A Worthwhile Untrasonic Cleaner

Anovak,
First, sorry my calc for ounces of 15-S-9 per gal is incorrect, its about 1 ounce per gal. I was in a hurry and rushing out and could not remember if a gal was 64 or 128 ounces, but it would about 30 ml for a gal that is 3.78 liters.

The IPA which is completely miscible with water, at the specified concentration would not make the 15-S-3 soluble.  There is absolutely no technical reason to add both 15-S-9 and 15-S-3, they are intended for entirely different chemistries.  The IPA may improve the "solvency" the ability to dissolve oils/greases, but this would be more inclined to heavy duty metal cleaning.  There is a pretty powerful water soluble solvent known as 2-Butoxyethanol that is common in heavy duty cleaners. But its not really warranted here, and at high enough concentration can damage the vinyl (extracts the plastizer), easily recognized as a dulling of the vinyl finish.

I would try with only a 0.5 to 1.0% concentration, leaving out the IPA and the Hepastat.  This would be the absolutely safest chemistry to you and the vinyl.  If you have some really grungy records, do a pre-clean step to remove the visible contamination - put a label protector on, and pre-clean with a soft brush and the 1% 15-S-9 solution, rinse under flowing fresh water (i.e., kitchen sink), or use a vacuum record cleaning machine and then put in the UT for the final clean.  The DOW literature shows that a 1% concentration of 15-S-9 will reduce the water surface tension from 72 down to about 30, so the solution will wet the record nicely, and may drain off fast enough to avoid need for a separate rinse.  After the UT clean step, if you can, a quick spin of the record(s) in air should leave the record(s) near dry.  And, with the record heated to about 100-125 deg F from the UT process, it will dry completely very quickly.

Antinn, thank you immensely and you sound a lot like that Phantomrebel guy, who has a slightly different take on it but I will give it a shot.  For one, makes it a whole lot easier, no need to mix up a solution, just add it to the distilled water and you're done.  If it works as well as what I'm doing now, all the better and that would certainly be a great place for anyone to start in terms of getting their US cleaning system going.  I am going to ask the question of Phantomrebel to see what he thinks about it and will post back here.  This is kind of an adventure we are all on for what's most effective and simple at the same time.....I'm all for that.  Very kind of you to chime in here with your knowledge, much appreciated indeed.

Anovak,
I did a little more research and there are a number of  theads that talk to the 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 mixture, some referencing that this is what the Canadian Archivists use, and some saying that the mixture equals 15-S-7.  Surfactants are classified by the HLB Scale: Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balance.  The 15-S-9 is rated 13.3 which classifies it as a detergent, and with its low surface tension, and not excessive foam height, and high cloud point should make it an excellent UT cleaning agent.  15-S-7 HLB is 12.1, and 15-S-3 is 8.  When you blend 15-S-3 and 15-S-9, you get an emulsion with a HLB of 10.6, so this is not 15-S-7, so that rationale makes no sense.   Otherwise, for the life of me, it makes no sense to clean a vinyl record with a blend of 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 that is an emulsion and can result in a cloudy solution, that decreases the effectiveness of the 15-S-9, and may inhibit rinsing.  The only reason that you would add 15-S-3 to 15-S-9 would be as a defoaming agent.  But UT cleaning should not cause a stable foam to develop, unlike if using a pumped parts washer.  If you compare Triton X100 to 15-S-19, you will see similar HLB and surface tension 30 vs 33, but X100 can create a higher foam, and it is really intended for the metal cleaning industry where you are dealing with a lot of mineral based cutting oils and need the better oil emulsion properties, not some animal-fat based finger prints.

Anovak,
I need to make a correction here.  Essentially, Tergitol 15-S-9 is a more environmentally friendly (and by DOW data should be more effective) alternative to Triton X100 which because of having components that can mimic estrogen, are toxic to fish, and there is 'some' associated human risk.  DOW for now is continuing manufacture of Triton X100, but do not be suprised if they discontinue manufacture in the future as global environmental regulations increase.  Conservationist (those conserving painting) use surfactants when cleaning/conserving paintings, and are very sensitive to using products that do no harm, or as little as possible.  Some are using a non-ionic surfactant that appears  very similar to the performance of Triton X100 and Tergitol 15-S-9: SURFONIC® JL-80X.  

Thank you antinn.  I appreciate your efforts and this will likely lead to a way to improve upon the solution.  I am concerned about the Triton as well regarding environmental issues so the Tergitol seem like a better choice.  I'm going to order some and try it out.  I'll be back....