to speak with someone and get "some" attention after I remind them that we did buy over 4 million dollars worth of polyether (Pluracols) from them.  It depends upon a number of things and hit certainly is worth a try.

I hope you understand that I do not want to risk having Customs intercept a parcel to you without all the required.  Now, I can supply all the necessary paper work, but, for me, I am legally obligated to do an extensive amount of filing and submissions for something that is essentially worth almost nothing, perhaps a dollar, and is perfectly safe to ship.

I hope you understand.  That is why I thought of the other alternatives.  So that you know my contact here in Canada also can not send you the sample directly.  He need to contact the US, and, he thought that I would have more luck than he would.  And, in all these cases, there would be no charges, because that would only open another, but different, can of worms.

Wizzzard

Greetings to all,

@wizzzard So glad your surgery went well and you are back posting. I have had 3 back surgeries and know back pain sucks. 
Thank you and all the other good people that have contributed to this informative thread. I have enjoyed the learning experience. I look forward to using the cleaning solutions as described. Some chemicals can be restricted in being sent to me. I live in Alaska and companies are restricted in sending hazardous materials here for the general public’s usage.

A note about LAST record care products. I started using LAST 35+ years ago. Never seemed to have a problem. After read numerous articles and this forum I have almost stopped using them. The other day one of my albums got something stuck on it. My needle didn’t appreciate it. I inspected the album and it looked like a small thin film of plastic wrap? I keep my room meticulously cleaned. I cleaned the the album on my VPI RCM. It didn’t remove it. Into the US cleaner for 5 minutes. It didn’t remove it. I had nothing to lose so I put a few drops of LAST Record Preservative on the album. Waited about 30 seconds and tried to wipe it off. Didn’t get it off. Put a few more drops on the album. Waited 20 minutes and it came off. I’m glad I have my album back. 
When LAST came out my years ago they claimed that the Preservative when applied would evaporate down to 1 or 2 molecular layers. As it evaporates down it would work at lifting  any impurities that your cleaning process missed. I always thought that people who complained about getting gunk on their needles after using LAST were missing the point. That’s what it was meant to do? At least to my ears it has done no harm. 
I looked forward to input on platter mats. I have been think about the leather mat that ClearAudio sells. It would be for my CA turntable with acrylic platter. 
Wizzard please take care and a quick recovery. 
Respectfully,

Joe Nies

Butyl rubber when designed with longevity in mind (drivers) truly is the cat’s meow. Keyed in on particular sentence somewhere above where you’d brought up during one of your posts @wizzzard.

@wizzzard 

Thanx for the update, but I never French polish anymore. It is a beautiful finish,but way too easy to damage, one drop of scotch will do it. It is also a PITA to do. I have the equipment to shoot any sprayable material. I usually use either a polyester or catalyzed lacquer on horizontal surfaces, the polyester on some show pieces and speakers/subwoofers and oil based finishes on everything else.

@mijostyn 

Rather than repeating myself, I would ask you to read what I had written in tho post to him.

Since that issue should be covered please feel free if you wish me to be more specific.

Also, in your case I need to add a "secret"  that was shared to me by an expert who restores antique furniture for Museums in Europe, primarily in Italy.  My wife and I have been into antique furniture since before we were married, as well as collecting Oriental rugs.  Yes we made some mistakes. And, yes we did more damage than good on some pieces that we regret to this day.

Very early on the business I was in took me to Italy at least 8 times per year, later, it was more frequent.  Our shipping agent introduced me to an absolute expert in various types of refinishing depending upon the value of the items.  Yes, I also am fluent in Italian, so not a word was lost.

You need to use Pure Ethanol again for the Ultimate "French Polish" or "Shellac" finishes.  It makes an absolute world of difference.  First, you must dissolve the shellac or "goma laca" in pure Ethanol and allow it to stand for 6 days minimum at 75 degrees F.  Then you must carefully decant this into another bottle adding about 10% more pure Ethanol to this decanted liquid.  This must stand undisturbed for an additional 8 days, again at 75 F.  Then, you carefully decant again.  The resultant is what you then use for your finishing.

The percentage depends upon what you are restoring or finishing for the first time.  You then use pure wool fleece, not cotton. balls.  If you are not terribly critical, you can. use 100% pure cotton that was previously worn or used, like an old T-shirt that you are ready to retire and wash it a few times in a mild concentration of  washing detergent.

You will not believe the difference.  Yes, I was skeptic at first, but, his demonstration made me a believer.  What an Audio discussion that turned out to be!

Wizzzard

@lewm 

Methanol is doing absolutely NOTHING of value in a record cleaning formulation.  In fact, it is the exact opposite.  Although it is one of the only three alcohols that can be used in a vinyl cleaning formulation, the other two being Ethanol and Isopropanol, with Ethanol being the very best.  It is more destructive to most vinyl formulations, whether they contain styrene, or not.  It does not assist in any way with regards to the cleaning ability.  Also, it is an alcohol that would be more likely to deplete any beneficial additives that were added to the vinyl formulation when the record was made

Basically, Methanol should be avoided as much as possible.  

The Clearaudio "Pure Groove" Domestic formulation avoids the incorporation of Methanol as much as possible.  As a Corporation, I do not know the exact limitations in Germany, but, in the US and in Canada, Corporations can be more specific with regard to the ingredients that are added to make it undrinkable.  But, as an individual purchasing denatured alcohol you do not have this luxury.  Also, Clearaudio must state "Denatured Alcohol" in their "Essence" product, and it MUST actually be denatured alcohol, in order that it can be shipped.  Although it may sound crazy, they could not just use pure Ethanol, because there would be the assumption that some fool may actually drink the product.  Yes, it sounds crazy but that product COULD be drunk without the harm that denatured alcohol would possess.  It would be like a 12.65% wine (a very expensive wine) that would taste like crap and give you the "runs" for a few days - but, as I stated, it can be consumed.  So, an entire different set of rules would have to be imposed, not just shipping regulations.  Normal and sane people do not think of such things, but, government officials fortunately must.

Yes, avoid Methanol as much as possible.  And you are correct with regard to the dangers associated with handling Methanol.  After this note to you, I will send an explanation to @mijostyn  as well.  Surly drinking Methanol is the most dangerous.  I have the relatively recent 12th edition (all 5 volumes) of Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, and it states the following:

The lethal human dose of pure methanol was estimated at 15.8–474 g/person as a range and as 56.2 g/person as the median. The dose-response relationship between methanol vapor in ambient air and urinary methanol concentrations was thought to be correlated. An oral intake of 3.16–11.85 g/person of pure methanol could cause blindness. The lethal dose from respiratory intake was reported to be 4000–13,000 mg/l. The initial concentration of optic neuritis and blindness were shown to be 228.5 and 1103 mg/l, respectively, for a 12-h exposure.  

The above is the abbreviated statement.  The dermal contact explanation I will summarize, as that brief exposure to the skin is nothing to loose sleep overnight, however, if you have an open wound that really complicates matters.  It is important to note (I believe that you also are a retired Physician) that the Bio-toxicity due to methanol exposure is caused by the metabolites rather than the methanol itself. The severity of the toxicity is related to the degree of metabolic acidosis rather than the exact concentration of the methanol itself.  And, it should be obvious to prevent any entry to the eyes themselves, and, it is important to avoid the vapors attacking the sensitive protection of the eyes themselves.

I, along with Physicians that my wife had worked with tried to get stricter warnings on "Automotive Windshield Washer" products without any success.  When something is categorized as a "Consumer Product" , it is almost hopeless to have proper warning labeling.  Also, we tried to have such products modified with Ethanol and some Isopropyl alcohol to reduce the dangers.  But, that went nowhere as well.  I should state that some years ago it was I and these same Physicians that were successful in composing many of the regulations for our "Ministry of Labor" that are in place to this day.  So, we were credible when it came to Industry, but, lost when it came to "Consumer Goods"

Sorry, but I will digress again about something else that is relevant to this subject.  You can easily buy frozen concentrated orange juice at the food store, but, if that was an industrial item in a 55 (US) gal. drum, it would have to have so many warning labels on the drum that you would not be able to see the drum.  Allow me some exaggeration for an effect please.

Now, back to you wanting to duplicate the Clearaudio formula, I again would state that you use no more than 22.000% Ethanol.  I know your question was somewhat hypothetical, but, I did need to repeat this.

And thank you for possibly alerting others to the dangers of Methanol.  You provided an important service by mentioning this danger.

Thank you,

Wizzzard

Yes, I live in New Hampshire and we have huge State stores. They only stock the 75%. I did not ask if I could order 100 %. I'll give it a try. If you could get the Lorostat for me I would greatly appreciate it. Just let me know how much I owe plus shipping and we will make arrangements. 

@lewm 

I get denatured alcohol on me all the time. It is the primary solvent in shellac. When French polishing furniture we handle tampons of cotton cloth filled with cotton balls soaked in shellac for hours at a time. Methanol is only a problem if you drink it which is why it is in the ethanol. Can you get drunk pouring ethanol on your skin? Lacquer and lacquer thinner are another proposition altogether. I wear gloves and a mask for that. 

@mijostyn 

Thank you for the experienced advice about the device in advance.  It is sincerely appreciated.

I received an e-mail today that my machine is to be delivered this 4 October 2023, and, I am looking forward to it.

With regard to the 99.5% ethanol in water, I have purchased some in the state of Missouri, and quite a lot in the state of NewYork.  Also, it can be purchased at any Liquor Control Board retail outlet in Ontario, Canada.  Commonly known as the "LCBO" outlets in Ontario, the pure Ethanol is not a stock item - it must be requested.  Any time I have ordered it in Ontario, it had arrived in less than a week.  Likewise, it is also available in Quebec Liquor outlets, but, again it must be requested.  It cost less in Quebec than in Ontario, and when I had to travel on business to Quebec, I would order some, and I would be able to pick its up within two days at most, and return home with it.

When in Missouri, I also needed to request it first at the local store and it was received within two to three days.  I needed to pay in advance as I did in Ontario and Quebec.  In Buffalo, New York it was much easier because the large outlets such as Premier Liquor actually had the bottles in stock.  It is a matter of declaration when you cross the border.  Legally you need to be in the US for 24 hours to re-enter Canada without any problem.  You can also make advance arrangements to purchase the Ethanol "Duty-Free".  It costs less, and again you always need to pay in advance.  For me, I always found the "Duty - Free" situation a pain, and could not be bothered.

I believe you will encounter MORE difficulties obtaining some from a supply house.  Remember this is a consumable item to make punches and other drinks as well, and as such, you NEED to pay the appropriate Liquor Taxes.  The outlet MUST also be ABLE to COLLECT these taxes, I do not see how you can obtain some from a supply house. 

If your Liquor store is being difficult, call, and find one that will order some for you.  Keep in mind, I was always required to pay in advance when I placed my order.  With the exception of the locations in Western New York State where the item was a stock item.

You can not avoid paying the appropriate taxes, and only certain outlets, such as Liquor Stores are able to collect such taxes.

I thought you lived in New Hampshire.  I recall these huge Liquor Stores located at the State Border because of the lower taxes in New Hampshire.  Sorry, that was just a very frequent reminder and flashback to my many trips through the New England states.  I once knew all the roads of Nashua and Concord, New Hampshire. I forgot Portsmouth!

I know I can get easily get Larostat 264A from BASF, but, I have know idea if it is available to the public.  I will look into that for you because it is far superior to what you are currently using.  BASF only recently developed a better product, but, I do know that it is restricted to certain industries only.  I probably should not have even mentioned that - just ignore this last sentence.

I will be getting back to you soon.  Good luck finding a cooperative Liquor Store!

Regards,

Wizzzard

P.S. For your better understanding, we have a residence in New York State, and in Ontario, Canada. 

Is methanol doing anything useful to the task? Perhaps EU regulations permit that much methanol in the preparation, but if I were making up a replica of the Clearaudio cleaner, I’d delete the methanol, or wear laboratory gloves whenever handling it.

@wizzzard ,

I looked at the prices of Clearaudio Solutions and decided to use my own at a far lower price. 

I suspect we will never know why the seal failed but I had the pump apart in no time, dried everything out, established a new seal and reinstalled the pump. I also have a spare pump, just in case.  You will enjoy the Clear audio machine. It is way easier to use than the VPI and it is way faster. It is extremely easy to work on if something goes south which more than likely will be that pump. Taking it apart is easy. You pop off the rubber feet with a little screw driver. Underneath are 5 mm Allen button head screws which you remove and the bottom comes off. There is a ground wire attached to a welded on stud you remove with a 10 mm wrench. It is very easy to break the stud off so be careful. The side panels then slide out of the corners giving you exposure to everything except  the electronics. Each side panel has the same ground wire you have to remove. 

Using the machine is easy, but it does have several quirks. You really have to push the record clamp down hard or the record will slip when the vacuum comes on. I keep the machine on a low table making it much easier to push down. The microfiber brushes are held in by magnets. Do not release the arms until the vacuum stops or the brushes will pop off and wind up on the floor. 

I can only find 75% Ethanol at the liqueur store. I might be able to get it from a lab supply shop sending it to my brother's company.

I doubt I will be able to get Larostat in the US. I put two drops of BAK in my solution. Do you see any problems with that? 

 

@mijostyn 

cc:  @lewm ​​@pindac ​@bdp24 ​@cleeds ​@joenies 

Apologies! During transcription I made a slight error on the 100% volumetric formulation with regard to the Methanol concentration.  I had written 2.402% rather than the correct 2.406% parts by volume.

I apologize for my eyes and fingers.

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

cc:  @lewm ​​@pindac ​@bdp24 ​@cleeds ​@joenies 

Sorry about that!  Went for a special test at a London Hospital and immediately afterwards I was in for Spinal Surgery.  Everything went O.K., and they did manage to fix another "broken part".  Only 27 more "broken parts" to go and some day I may be considering my Medical Situation approaching "Normal".  All kidding aside, the surgery went very well (even though it was a complete surprise), and I am very pleased.  I asked my wife to send you an update, and, I see she did.  Now I can get back to responding to your issues.

 

Your event with the pump on your vacuum cleaning device for records has become a very serendipitous event in several respects, and, has precipitated several fortunate events from my perspective.  Other than costing me far more than than what I could have possibly imagined - it was a very interesting journey.

After you stated your issues regarding your seal leaking, I had an immediate reflexive reaction and had drawn subsequent conclusions in my mind.  After all, this is/was another aspect that I had taken into consideration for those that have record cleaning devices, because I possess and utilize a VPI 17 machine myself.

In hindsight, I am glad that I did not post my first prepared response about seals and compatibilities with various materials.  What was needed, was to know more about your device, also, I was silly to ask about particulars.  The KEY was knowing exactly what device/machine you had.  When you informed me that you had been using a " Clearaudio Double Matrix Sonic Pro", I had no prior knowledge about this machine whatsoever at the time.

I used my search engine to investigate.  First, I went to their website and found out it was made in Germany.  That alone, confirmed my initial suspicions.  After going to the Clearaudio website, I chose to view two lengthy youtube videos.  The first was in Polish, and it was excellent, the second was in German, and, that was good as well ( I speak and understand both languages).  I then downloaded the user manuals and the manuals for accessories including surprisingly the manuals regarding the "fluids" designed and designated to be used with their machines.  Looking for a repair manual was futile, but, that is now O.K., I have made alternative arrangements.           

Before proceeding any further I must thank you and inform you that I had decided and made arrangements for what is now to be my early Christmas gift to myself this year.  This present should arrive in a few weeks.  Yes, the deed has been done , and I will be using my own "Clearaudio Double Matrix Professional Sonic (in silver) with my "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" myself fairly soon.  I fully realize that my VPI 17 machine is perfectly adequate and the Clearaudio machine will not necessarily be much better, other than being quieter, but, my attitude now is "Who Cares"!  The design is terrific both in appearance and function, and the engineering is excellent.  Typically German, why should one use a ordinary $0.05 screw when you can use a $5.00 Titanium screw?  I am a "sucker" for a good design and things that are constructed well.

As you already know, Clearaudio provides 4 different solutions to be used in conjunction with their products.

   A);  "Pure Groove" - A ready to use cleaner that can be obtained locally, or, can be shipped, if you are willing to spend the additional outrageous amount of money required to do so.  This is because of the higher alcohol content.  It contains a 41.5% concentration of Ethanol for the original development, and, this requires additional shipping regulations and packaging to be provided.

  B);  "Pure Groove Essence" - is a semi-concentrate that contains only 10% Ethanol and all the other essential ingredients in distilled water, and, can easily be shipped without difficulties.  It is then to be mixed 2:1 "essence" to Ethanol, assumed to be 92.0% prior to using.

  C);  "Groove Care" - another product that contains only 10% Ethanol.

  D);  "Pure Groove Shellac" - that contains no alcohol or any other solvents that may affect these early recordings.

The WHMIS shipping regulations are the same for North America as it is for Germany.  You can ship any product, and with relative ease, as long as it contains no more than 10% of any ingredient listed on an extensive list of solvents and ingredients.  This is regardless of flammabilities in this particular group.  The basis is less than 10%.  Technically this "barks" loudly of lack of technology, however, WHMIS is already so complex that some areas need to be simplified.  I have mixed feelings, but, I do reluctantly agree with these standards.  WHMIS is something that can never, ever be 100% perfect, so, this compromise is reasonable.

In Germany (actually, most of Europe) Denatured alcohol is supplied at 90.0% or 92.0% Ethanol in Methanol with very minuscule amounts of terpenes or mercaptans in order to be distinguished.  Unlike in North America where denatured alcohol most likely contains 95.0% Ethanol with a considerable amount of Methanol, but also contains a host of other "very nasty" harmful ingredients.  This is, in this particular case, important because the people at Clearaudio were not made aware of how denatured alcohol is supplied in North America, as, North Americans are not aware of how it is supplied in Europe.

The group at Clearaudio are/were able to utilize the programs offered with German Universities.  They wanted the best for their equipment.  Who better to work with than those from the Technical University of Munich.  This is, without a doubt, the very best University for Chemistry in Germany.

I wish to start in my field of expertise, which is, Chemistry.  I selected the "Pure Groove Essence" product because it would be the most likely you, or most, would order for your machine to use for cleaning records.  Also knowing that you would need to add Ethanol to the "Essence" prior to use.  And the Ethanol that you should use according to "Wizzzard" and according to Clearaudio would be the 99.5% Ethanol in water available at your Liquor Store.

As I prefer to do to with all formulations, I would like to present them as a 100.0% version taking into consideration all of the details of each ingredient and converting it to its’ basic components.  And, this is all at a chosen specific temperature.  In this case I choose 20 degrees C again.

So, the following is the formulation for a "ready to use", "Pure Groove Essence" with Ethanol as recommended.  No need to ask how I know the actual formulation.

                         "Pure Groove Essence - Ready to use"             

 

Distilled Water                                  679.218  g.         67.9218 %  p.b.w

Ethanol (100.00%).                          296.565  g.         29.6565 %  p.b.w.

Methanol (100.00%)                          20.637  g.           2.0637 %  p.b.w.

BASF Larostat 264A                           2.350  g.            0.2350 %  p.b.w.

BASF Lutensol LA                              1.230  g.             0.1230 %  p.b.w.            

Total:                                             1,000.000 g.            100.00 %  parts by weight

The above 1,000.000 grams will produce:  1.086 liters    

Volumetrically, for those who prefer to view formulations in that format, is as follows:

Distilled Water.                            62.668  %  p.b.v.

Ethanol (100.00%).                     34.600  %  p.b.v.

Methanol (100.00%).                    2.402  %   p.b.v.

Larostat 264A.                              0.214  %   p.b.v.

Lutensol LA                                  0.112  % p.b.v.

Total:                                          100.000 %   parts by volume

If it were up to Clearaudio, the formulation would not contain any Methanol, however, the "essence" version is a compromise because of shipping regulations.  It would exclusively contain Ethanol as in the "Domestic Version", and, the Ethanol concentration would be higher, as in, 41.50% target amount.

When this formulation was prepared, it was prepared by "design", as was the formulation I presented.  The parameters are/were somewhat different, and, understandably so.  If any of this scientific "design methodology" sounds familiar — it should, you only need to read my very first post.  The educated minds that were designated the task to develop the best cleaner and other solutions had chosen Lutensol LA because it was considered, and subsequently determined, to be the best single non-ionic surfactant that was readily available in Europe.  They knew of the existence of others that would be better, however, availability in Europe was a problem.

Ethanol was selected because it also was known to be the least destructive of alcohols towards various vinyl compositions that were most available.  They also wisely chose to ignore the Hansen parameters, realizing that evaluating each individual parameter is far more important and more conclusive, as I also did in my development.  Also, they tested and determined that Ethanol was far superior with regard to cleaning records, more than any other alcohol.  Their determination was that Ethanol was superior, and they developed a series of tests that demonstrated that, in fact, Ethanol was far superior as a cleaning agent than any other alcohol.  It was perhaps these determinations that made them select the second inflection point of 41.500% rather than the more practical, but, almost equally effective 22.000% that I had chosen.

I ask you again if any of this "design Methodology" sound familiar to you.  The difference was that one individual, "Wizzzard", presented "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" for all to know and use at no cost to you.  And, YES it is, and remains, a better cleaning formulation.  While the other was a well funded project conducted by a number of post-graduates assigned to a somewhat more specific goal for a client and their products.

You may recall when I wrote to you with regard to making a graph to visually relate to why I chose 22.000%.  At that time it was to demonstrate the very significant First inflection inflection point.  At that time the graph demonstrated a Secondary inflection point that occurred at 41.500%, but, was not considered sufficiently significant.  I saw no need for such a considerable increase in alcohol for such an insignificant benefit in Surface Tension.  However, I am of the "minimalist school", and, I had also chosen Tergitol 15-S-7 as the surfactant.  And, I was not adding other ingredients for either lubrication, or anti-static, or anti-microbial reasons.  I was solely interested in the very best record cleaning formula.

The team for Clearaudio had selected the secondary point, allowing 41.500% Ethanol, the very Maximum that anyone would ever consider.  Also, they were not using a secondary alcohol non-ionic surfactant.  Theirs was based on the primary alcohol surfactant, Lutensol LA and they also chose to add an additional anti-static agent Laristat 264A.  Which, by the way, is an excellent anti-static agent.  This had some bearing on their overall design, and that is their "chosen design".  Absolutely nothing wrong with their choice, only, that it is based on slightly different criteria.

If you recall my comment to @pindac, which was a post on 15 July 2023 at 2:34 AM.  I mentioned that, at that point, to the best of my knowledge, the closest product that BASF produced that resembled Tergitol 15-S-7 was Lutesol LA, and the amount I suggested was 0.113% p.b.w. to 0.114% p.b.w. However, I was also basing my calculation on a 22.000% Ethanol formula.  You can see how similar my speculative concentration is to the actual amount  used by Clearaudio with this primary alcohol based surfactant.

You can sense that I am very impressed with people who agree with me and my methodology.  If you detected any arrogance on my part in that statement - it was meant as such.  But, seriously, I have seen many formulations proposed as the "most wonderful".  Most are "crap".  Some are even very destructive and many are sinfully overpriced.  I believe, I destroyed one such company with overwhelming details of their gouging.  I did not receive one recognition for that post or a "thank you", so, they can avoid being swindled.  On the other hand, one individual "actually" defended this almost criminal activity.  I realize the animosities that I have generated, but, I also think it’s time to put those feelings to bed and accept the realities.

If you choose to not make your own "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" that I initially posted and choose to purchase a product instead.  The Products supplied by Clearaudio are all very good products.  Their products are the only products I am aware of that are very impressive, and worthwhile purchasing.  Their products are the ONLY products that I would recommend to purchase.  Yes, they are not cheap, but, if you are choosing to purchase, then these are the products you need to buy.

Clearaudio makes no outrageous claims about their formulations.  They are only supplying products in conjunction with their equipment.  If I say anymore, I will begin to sound like a sales person for Clearaudio.  One other thing I had noted about their record mats is that they supply a felt mat (not specifying the type of felt) and a leather mat that is Bovine and embossed, with what is referred to in the leather goods industry, as a "Bison" pattern.  This was another point that impressed me.  When I eventually submit my extensive record-mat study that I did some years ago, you will understand how these two selections fit into my my study and why I was further impressed by this company.

Some final remarks for @mijostyn.  Clearaudio uses Butyl Rubber for their seals, which is unaffected by most certainly all the common alcohols.  Also, you can see that Clearaudio use substantially far more Ethanol in their products than in my suggested formulation.  So, when you tried my recommended formulation it was 1.) Either a fluke!, 2.) Time was up for your existing seal, 3.) or, perhaps it was some other additional ingredient in conjunction with the Ethanol.  4.) Something needs to be questioned about the alcohol used.  Or, 5.) prior activities with other ingredients may have remained in the seal that was activated by the Ethanol.  You certainly see that it must be something else other than the Ethanol because Clearaudio uses considerably far more Ethanol in their solutions recommended for their products.  Have you contacted them for an explanation?  I am very interested in to getting to the bottom of this problem of yours.  As I stated earlier, I will soon have my own machine to use.

I know this was a lot, but there is an obvious solution to the problem that we are both overlooking.  Please keep me informed.   

Sincerely,

"Wizzzard"

@wizzzard 

Valerie, I am not even the last thing you need to worry about now. Wish your husband well for me. Mike

@mijostyn 

Good evening Dr. Mijostyn,

My husband is still in Hospital in London.  What was to be a test only turned into an unexpected surgery.  He is ok now after an extensive and complicated spinal surgery.  As a physician you would understand.  I came home to pick up a few things and returning to London where we will be spending our Wedding Anniversary tomorrow.  He is expected to be released Friday.  He wanted me to send you a note that you will hear from him as soon as possible.  Knowing my husband that will be as soon as possible.  He said there was a list with a few other names on his desk which I can't find.  I recall a Lew N. but I do not see a list but perhaps you know them.  He had nothing else to add just that I send this note.

Respectfully,

Dr. Valerie Ann W.

@mijostyn 

Should have learned by now to stop saying such things as "I am off for the day to Hospital".  That was Tuesday evening 5 September 2023.  I only arrived home about 2.5 hours ago from the Hospital.

Tomorrow morning I am (and my wife as well) are being picked up at 6:00 AM to be transported via a special Mercedes Benz Air-Suspension Hospital Transport vehicle to be taken just under 300 miles to the "only" Hospital in the Country that has a new special Device made by Siemens to be tested and returned later that same day.

This was all the time I could spare today to inform you.  As I mentioned, you will be surprised and pleased once you hear back from me.  I am saying no more as to not curse anything, but, I absolutely needed to inform you or it would have bothered me all day.  It is just the way I am.  Sorry I knew nothing about the arrangements any sooner.

But, I also need to say that "you will hear back from me"

Wizzzard

@mijostyn 

Thank you for all the data.  I have done some extensive investigation and research for your situation.  Unfortunately, I do/did not have the time to submit it to you today, but, I will tomorrow evening.  I am off for the day to Hospital, and will submit your info upon my return.

I believe you will be surprised, pleased (I hope), and perplexed all at the same time.  Till tomorrow then!  I just wanted you to know that I have been working on your problem.

Wizzzard

@wizzzard 

There is only one motor shaft. There is a stub shaft that the secondary gear spins on. The motor shaft exits the motor cavity through a bearing then a seal into the pump cavity the seal is 6 mm in diameter and captured by a plastic rim. Pressure within the pump cavity presses the seal down against the bearing tightening its grip on the shaft. https://imgur.com/a/1C1KB5p Here is a picture of the pump.

@mijostyn 

Some misunderstanding on my part.  Are you saying that the shaft that goes through the lip seal is only about 1.5 mm, and the outer diameter of the lip seal is only 6 mm. in diameter?  Which would make the width of the lip seal as 2.5 or 3 or 4 mm.  I only guessed at the width, because a 6 mm O.D. lit seal is nominally 3 mm.

Or, is the inside diameter 6 mm. and the outside diameter and width is unknown because it is hidden from sight.  And. is the 1.5 mm. shaft, the shaft from the gear assembly. 

Anyway, I will also try and find out about the motor and I will get back to you.  If Isopropyl alcohol is working and not leaking, you, most likely, need not concern yourself about the "concentration" of alcohol.  The problem is specific to the alcohol and the material the seal.  It is alcohol type related.  Usually the sequence of alcohol types is as follows:  Methanol, Ethanol, and Isopropyl alcohol.  Methanol demonstrating the least affect, etc.  Now that I know the Ethanol was a problem, and the IPA is not, your unsuccessful seal has been narrowed down to two, (possibly three) materials out of 11.  Also, that the selection was uncommon for such a pump, but, anything is possible.  I will find out what I can for future references.  Besides you selection of IPA is better than the alternative of Methanol.

My stated formulation calls for 22.000% Ethanol by weight, If your are to substitute IPA, as you have, the ideal concentration by weight of IPA is 19.132%, in order to more closely resemble my presented formulation.  For your reference purposes only for now.

Wizzzard 

@wizzzard 

Shaft is about 1.5 mm in diameter. It was a single lip seal probably about 6 mm in diameter, I am not going to take the pump apart again until it fails. The packing is working great so far. There is nothing to keep me from rebuilding it indefinitely. The brushes are huge and will certainly outlast me.  

@wizzzard 

It is a Clearaudio Double Matrix Sonic Pro. The pump has no markings that would identify the manufacturer. It is a gear driven pump. The pump and the motor form a single unit. The motor shaft drives the primary gear passing through a seal made of some type of rubber. If the seal leaks the motor shorts out and the electronics detect this and prevent operation. I replaced the seal with sillcock packing rope and it has been working fine for over a month. I have a spare pump in reserve if this one fails again. I am now using 10% isopropyl alcohol with 4 drops Tergitol which was a real PITA to source. I have 100 cc which will last me three lifetimes. This formula seems to work well and so far has not destroyed the packing. 

 

@bdp24 ​​@cleeds ​​@dogberry   @lewm. @drbond ​​@drkingfish ​​@ericsch ​​@eryoung2k  @fleschler  @gemoody ​​@jasonbourne71    @jm-audiophilemusiclover ​​@joenies ​​@jwillox ​​@kennyc   @kylehildebrant ​​@lewm   @llg98ljk ​​@lloydc ​​@mijostyn ​​@mojo771 ​@moonwatcher    @mrthunder ​​@normantaylor ​​@noromance ​​@oilmanmojo ​​@ossicle2brain  @pindac  @recklesskelly ​​@rhg3 ​​@rich121 ​​@richmon ​​@rtrlover ​​@thecarpathian 

When I left for the Hospital on Monday 28 August 2023 little did I know that they needed to keep me there until yesterday.

In the interim, I was thinking after my post the previous evening (although the same day), I thought that I would be inundated with questions about "hundreds" upon "hundreds" of vinyl formulations for LP recordings.  Or, that many people have what they believe to be vinyl records, are records with high concentrations of polystyrene, or, that in many cases, the recordings have more polystyrene than vinyls.  I did not know that everyone that reads my forum was aware of that.

Or, that I also manufactured millions of pounds of compounds for the making of records.  Or, that Polyimides should be used to make records and why.  For that matter, what is Polyimide?  Or, that people may begin to ask about other matters as I indicated.

I came to the conclusion that nobody reads my extended, lengthy posts, or, they no longer care about what knowledge I have and am willing to share.

Needless to say, I was surprised!  I know I have many Medical Issues that prevent me from responding promptly, but, it can not be that.  So what conclusion should I take from the lack of responses?

You can not and will not offend me, so, please speak freely!

Sincerely,

Wizzzard 

@mijostyn 

I had prepared a detailed statement.  Yes, I did take sealing materials of vacuum pumps into consideration as well.  I did that because I was using a VPI 17 vacuum device.  Now, I should tell you, after almost 30 years, the pump is not leaking one little bit.  But that means absolutely Nothing, especially in you case.  Ethanol was selected over the other alcohol alternatives of Isopropyl alcohol and Methyl alcohol.  N-Propanol and Butyl alcohol can not be used.  Ethanol was selected because it was the alcohol least likely to affect the "majority" of sealing materials.

But, again, that means nothing.  Alcohols are most unusual with regard to seals and sealing materials.  One that is harmless to one type of seal, is destructive to another, and visa versa.

Rather than give a dissertation, I now think it may be better if you can tell me what type/kind of seal you have, or, if the manufacturer has it listed.  You can also tell me what kind of unit you are using, or, if you know the name of the pump manufacturer.  I have giant catalogs here at home, and if I had more information, it would be easier for me to look up.  If it is a lip seal. or double lip seal, I have thousands of various diameters of of various materials that I would gladly send to you a few, if that is the case and if you wish.  Obviously, these would be free.  So, hopefully your pump is using a lip seal, which is most common.  I only would need to know the diameter of the shaft, and the outside housing.  And, I am not exaggerating about thousands.  When our local garage mechanic can not locate a seal, he then gives me a call.

I will await some further information.

Wizzzard 

@lewm 

Sorry about my abrupt actions on 30 July 2023!  But, I went back in time some 55 years and did get very emotional, which in turn, triggered my Auto-Immune condition.  Perhaps, at some other time, I may relate the events which led to that stage, but for now, it is irrelevant.  I would like to now finish my statement to you.  Fortunately I am in a better position now because I now know your complete formulation that has pleased you for over 25 years using you VPI device (the same device I have and used for about the same time period) and, I was able to find my misplaced Triton X 100, which was not in my home lab, but in my basement.  Also I now understand that your rinse after washing as your standard procedure with deionized water.  Please correct me if I got anything wrong!

If you do not mind, I took the liberty  to convert your formulation into a parts by weight formulation.  I need you to know that I did so for strictly selfish, personal reasons because my mind functions much better in weights and equivalents than in parts by volume.  Therefor, your formulation in parts by weight at 20 C. is as follows:

                Water, Deionized @ 20 C.                        79.022 %

                98% Isopropyl Alcohol @ 20 C.               20.865 %

                Triton X 100 @ 20 C.                                 0.113 %    

                Total                                                        100.000 %

The conversions I used are as follows:

                Water, Deionized @ 20 C.                    =  0.998203

                Isopropyl alcohol 100%  @ 20 C.         =  0.785401

                Triton X 100 @ 20 C.                            =  1.06501

                Your 98% Isopropyl alcohol @ 20 C.    =  0.789656

Previously I mentioned to use a lesser amount of Isopropanol.  This was not to "improve" the formulation, but, merely that it was unnecessary to use the extra percentage that you were using.  So, there is no need to alter your existing content of alcohol.  However you are using about 5 times as much Triton X 100 (4.96 to be more precise) as necessary.

I am certain that if you reduce your Triton X 100 level about 20% of what you are presently using, that is, volumetrically, you will find the cleaning ability to be about the same.  Not much better, not much worse, and, I am referring to the cleaning ability only.  I was able to make some calculations and also measurements.  We should go by the measurements.  Using your formulation as you have been using for years, the Surface Tension at 20 C. (68 F.) is 30.0 dynes/centimeter, and, at 25 C. (77 F) it is 30.7 dynes/centimeter.  If you were to agree to my suggestion, and reduce the Triton X 100 as indicated, the Surface Tension at 20 C. (68 F.) is 31.2 dynes/centimeter, and at 25 C. (77 F.) it is 30.9 dynes/centimeter.  Yes, if is higher, but, not as significant when you consider that the differential is a resultant of a level 4.96 times greater.

Now, I know, you are aware that your water and IPA demonstrates a relatively rapid evaporation rate similar to Ethanol.  IPA is unique in that its’ evaporation rate initially is faster at the onset than at its’ latter stage.  Unlike Ethanol and Methanol which are relatively constant.  That characteristic is more of an advantage than a disadvantage.  I wanted you to be aware, if you were not, because it determines your behavioral processes.

I also know that you know that your IPA/Water blend is azeotropic as is Ethanol/Water.  Although Triton X 100 is not a typical primary or secondary alcohol structured surfactant, it is, however, a octyl phenol stemmed, and is terminated with a hydroxyl group.  Therefor, the azeotropic characteristics of your blend does carry. a portion of the X 100 along during its rapid evaporation.  It may not be as high as the 60% "carry factor" as with Tergitol 15-S-7, but, it certainly would exist at a level of at least 30% to 35%.  Sorry I can not be more specific, because I would actually have to determine the value to be specific.

Triton X 100 is a good choice for cleaning records, but, it is a high-foaming, film-forming surfactant.  It must have film forming characteristics in order to bo high-foaming.  Just think of blowing bubbles as a child.  The better the film forming ability, the larger and more stable bubbles can be formed.  Unlike Tergitol 15-S-7 which is very low foaming and more of a wetting and leveling agent.

So, unlike the previous incorrect answer you received, your azeotropic rapid evaporating blend of IPA and water is significantly reducing the amount of Triton X 100 remaining on the record.  (In this particular case, I am considering a 30 to 35 percent reduction as significant, because you are actually using 4.96 the required amount.). That coupled with your vacuum device you may not need to rinse your records if you lower your concentration of Triton X 100.  However, you stated that rinsing is now always part of your process.  In that case, may I strongly suggest that you use your 25% parts by volume IPA in deionized water as your rinse media rather than just deionized water.  That would be very significant.

Rinsing in only distilled water proved to be a problem.  You only need to read my response to @mijostyn, what my wife determined under her microscope.  It is worth the read.  Most people do not conceive the amount of contaminants in our atmosphere that can cause problems after cleaning.  We were discussing Ultrasonics, but it is almost as relevant in this case as well.

Sorry about my late response but my travels to the Hospital for two tests became very complicated, and I had to be kept until yesterdays’ release.

Any other questions, I hopefully will be able to respond more promptly.

Wizzzard                 

P.S. I expected the Surface Tensions as calculated to be a bit lower, I was surprised a bit at the readings I received.  But, we need to go by actual readings and not theoretical calculations.  Also, I now also need to correct the recommended level of Triton X 100 I previously informed you of.  I stated to use 11 to 12 drops, recommending 12 drops.  Now that I located my Triton X 100 the actual amount should be 9 to 10 drops, and 9 drops being a bit more precise.  Calculations are good, but actuality is much better.  Sorry about that!                                     

                

@mijostyn: "Don’t bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over to me." But seriously, hope your recovery from pretty serious surgery is speedy. In the meantime, careful with that tonearm and stylus 😉 .