The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"


The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

 

I am providing this formulation for all who are interested in the very best, and can be proven and demonstrated to be the "Very Best". It can easily be made from available ingredients. On the surface, it appears to be very simple. However, it is based on extensive complex chemistry along with precise mathematical calculations and verifiable data.

 

You may use it with absolute confidence and be truly assured that it is beyond doubt the "Very Best". You may use it for your personal needs. Or, archival entities may use it for their purposes with confidence. Or, you may choose to start an enterprise that makes and packages quantities as either a "ready-to-use" or a "Semi-concentrated" version for sale and distribution knowing that nothing better exists. You have my blessings and encouragement with one condition. And, that is, that the pricing represents a "fair margin", and, not an obscene gouging, typical for such products.

 

Initially, I had prepared a presentation that briefly introduced myself, and provided the thought processes, design parameters, and the necessary basics of chemistry, physics, and mathematics to assure you and allow you to be absolutely confident in this formulation. I made a considerable effort to keep it as simple, but, also as thorough enough to achieve this confidence. However, that presentation entailed 5,239 words, typical of such a requirement, however, unacceptable in length by this website forum.

 

I have no option other than to offer the formulation as a 100% parts by weight version suitable to produce 1 Kilogram of the cleaner, and, invite you to question me about any aspect of the formulation.

 

Professionally, I am a Chemist, more specifically a Polyurethane Chemist. I have a Doctorate in Chemistry as well as two other Doctorates and a M.B.A.. I held prominent positions in significant corporations before being encouraged to start our (wife and I) manufacturing facility servicing those I previously worked for. We started, owned, and fully operated this business. We eventually obtained 85+% Market Share in our sector in Medical, Automotive, Sporting Goods, and Footwear areas before retirement.

 

The Audio Industry is extremely technical and many brilliant minds have contributed their talents over the decades in order that we may enjoy music today as we choose. Like many other technical industries, those of lesser minds and values invade the arena with their "magical" inspired revelations and offer their "magical" ingredients and items to all at extremely high prices. They promise that if only we are willing to part with our money - they can provide these items to you that make your audio system sound as if the orchestra, or vocalist, is in your room with you. And, after all, "magical items" must be expensive, otherwise, they would not be "magical".

 

This disturbs me enormously, and, it is for such reasons, I feel compelled to provide realistic and truthful information that conforms to basic Engineering, Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematical Principals in those areas with which I am very knowledgeable and familiar.

 

          "Ultimate Record Cleaner Solution"

 

   Ingredient                                          Amount by Weight (Grams)

 

Distilled Water                                     779.962

 

Ethyl Alcohol                                       220.000

 

Tergitol 15-S-7 (Dow Chemical)            0.038  (Approx. = 2 Drops)

                                                         1,000.000

 

Important and/or Relevant Criteria

 

1.)  Distilled Water ONLY. Do not use deionized, tap, rain, or spring water. Distilled Water is readily available in most grocery stores. Check labeling to be certain that it is distilled and not deionized. The pricing is comparable.

 

2.)  Ethanol must be purchased at a "Liquor Store" or a "Liquor Control Board" that is suitable for human consumption, and the appropriate taxes must be paid. This assures that the alcohol consists of only Ethyl Alcohol and water. You need to purchase the 95+% version, also known as 180+ Proof. NOTHING ELSE is acceptable. (100% Ethyl Alcohol is not available under "normal" circumstances). Denatured alcohol from a Hardware Store or elsewhere is PROHIBITED, as well as ANY other alcohols.

 

3.)  Tergitol 15-S-7 is made by Dow and is available on the internet in small quantities from Laboratory Supply Houses such as Fisher and Advance, etc.. I have no affiliations with either Dow Chemical, or Fisher, or Advance. You MUST use Tergitol 15-S-7 ONLY. No other Tergitol product is acceptable for this designed formula, and you need to acquire the undiluted form only.

 

4.)  The above cleaner formula will result in a non-foaming (VLF) Surfactant Formulation that exhibits the following:

            Surface Tension of 28.5 dynes/centimeter @ 20 C. (68.0 F.)

            Surface Tension of 28.2 dynes/centimeter @ 25 C. (77.0 F.)

 

5.). A Surface Tension of 28.5 dynes/centimeter is Remarkable and will properly clean records of all organic soilings, and all oily substances, as well as very significant amounts of inorganic soilings.  This available Surface Tension coupled with the Azeotropic Characteristics of very rapid evaporation and spotless drying occur because of the selection of Ethyl Alcohol and the very specific concentration determined as 22.00% p.b.w., further improves the products abilities.  The "Ease-of-Use" and "Spot-Free" results are to be accepted.

 

6.). Be aware that an "ideal temperature of use" also exists for this formulation.  And, that reasonable temperature is 40 C. (104.0 F.). Further increases in temperature offers no improvement, therefore, confirming the proper use of the term "ideal". I mention this not because of of any substantial improvement, but, only to be aware of its’ existence. And, if you have a choice to utilize a room that is warmer than another, select the warmer room closer to 104.0 F. There is no need to elevate the temperature of the records or the materials. Simply be aware that 104.0 F. Is ideal.

 

If interest is expressed in this submission, I am willing to provide additional submissions regarding other materials, and, other areas of interest.  Such as"Best Contact Substance", "Best lubricants for turntables", " Better Dampening Materials" for turntables and tonearms, and, most significantly, "Best" material for "Turntable Platter/Vinyl Record Interface" usually called "Record Mats". The last item will certainly disturb many individuals and anger many suppliers.

 

Whatever I may contribute is substantiated by Science and Testing, and Verifiable. Science has no Opinions. Opinions in these matters are best reserved for those who rely on their imagination and wishful thinking.

 

Also, I have no vested interests in this Industry. Simply possess some scientific knowledge that also relates to some aspects of the Audio Area, and I am willing to share that information if requested!

128x128wizzzard

@mijostyn

I never stated an opinion regarding the LAST record preservative. I have never used it or analyzed it. I only stated what they claim in their patent and brochure for your information regarding its chemical composition. You stated this in a previous post on 07-15-2023:

"LAST the record preservative is mostly if not entirely a CFC"

Their patent does not list the use of a CFC in their formulation. Their patent using a perfluoropolyether as a lubricant in a suitable perfluoroalkane carrier is not unusual. Perfluoropolyethers are widely used as lubricants in a variety of industrial applications, for example the Magnetic Recording Media industry where they are used as lubricants on HD drive surfaces. These coatings are typically only a few nanometers thick. In fact in my laboratory we analyzed several perfluoropolyethers which were coated to lower the surface energy of various substrates. Typically these coatings were between 1 to 2 nanometers thick. We had no problem characterizing these coatings with the proper analytical techniques. The LAST formulation can easily be characterized in a similar fashion to what I would typically do with the coatings in my laboratory. To determine the chemical structure, composition and thickness of these coatings I typically used several analytical techniques including: Photoelectron Spectroscopy, Static Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry, Spectroscopic Ellipsometry, and Atomic Force Microscopy.

 

Last were very adamant in stating their Record preservative is NOT a lubricant. What it is is explained in their technical papers, for those sincerely interested.

@bdp24 

Sorry to disappoint you, but, yes it is a "surface only" perfluoropolyether lubricant.  I have prepared a very detailed response that I will submit on Sunday 23 July 2023.  I do not have time now because of a family emergency.  So, I hope that you and @mijostyn  and @ljgerens  can wait till then you will have everything that you need to know, that should satisfy everyone.  I ask for your patience.  Till later!

Thank you,

Sincerely, Wizzzard 

@bdp24  ​​@ljgerens   @mijostyn   @whart 

 

Not something that I thought I would find myself doing.  But I feel the need to step in as moderator. My justification in doing so is actually stated in the very initial post about one of the quintessential reasons I posted my “Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation”  was in order that people should not be found paying ridiculous high prices for products that cost pennies to make, and for products that may not even provide the claims made by these companies or individuals.

@mijostyn , a person I have learned to respect from his posts, has stated his position about these products produced by The LAST Factory.  And, he is correct in doing so. I may be mistaken, but, in his response to @ljgerens  he may have gotten the “LAST preservative” mixed up with the “LAST cleaner”.   In his brazen enmity and disdain for the worthlessness of the products I find it very easy to understand and accept.

And also Ljgerens  did not appear to support any of the products or validate them in any of my readings of his posts.  It is exactly as he had stated and that he was only commenting on what is included in the patent and brochures that he has viewed.  Nothing more, nothing less.

And @bdp24 , I know you had stated that he “was one of the most ethical persons I have ever known”.  He was an excellent hi-fi storeowner Livermore, California.  You obviously knew Walter E Davis and was very impressed by him, and, as you state, that he had an extensive technical background and education.  I am truly sorry that I must make some Factual Statements as has Ljgerens has already made some, I intend to further expound,

First there is no” binder” (whatever that may imply) in The Record Preservative. Mijostyn stated: “lying is an art form among human beings, and that the products are a hoax”. I fully agree with the exception that he should have inserted the word “some” between “among—-and—-human”.

I can only go by the presented information posted the “LAST Factory website”, and the list of products and their claims and their pricing. And by the patent filed by Walter E. Davies and Marion M. Fulk on 1 November 1993 and issued on 14 February 1995. and, that is, U.S. Patent number 5,389,281.  First I would like to inform you that my first employer after completing my initial academics chose several people to attend law classes in Patent Law at a nearby University that had an excellent Law School.   This is not an unusual activity for some major Corporations, and, do not mistake and I know Patent Law “inside and out”.  But, I am surprise that such a Patent was even issued, and, how it slipped by the reviewers to be issued.  Any Lawyer knows that the value of the patent is only truly established when it is challenged (if that ever occurs).   But there are minimum standards for all claims, the lack of any unrelated or similar existing patents, etc., etc..Perhaps @whart  may be interested to contribute with regard to this matter. He did state he was a retired Lawyer, and I realize Patent Law is a Speciality, but, he is certainly better qualified to provide accurate information related to this discussion.  I hope he has something to contribute and is willing to do so.  It would be sincerely appreciated by me as well as others because my knowledge is limited to several classes in Patent Law.  Especially his input with regard to the “claims” made in the patent.

I will discuss “The all-purpose cleaner” and “The record preservative”.  “The all-purpose cleaner” is sold in 2 packages.  A 2 oz. bottle sells for $38.95, and, a 4 oz. bottle for $58.95.  “The record preservative” is available as 2 oz. for $64.95, as 8 oz. for $228.95, and a 16 oz. bottle for $432.95.

“The record cleaner contains 4 ingredients.  It is more than 97% deionized water, 2.34% Isopropyl alcohol, 0.01% of an anionic surfactant, and 0.48% of 3,5-dimethyl-1-hexyn-3-ol (a relatively common alcohol).  Both the Aerosol OT-75, and the Sulfynol 61 are both very “cheap”.  Both commonly used in low cost automotive windshield washer fluid among many other products that require a flow agent and surfactant.

“The record preservative contains only 2 ingredients.  The one ingredient is perfluoropolyether (which is covered in a previous post), and as Ligerens also stated as a fluorinated lubricant which he is familiar with as well.  This lubricant was originally developed by DuPont Chemical.  It is incorporated at a level of 0.055%, and the other 99.945% is a blend of perfluorohexane, perfluoroheptane, and perfluorooctane.  The majority of which is perfluorooctane.  A blend such as this perfluoroalkane in “Industrial Circles’ is frequently called a “DAG”, which is a various blend allowing the product to be about 50% to 60% lower in cost than a specific ingredient, as in this case, that would be perfluorooctane.  Another way of lowering the cost.  For the benefit of Mijosyyn in his discussion with Ligerens, it is not a CFC because it contains no Chlorine, not that it matters much, but just to be precise.

Nevertheless, I took the liberty to calculate the raw material costs based on current pricing of materials in what would be considered relatively small quantities, that is, 5 gallon containers versus 55 gallon drum price which would be far significantly lower in price,

The 2 oz. All-purpose record cleaner that sells for $38.95 per bottle contains $0.030 worth of materials.

The 4 oz. All-purpose cleaner that sells for $58.95 per bottle contains $0.060 worth of raw materials.

The 2 oz. of LAST record preservative that sells for $64.95 contains $0.094 worth of raw materials.

The 8 oz. version that sells for $228.95 contains $0.374 worth of raw materials, and the 16 oz. “best value for your dollar” selling for $432.95 contains only $0.748 worth of raw materials.

And, if you believe a major investment in equipment is required, you would be wrong.  A 5 gallon Plastic bucket and a stir stick and two scales, a funnel, and a few coffee filters and you are in business.  A semi-sophisticated (meaning non-automatic) which would require a variable mixer, and a 25 litre stainless steel mixing vessel, with more accurate scales, and a variable volumetric manual filling device with proper industrial filters, wold cost no more than $2,000.00.

I took only the 16 oz. Record preservative  as an example and contacted people that we use to purchase high quality “peel and stick” labels, and a company we purchased bottles from (colorred glass in this case).  I am speaking high quality labels, better than those of The LAST factory, and they would be impervious because they would be coated and in three colour printing.  I considered employing someone at $55,000.00 annually including all benefits and insurance, including Workers Compensation Insurance, and I calculated the Total Cost to produce a 16 oz. bottle of LAST record preservative to cost only $1.936 per bottle.  The same product that you are expected to pay $432.95.  That is a whopping  5,595 % Margin.  I hope I made my point.

Now, @bdp24, if you believe this to be “ethical" , you need to re-evaluate your meaning of the word.  I believe it is abhorrent, and almost criminal.  I know it is not criminal, but my beliefs are different than the Law.

The claims, on the other hand, is another matter.  Again, I ask if @wart to weigh in with his understanding.  Fact, the “preservative” is a lubricant.  It provides no preservation of the actual vinyl.  And, their statement that it “bonds to the records” is an absolute impossibility.  It is a surface application only, no bonding!  Also, NO penetration takes place.  And, certainly no bonding, even remotely, can take place.  The Chemical bond between a Fluoride and another Carbon atom is one of the strongest chemical bonds to exist.  In order for bonding to take place, this chemical bond needs the be “altered”, even just slightly, and that is a TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITY!   Therefore, this claim is absolutely false.

I stated that I have no intension to ever express any opinions, so, anything else I would have to offer would only offensive.  So I will make no other comments other than everything stated is factual and verifiable.

I realize my explanations are, at times lengthy, but I do want to be understood by everyone, and I find it necessary to at least provide enough information in order that I may be understood.  I could have been even more detailed, and more technical, and provide even additional information, but I believe this is sufficiently adequate.  And, if you have any additional specific questions, I will gladly provide you the necessary answers.

 

Thank you for your time.  I hope this is finally laid to rest!

Wizzzard

Sorry, Il Dottore, I am a copyright lawyer, not a patent lawyer. Yes, I can read a patent, but do not profess any expertise in the area. There were a few long time members here that did have patent expertise- I think Fred Crowder was one. 

My main area of concentration was the protection of artistic content, and not inventions, per se. 

Good luck.