The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

@mijostyn 

At some point I will explain more.  But, for not, I have one very specific question for you.  I need to be careful on how I phrase my question and to whom it relates to as well.  I will explain that to you as well, and, that will be sooner rather than later.  And, that explanation will not only be for you but for others as well.  You will understand when it becomes known.  But, for now, do not think that I am being "strange", but I need to know something from you specifically before I am able to provide an accurate response to some matters.

You had been "accused" (I know that may not be the best word), or you have stated (again, not knowing any history) that you used  - "CFC-113", or, " incidental use of CFC-113".

I can only imagine that this relates to "Freon 113" , which is 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane, is that correct?  If not, please correct.  If so, please state how you had access to Freon 113, and how was it containerized, and in what year that may have been.

I have never heard Freon 113 referred to as CFC-113.  That does not mean that it was not the case, it only means that I never heard of it expressed that way.  I am curious though, that "in some circles" that may have been the case.  Please note that I have purchased, either through our own business, or, for companies where I was employed, that I had purchased well over 2 million pounds of Freon 113 from DuPont over a relatively short period of time in my history.  I need to know what is correct, and where material came from, or, who made what statements and when.  Please, do not think that I am reacting strangely.  I just need to know for now.

I await your response.  Thank you.

Last Record Preservative contains a "binder" which bonds the PVC/etc. molecules together. The Library Of Congress uses the stuff. Walter Davies was the owner of the Last company, and co-creator of the Last products. He had earlier been an excellent hi-fi store owner in Livermore, CA (named Audio Arts). He had an extensive technical background and education, and was one of the most ethical persons I've ever known.

@wizzzard 

Way back in the 60's it was easy to get Freon. It was the cleaning fluid of choice for Ampex tape machines and I was in charge of cleaning and demagnetizing my father's Ampex. I had a brown medicine bottle full of Freon. I would dip a Q-tip in it and gently clean the heads and tape path. I think my father purchased it from the HiFi store, but I have no way of being sure. Back then nobody knew it was damaging the Ozone layer. HVAC guys would vent the stuff directly into the air! I have no idea if it was Freon 113. It was labeled "Freon." When I worked for dBx as a wiring technician they had a big bath that circulated a solvent which smelled and acted like Freon. They placed all their circuit boards in it to clean off the flux from soldering. It was open to the air! 

1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane is also officially identified as CFC-113 by the EPA such as Ozone-Depleting Substances | US EPA, by ASHRAE STD -34, Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, and by CDC such as Preventing Death from Excessive Exposure to Chlorofluorocarbon 113 (CFC-113) | NIOSH | CDC, to name just a few.  Freon is a DuPont trademark, which is why it's officially not identified as Freon-113 although it's acknowledged that this is another term.  In some circles CFC-113 was also known as Freon PCA (precision cleaning agent).

I was part of the Navy's CFC Elimination Program and spent too many years developing solutions to eliminate CFC-113, but for the most part was successful being awarded an EPA Ozone Protection Award in 1995 - Document Display | NEPIS | US EPA

I know more about CFC-113 than I care to admit.   I also assisted with establishing the DOD CFC-113 Mission Critical Reserve and here is one piece of trivia, kept in sealed contained away from moisture CFC-113 has an 'indefinite' shelf life.

Now back to your regular scheduled programming....

I had a vinyl record from years ago that I kept for sentimental reasons... it had pops clicks and skips all over but I couldn't bring myself to let it go. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap cleaning mechanism (you know water and dawn dish water soap and you turn it clockwise 10 times and counter clockwise 10 times) and I watched youtube videos for suggestions too. I decided to try it on this record because I had nothing to lose. After I used the cleaning wash, I also used WD 40 on it as a youtube video suggested and wiped it off with a microfiber cloth. You know when I played it, it sounded as if it were brand new without a click pop or skip on it. Now I believe in fairies and only use this method... I'm not saying a $1200 or $2500 cleaning machine wouldn't do as good and probably will.

@mijostyn

I have no association with LAST and I have never used it. I am just posting what I found on one of their patents and one of their brochures at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 1982.

One of the patents that I found was issued to Walter E. Davies, one of the founders of the LAST company. The patent states the following:

"Compositions for preserving records and reducing the friction thereon, have now been invented. Compositions for preserving records comprise about 0.05% to about 0.2% by volume perfluoropolyether having an average molecular weight of about 2,000 to about 6,000, such as Fomblin® Y25, and a perfluoroalkane carrier."

A quote from a LAST brochure at CES 1982:

"LAST effects a change in the surface of the vinyl to a depth of ~ 10 moleculer units which has the effect of reducing the surface free energy of the vinyl record which reduces friction and provides better traceability of the stylus."

Reducing the surface free energy makes sense if the active species is a fluorocarbon similar to the patents which describe using a perfluoropolyether as the lubricant.

@mijostyn 

I do not mean to be a pest, but, you just stated that you used "a Freon", and, you have no idea what kind it was.  Whether it was 113, or 11, or some other number.  The HOW did you become associated with cleaning your vinyl records with "CFC-113?

Here is a very good pdf - 200pages - on cleaning records. Including formula for cleaner - both manual and using US RCM. I am about 100p into it, just providing this as part of the discussion. YMMV of course. 

https://thevinylpress.com/precision-aqueous-cleaning-of-vinyl-records-3rd-edition/

@wizzzard 

please read my last post.

@ljgerens 

And you believe that garbage? lj, look at you email inbox tomorrow AM and think it over. Anytime a human makes a claim that is impossible to prove or disprove it is sure to be a hoax. Lying is an art form among human beings. The real good liers get to be President of the greatest country on earth.  

@dogberry 

I accept your’Apology!  And, I also should apologize to you as well because I obviously was not totally clear in my response to you.

Recall that my initial response was not intended for you as previously stated.  Also my primary point was not to correct your  spelling.  Believe me my spelling skills are pathetic, or I could have understood that you made a typo error, to which I can also relate.

My concern was exclusively that you believed it to be French and not Latin.  Also, the College at Oxford I was making reference to taught certain subjects in Latin and, a few, even in ancient Greek.  Not unusual for me, because the High School and Grammar School (last 3 years) taught Latin as a language so I was prepared.  When I was invited for the 500 year anniversary of the College some 6 years ago, the Opening Address by the President was in Latin not English.  So, I want you to understand also where I am coming from.

One last thing.  Your last sentence suggests discussing vinyl.  I would like you to be the first to know that I will be addressing this subject, and intend to speak of vinyls (plural).  I will make myself clear and understood in a few days.  It is this one misunderstanding that appears to relate to a number of issues that result in conflicting statements that I hope to clarify.  So, yes I agree "Vinyls", and I also hope you do not ignore the other subjects in which I possess knowledge that I am willing to share.

So can we both agree "to better days and better communication"!  I will do my best, and, I am fairly confident that you will as well.

I thank you for listening, and appreciating, and understanding.

Sincerely,

"Wizzzard"

@joenies 

Yes, I mentioned "Record Mats".  This happens to actually be an extensive study.  And because it was so extensive, I will be getting back to it later after clearing up a few other matters first.  I hope that it will not be that long from now.  But I will give you some advance notice because it is restricted in one very specific way, that is, it is related to turntables with aluminum platters.

Any other platters will be an extrapolation only.  All the testing was done on an AR-ES1 and an Oracle Delphi Model IV.

The results are surprising, I assure you.

But if you have a turntable that is Acrylic, or Glass, or anything else, its value is not as significant.  I just wanted to inform you of that at the onset.

Till later,

@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. 

Damn @wizzzard, you put some time and effort into this!

Though Walter Davies passed away a few years ago---and had sold the Last company shortly before he did, I'd love to hear the current owner(s) reply to your critique. I'll check into it.

Regarding my statement that Walter Davies "was one of the most ethical persons I have ever known", that was obviously (it seems to me) said in regard to my interactions with him as a hi-fi shop owner. To then take that opinion and by the use of transference apply it to Walter’s (accused) business practices as owner of The Last Factory says more about @wizzzard than it does about my perception of Walter’s sense of ethics.

I happened to make my first visit to Walter’s hi-fi shop on the day Bill Johnson was delivering and installing his complete ARC/Magneplanar system in the shop’s excellent sound room. I was only 22 years old, but wise enough to keep my mouth shut and my ears open. Beside getting a real education that day in all things hi-fi by listening to the two talk, I got my first exposure to a true high end system. The sound I heard that day transformed my life. Thank you Bill and Walter.

@bdp24 

Sorry about any misunderstanding!  But, when one usually states that they consider them as "most ethical", that usually implies that one is ethical at all times.  It is not as if you are "ethical" at work, but you are "unethical" at home.

That is an inconsistency that can not possibly exist.  Basic logic must prevail throughout.  And, I understand that you may feel offended, and I am truly sorry to have exposed Walter E. Davies's "other side" to you.  I can understand why you may feel conflicted, but, facts are facts.  Only an "opinion" can alter reality.

Sorry!

Wizzzard

@whart 

Thank you anyway, and thank you for responding.  So, perhaps someone else may be able to further comment on the patent issue.

Sincerely,

Wizzzard

Oh, I’m not offended @wizzzard , and don’t consider your case against Walter Davies’ ethics to be proven, nor that he even has an "other side." Even if Last products are what you or anyone else may consider grossly over-priced, that is not (to me at least) what constitutes a lack of ethics. Greed perhaps 😉. Now mis-representing the ingredients of a liquid product is an entirely different matter.

In a trial the jury doesn’t render a verdict after hearing only the prosecutor’s case against the defendant. I don’t consider the case you make against Last Record Preservative and/or Walter Davies to be proven just because you say it is. I prefer to withhold judgement until the defendant has presented his rebuttal.

You state a lot of opinions---and have reached conclusions---that you expect everyone else to accept as facts. You use cold, hard numbers to make your case, with which I have no problem (to me the most important information contained in Stereophile reviews is John Atkinson’s test bench findings). But I don’t assume your information to be correct, or even complete.

You obviously consider your numbers to be irrefutable proof of another’s lack of ethics and honesty, and seem to relish revealing that fact to the world. You remind me of Peter Aczel 😉 .

@bdp24 

cc:    @mijostyn    @ljgerens 

                                        “ I state NO opinions ”

And I encourage others to refrain from voicing their opinions as much a possible, and to refrain from repeating the opinions of others as well.  I intended this Forum to be as factual as possible.  Not only pertaining to myself, but desiring and requesting it of others as well.  In essence I can state that it is “The Prime Directive” of this Forum.  With regard to questions, that is an entirely different matter, because ALL QUESTIONS to me will be considered.  There is no such thing as a bad question!  I am not Ghandi, who could make such a remark.  I had indicated this, as of day one, in my original post.

This post was intended for Mijostyn and Ljgerens.  I included you because I recalled that you had a high regard for Walter Davies, and expressed your esteem of him on several occasions.  I believed it was necessary to express my sincere sorrow to you independently because I was a messenger / bearer of disconcerting news to you.  And, I also wanted you to understand.  As former President Bill Clinton famously and frequently stated:  “I feel your pain”.  I thought I was being nice to you by sincerely expressing my feelings to you.

You have somehow managed to misconstrue and subvert my sincerely into something sinister.  It is impossible for me to understand you, and how you have managed to contort my messaging to you.

If you wish to cling to the verisimilitude that Mr. Davies provided you - that is your choice.  And, you can continue to live in “your reality” of events if you so choose.  But, please do not dismiss the FACTS provided to others that read this Forum as “opinions”.  I take umbrage with your statements regarding my convincing display of revelations regarding the respectability of a particular firm because of their pricing of products, but also with regard to their claims that are disproven by their own admission in their patent submission.  I relied on only the information provided in the patent and the actual ingredients used and the foundational functions provided by the manufacturers of the products that are actually used.  And what is consistent with all known Technologies including especially the Chemistry involved.

If you choose to remain oblivious to the actual realities - that is your choice.  But, do not be gratuitous towards others that have read the post and sagaciously been revealed a realism of which you disapprove.  You can not and should not insult the intelligence of all the others that read this Forum that are seeking correct data and information.

Because of your one personal experience with one individual many years ago, you can not totally dismiss all scientific evidence presented by either myself or others, and refer to actual proven FACTS as opinions.  Your dismissiveness is unacceptable.  If I can not address you with a sincere regret, I do not believe I can ever relate any accurate information to you.  Perhaps, others can, and, perhaps they may make an attempt, but, as far as I am concerned, I need to proceed to respond to others that are awaiting a response from me to their questions.  But, I needed to make one last attempt, otherwise, I would regret that I did not try sufficiently enough to allow you  to understand.

                                     “No more soup for you”

Wizzzard 

@wizzzard 

I guess human noses are not all that accurate. It must be the fluorine that has a characteristic odor. They are all very volatile substances. As for the "lubricant," is that volatile also or do you think the concentration is so low I could not see it on the slide. I was always talking about the preservative which predates the cleaner by several years. 

The high pricing of the LAST products is another method used frequently on the audiophile community to convince us that something really works or sounds better. Ridiculous pricing should always set off alarm bells. 

I apologize for not being completely accurate, but the end result remains unchanged. LAST preservative is a rather typical audiophile aimed scam. When a product makes claims that are very difficult to validate, alarm bells should go off.  

@mijostyn 

As I stated in a previous post these perfluoropolyether lubricants are typically only a few nanometers thick. Assuming the LAST record preservative is a similar thickness, you would not be able to see it on your slide.

@mijostyn 

cc:  @ljgerens 

Regarding your post Today at 12:00 PM.  You are able to detect the difference in odour between Fluorine and Chlorine in their "Elemental Stage" which is as a gas, however, it is extremely difficult, or, rather more as impossible to detect a difference  in aroma as a Fluoride and as a Chloride.  So, there is nothing wrong with your nose.  Perhaps, a very well trained "nose" may possibly be able to detect the difference, but, even that would be exceptional.  Therefore, there was no error on your part.  I only wanted you to be aware, and, to be accurate in my response.

As I noted in my opening remarks of this Forum that "Magical Ingredients" that produce "Magical Results", most obviously, must be very expensive!

The perfluoropolyether lubricant is NOT volatile, nor would it be "carried" with the rapid evaporation of the perfluoroalkanes included in the product and compromises the vast majority of material of the "so called preservative".  The minute level incorporated in the claimed "preservative"  would not be able to be detected by you with your microscope.  I doubt that even @ljgerens  would be able to detect its' existence with his Electron Microscope.  But, I would not know that for certain, only he can accurately respond.  I am basing my statement  based on very similar compositions, and arriving at my statement to you founded on that particular knowledge.

Wizzzard

@ljgerens 

cc:  @mijostyn 

I only read your comment to Mijostyn after I responded to his remarks.  I should have read your statement before responding to Mjostyn.  Nevertheless, thank you for for your input, it is sincerely appreciated.

While I have you.  You were the first to ask me questions with regard to Ultrasonic Cleaning.  And this forum is full of various inputs.  I did mention that I am familiar with Ultrasonic Cleaning, however, not related to vinyl records.  And, I do intend to make some statements a bit later.

However, with all the discourse regarding this subject, as of yet, I have not heard of any specifics related to the machines.  I was intending to ask you this much earlier, but, life interrupted my intentions.  What frequencies are we considering, is it fixed or variable, what type of drivers are used, and what power ratings are being considered as well as the "time element" in the bath.  And, is rinsing always a necessity.

Basically, I know all that I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning", but, I have absolutely no knowledge of the details used by various machines available for vinyl record cleaning, and, also more details about the device that you constructed yourself.  And, if you can include some comparatives.  Yes, I know I can investigate this matter myself, but I have no intention of doing so.  Especially when someone as yourself can provide a condensed version for me to peruse.

I hope you are willing to provide me with this information.  There is no urgency because I need to address some other matters on this post first.  So, if you have some spare time, i sincerely would appreciate your input.

Thank you again for your post.

Wizzzard

@wizzzard
From your last post:
"I know all I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning"
Apparently not:
"

antinn 338 posts 06-09-2023 at 12:01pm @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.

wizzzard OP 114 posts 06-09-2023 at 02:44pm @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,"

Posted many times in this thread:
https://thevinylpress.com/precision-aqueous-cleaning-of-vinyl-records-3rd-edition/

@wizzzard

From your earlier post:
"What frequencies are we considering, is it fixed or variable, what type of drivers are used, and what power ratings are being considered as well as the "time element" in the bath. And, is rinsing always a necessity"

To properly understand cleaning potential of an UltraSonic device, more information is needed than you stated.
Not only watts/power, but also bath volume. Distance between Lp(s) and transducer is also very important, especially if multiple Lps in the bath.

WOW!!!  this is amazing.  What a discussion.   All over how to clean vinyl.  I am amazed at all the scientific discussion.  This is all good.  Regarding chemistry I am knowledgeable but not to this extent.  I think it is healthy and informative.  Can someone tell me how to keep my dog from pissing in the house.  He is a Basenji and will take suggestions but never orders.  Thnxs

Mark

@wizzzard

I never mentioned using an electron microscope for my analysis of perfluoropolyethers although I have used SEMs and TEMs as supporting techniques for other experiments. The main techniques that I used are Photoelectron Spectroscopy and Staic Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry. Both techniques can easily detect coatings less than a few nanometers thick. In fact they can detect surface species as low as 0.01 of an atomic layer depending on the chemical composition of the coating. They would have no trouble detecting the LAST perfluoropolyether on a glass slide even if it was less than a molecular layer. Besides detecting sub atomic coatings, they can determine the chemical and electronic structure of the coating as well as a quantitative determination of the coating. Supporting techniques that I used and mentioned are Spectroscopic Ellipsometry and Atomic Force Microscopy.

@rich121 

There are numerous problems with ultrasonic cleaning that go beyond the physics of ultrasonic cleaning. Repeated use of contaminated solution and evaporative drying techniques to name two. 

Vinyl is relatively soft. It does not take much of an insult to permanently scratch the record. There are many who feel that ultrasound strong enough to clean the vinyl will damage the vinyl. Given that ultrasonic cleaning of jewelry removes some metal I think this is a reasonable concern. 

Mechanical agitation with the appropriate cleaning solution and microfiber brush are more than adequate to clean vinyl in combination with vacuum drying using fresh fluid with each cleaning. There are numerous machines on the market at competitive prices that function this way.   

@mijostyn
Please tell us your experience with records being damaged by UltraSonic cleaning.. or are you again just stating a misinformed opinion with no experience?

As I posted here before, a good UltraSonic machine is a great partner for my Keith Monks RCM... the UltraSonic adds another level of detail and quieter background.
A properly designed UltraSonic cleaner does no damage to a record and I final rinse on my Keith Monks.
I change the bath with each use on the Degritter and with the Klaudio, I also change the over 1 gallon of water in the reservoir tank each use, it also has a filter... there are no contaminants in the water to worry about.
On occasion, I just run a new purchase through my Degritter or Klaudio and let it also dry the record... I doubt there is a lot of difference between a final rinse and the UltraSonic drying the record.

ljgerens, You cannot possibly have access to those sophisticated techniques, knowledge of how to analyze the results therefrom, and the costly instruments needed to implement them just for the sole purpose of examining LP surfaces. Are you at liberty to say where you work and on what you work? I’m only curious.  For example, I am a retired molecular biologist/MD. I ran a laboratory at NIH and FDA, where we studied certain viruses.  This gave me access to an unlimited supply of distilled, deionized water, various nonionic detergents, and lab grade alcohols.

@rich121 

cc:  @mijostyn ​​@drkingfish ​​@ljgerens 

As to your posts on 25 July 2023 at 2:20 PM and 3:15 PM, have you absolutely nothing else better to do than to TRY and ATTEMPT to find fault with statements that I make without realizing that you are exposing yourself.

I had requested information from Ljgerens.  And, I had written the following:  "Basically, I know all that I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning"

  Ultrasonic Cleaning - is a "Process"

  A vinyl record - is an "Object".

  A Ultrasonic Cleaner designed to clean vinyl records - is a "Device" 

I suggest you consult a dictionary to investigate the meanings of the three very different words are, that is, Process, Object, and Device.

And' yes, "I do know all that I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning"! When you have purchased more than several machines, some of which that did cost over $150,000.00, you tend to know a sufficient amount of information about the process and the specific devices that you had purchased, installed, and operated.

I was inquiring about the devices mentioned so far in this forum, because, I have not seen ANY specifics mentioned.  I mentioned just a few specifications to be congruent of a proper sentence structure, nothing more.  Neither Ljgerens, nor anyone else has yet to respond.  However, I did state that there is no immediate concern, just, that, at some point, I am provided some specific specifications before I make any response.  That is all, nothing more and nothing less.

Wizzzard 

What did I do?????

You exist. It is enough.

@wizzzard 

I just read that you requested information from me. I do not know what information you requested. I must have missed it. 

@lewm 

Go Lew!

@rich121 

You have to read more carefully Rich. I said "Many believe" I did not say I know for a fact ultrasonic cleaning damages records. I do not, nor do I care to prove it. I personally do not care for it because done correctly it is a PITA and messy. You can not fan or air dry records. They will rapidly collect contaminants from the air. Records have to be vacuum dried. Vacuum drying machines (with one exception) will only dry one side at a time leaving the other side to drip all over the place. If you get the machine that does dry both sides at the same time you do not need the ultrasonic cleaner because this machine does a very adequate job of cleaning records itself. You clamp a record on, twist the cleaning head in place and press a button. In about two minutes you get a perfectly dry and clean record, both sides. It is handily the most convenient, mess free, record cleaning device made. The secret to cleaning records aside from Wizzazard's record cleaning fluid, is spending as little time and effort doing it. There are a few fundamentals I adhere to and they are, fresh fluid need to be used for each cleaning and the record must be vacuum dried. There are many machines the adhere to these fundamentals doing one side at a time. I like the Nessie best followed by the Clearaudio Matrix. IMHO the best machine made by a country mile is the Clearaudio Double Matrix Sonic Pro not because it cleans the record better but because it is by far the most convenient, fast machine on the market. Brilliant design.  

@lewm 

The analytical techniques that I discussed in my last post were not used on vinyl records. We were discussing the analysis of perfluoropolyethers in the LAST record preservative formulation and how one could determine the chemical composition of the formulation. I just listed the analytical techniques that I had used to study perfluoropolyethers as lubricants on magnetic media in my laboratory. 

I did not operate or interpret the results from the supporting analytical techniques that I mentioned. These were operated and the data interpreted by colleagues in my laboratory.

My expertise is with Photoelectron Spectroscopy and Auger Spectroscopy.

The analysis I did on vinyl records was back in the late 70s when I built my first ultrasonic record cleaner. I primarily used Photoelectron Spectroscopy and Optical Microscopy to evaluate the effects of ultrasonic cleaning of vinyl records as discussed in my post on 06-21-2023 at 04:05PM.

Because you asked what I worked on. Some of my research entailed corona, plasma, ion beam, UV and gas phase modification of polymer surfaces, mechanistic studies of metal/polymer interfaces with relevance to adhesion, surface properties of self-assembled monolayers and surfactants, chemical and electronic properties of catalytic metal nanoparticles, characterization of the chemical and electronic structure of OLEDs.

mijostyn

... I did not say I know for a fact ultrasonic cleaning damages records. I do not, nor do I care to prove it. I personally do not care for it because done correctly it is a PITA and messy ...

That's what I like about the Klaudio US machine. It's an easy, tidy, convenient solution to record cleaning. Push one button and walk away. A few minutes later yields a clean and dry LP.

@drkingfish 

Absolutely NOTHING!.  Sorry about that!  I inadvertently included you to receive a copy because at @rich121 included a post that you received from "Mr. W.", and that was my mistake.  I remembered to remove you, but than I forgot to.  Further proof that sometimes "old geezers" with numerous handicaps should not be submitting posts at 12:25 AM with only one eye open.

Sorry about that!  My Bad!

Wizzzard 

ljgerens, Thanks for your response.

@ljgerens 

I must have been having some bad days.  I recently purchased a new Mac Pro and a 32 inch (for old geezer eyes) 6k XDR Display while providing my wife with my previous Mac Studio and Studio Display.  All this while "suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune".  Further demonstrating my incapabilities of multitasking.  Therefore creating self-confusion.

Nevertheless my request to you, and to you specifically, was to obtain specifics about your own ultrasonic cleaning device you constructed for you own purposes, while also providing details (specifications only) of the various machines that you are aware of that are specifically designed and sold for cleaning vinyl records and vinyl records only.

As I mentioned to @rich121 earlier:   

[ I had requested information from Ljgerens.  And, I had written the following:  "Basically, I know all that I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning"

  Ultrasonic Cleaning - is a "Process"

  A vinyl record - is an "Object".

  A Ultrasonic Cleaner designed to clean vinyl records - is a "Device" 

I suggest you consult a dictionary to investigate the meanings of the three very different words are, that is, Process, Object, and Device.

And' yes, "I do know all that I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning"! When you have purchased more than several machines, some of which that did cost over $150,000.00, you tend to know a sufficient amount of information about the process and the specific devices that you had purchased, installed, and operated.

I was inquiring about the devices mentioned so far in this forum, because, I have not seen ANY specifics mentioned.  I mentioned just a few specifications to be congruent of a proper sentence structure, nothing more.  Neither Ljgerens, nor anyone else has yet to respond.  However, I did state that there is no immediate concern, just, that, at some point, I am provided some specific specifications before I make any response.  That is all, nothing more and nothing less. ]

My experience with Ultra Sonics  and vinyl record cleaning was more of a "giggle"at best, when I used one of our Lab Cleaners, which was an unusual valuable variable frequency (with limitations, of course) machine.  It was required because we were "Self- Certifiable" with regard to CSA Standards, and they specified certain criteria and equipment that we had to meet on a regular basis.  It was a pain but well worth it in the long run.

So, basically I know nothing about the machines that are being used for record cleaning, and, nothing has ever been mentioned by anyone else previously.  So, I am asking you for an outline and a brief synopsis, if and when you have the time.  There is no urgency but I would like to know some particulars before I voice any comments about the Chemistry and Physics aspects only that are involved.

Based on you previous posts I am requesting this information from you and only you because I sense that I can "trust" your information.

Also, sorry about the misunderstanding about your access to an Electron Microscope, however, that was also stated more in jest than in reality.  It is obvious that an Electron Microscope can and would be able to detect the perfluoropolyether as well.  I was intending to relate how little lubricant is in this particular product with the intent to express the insignificance of the quantity in the product in relation to the outrageous claims made by the firm.

I am sorry to have confused the matter, and I request your understanding and forgiveness.

Please keep me informed if you have the time available.

Thank you very much for your understanding in advance.

Wizzzard

@pindac 

cc:  @mijostyn ​​@lewm 

I remembered your original post, and I reviewed that you made that statement on 11 June at 11:46 AM that you have used Dehypon LS 54 nonionic surfactant as a substitute for Tergitol 15-S-9 and you noted that my recommendation was for Tergitol 15-S-7 and NOT Tergitol 15-S-9.

Somewhat later that same day, 11 June at 6:06 PM I stated that I intended to phone an old friend who is now retired but was the V.P. of Research and Development of BASF in Germany.  And that it was my turn to call him because he phoned me last just before Christmas last year.  Nevertheless, he is now on vacation (typical in Germany) so I will not be able to speak with him until about mid-August.

In the interim, perhaps, I can help a bit.  I am familiar with BASF’s “coding” system, so allow me to explain what Dehypon LS 54 really is.  First the name Dehypon simply is a Registered Trade Mark Name BASF has selected for a particular series.  The “L” in LS 54 stands for Laurel Alcohol.  Laurel Alcohol is a “common name” for Dodecanol.  Dodecanol contains exactly 12 Carbon atoms, and is a “Fatty Acid Alcohol” (I will explain).  Laurel Alcohol, as I stated is a common name which is based on what it is derived from.  Because of the derivative (today most likely coconut oil and / or palm oil), it can contain either 12 Carbon atoms or 14 Carbon atoms.  (13 Carbon atoms is a very rare possibility and is very unlikely).  And that is why you may sometimes see it written as C12-C14.  Fatty Acid Alcohols have an even number of Carbon atoms because of the nature of the fatty acid it is made from.  So, that takes care of the “L”.  The “S” stands for Secondary Alcohol.  And, as I stated in another post, that means, that the Hydroxyl Group (-OH) which makes an alcohol an alcohol is not located at the end of the molecule but rather at the midpoint of the molecular structure.

The “5” stands for 5 moles of Ethylene Oxide, and the “4” stands for 4 moles of Propylene Oxide.

So, in the case of LS 54, we need to add 5 moles of Ethylene Oxide to 4 moles of Propylene Oxide.  Thus giving us a Total of “9” moles of reactant with the alcohol to produce the desired surfactant.

Do not worry there will be not be a test afterwards.

So, in your first post on this matter you compared it to Tergitol 15-S-9.  Do you now see that both the Dow product and the BASF product are based on Laurel Alcohol and they both use 9 moles to produce the surfactant.  However, and that is a big However.  The Dow product uses Ethylene Oxide exclusively, while, the BASF product uses combination of Ethylene Oxide and Propylene Oxide.

This makes the BASF Dehypon LS 54 an excellent nonionic surfactant to add to a laundry detergent to clean your dirty underwear and dirty socks.  And if you use the BASF product the propylene oxide is better if your underwear and socks are 100% cotton rather than a blend or containing some synthetic fabric.

So yes there is a meaningful similarity of Dehypon LS 54 to Tergitol 15-S-9.  However, my stated formulation calls for Tergitol 15-S-7 because I intend to clean vinyl records and not to launder dirty underwear.

So, while we are at it, lets simplify some of this alcohol classification.  We are aware of the most basic alcohol, Methanol.  Methanol contains only 1 Carbon atom.  It is sometimes called “wood alcohol” because originally it was produced from the destructive distillation of wood.  Next, we have Ethanol which contains only 2 Carbon atoms.  It is produced by the fermentation of sugars (mainly derived from corn starch) with a yeast.  The starches are converted to sugars, and the sugars are fermented to produce  -  Booze  -  or Ethanol.  Next we come to the Propanols'.  Here we have 3 Carbon atoms.  Now the Hydroxyl group (-OH) can be located at the end, which is N-Propanol, or, the (-OH) group can be located the midpoint, which is Isopropyl alcohol.  Isopropanol is the “most simple” Secondary alcohol.  This becomes important for other reasons that continue to be mentioned on this Forum.  “Why Ethanol, and why not Isopropyl Alcohol”  Ethanol is called a Primary alcohol.  Isopropyl Alcohol is a Secondary Alcohol.  “Therein lies one rub”.  I will not get into the complicated reasons at this point as to the “Whys”.  But, Primary Alcohols react in specific ways in which Secondary Alcohols can not.  Likewise, Secondary Alcohols react in specific ways in which Primary Alcohols can not.  Very distinct reactions with very distinct consequences.  This pertains to all Primary and Secondary alcohols.  That is why differences are noted in the end results.

Butanol, also known as Butyl Alcohol contains 4 Carbon atoms.  It is the First in the series of “Fatty Acid Alcohols, and, you can go up to 30 Carbon atoms which is called Tricontanol.  So, the vast

majority of alcohols are “Fatty Acid Alcohols” and all are made by the same process.  And with rare exceptions the number of Carbon atoms is an even number.  To make odd number Fatty Acid Alcohols other unusual steps need to be taken. (No reason to go there.)

Nobody ever need to know more about alcohols unless it is your career.

I promise to find out if BASF has a product identical to Tergitol 15-S-7.  But, in the interim the BASF Lutensol LA more closely resembles the 15-S-7 because it uses 7 moles of Ethylene Oxide and no Propylene Oxide.  However, the “A” in Lutensol LA stands for a Primary alcohol.  The “L” stands for Laurel alcohol again.  There are no numbers that follow because that purports that “7” moles are reacted to make the surfactant.

If you continue to use Dehypon LS 54 follow the following formula:

  Distilled Water                          77.900%  parts by weight

  Ethanol                                      22.000%  parts by weight

  Dehypon LS 54                          0.100%  parts by weight (Approx. no less than 5                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                             no more than 6 drops)        

  Total                                        100.000%

If Lutensol LA is readily available, then follow the following formula:

  Distilled Water                     77.930%  parts by weight

  Ethanol                                22.000%  parts by weight

  Lutensol LA                           0.070%  parts by weight  (Approx. 4 drops no more) 

  Total                                   100.000%

Can I post now?

THAN YOU!!

@cleeds 

Go in a dark room with a flashlight and look at the beam from the side. That is the stuff that lands on your record when you use an evaporative drying technique on a record open to air. To dry the record correctly you would have to buy a vacuum machine causing a messy PITA. The KL uses the same fluid over and over again. It does filter particulates but can not filter substances that are dissolved. Ideally you would have to change the water with each cleaning, another PITA. 

@wizzzard 

Hi Wiz, please pardon me if I intrude. Having researched this recently I think I can provide most of what you are after. Please comment as I am not an expert on ultrasound machines for cleaning. I can scan your gallbladder:-)

The Degritter pulses a sweep of 120 to 125 Hz @ 300 watts. It is the only machine that pulses. I suspect this is to keep the water from heating up with obvious consequences. It is the most powerful unit.

Audio Desk does not publish its specs. It has a reputation for breaking.

Kirmuss 35 kHz @ 220 watts If you want a good giggle, read his literature.

Vevor 40 kHz @ 180 watts. 

KLAudio 40 kHz @ 200 watts total 

All these machines use an evaporative drying technique. All reuse dirty water although some filter it. All use a method of cleaning that is very difficult to validate which should raise everyone's antena. You can use 4000 psi pressurized water to spray off a dirty car. You will remove some dirt but you will not have a clean car without picking up a mit and using some elbow grease. I have seen jewelry come out of an ultrasound machine spick and span using 150 degree F water and dish soap. It can not remove tarnish! Suggested frequency is 80 to 130 kHz. Higher frequencies get into smaller places and are less likely to cause damage. 50 to 100 watts/gallon is recommended. Knowing this it would seem that the Degritter is more likely to be effective and kinder to the vinyl. But, this is an assumption and assumptions are the mother of all F-ups. 

The machine I eventually decided on cleans both sides of the record three times with fresh fluid each time then vacuum dries the record bone dry. A full cycle takes 2 maybe 3 minutes.  I have to fill the reservoir and drain the refuse tank every 30 cleanings. 6 microfiber pads need to be changed once a year or so costing $40.00

mijostyn

Go in a dark room with a flashlight and look at the beam from the side. That is the stuff that lands on your record when you use an evaporative drying technique on a record open to air ...

My Klaudio machine doesn’t dry in open air, because it’s installed in the Klaudio isolation box. That also has the advantage of containing the machine's noise.

Perhaps someday, @mijostyn, you’ll actually witness one of these machines in operation in real life. Then you’ll see how it’s a convenient, trouble-free, one-button solution to record cleaning.