The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

@rich121: I’ll bet it’s the Nessie. Elusive Disc sells them. They look great, much more "polished" than the VPI’s.

@bdp24,

+1👍

The VPI RCMs may be relatively crude looking, and the vacuum motors may make a lot of noise (mine does), but one cannot complain about a product that has worked flawlessly for more than 25 years, most of the time holding mildly corrosive liquids in its two tanks. The HW17's vacuum motor not only still works but remains "very powerful". (Data that were missing not only from my foregoing statement but also from the above assertion that vacuum cleaning leaves 10 or 20% of the original moisture on the LP:  power of the vacuum, time spent under vacuum, etc.)

@mijostyn, 

Thank-you for the complement.  

@lewm,

The records were dried enough to leave the record dry without static. However, I suspect you are misunderstanding what I was trying to say. So, let me rephrase this mathematically. If 5-ml of cleaner was applied to the record, 4-ml was sucked up from the record and 1-ml was dried in-place. After cleaning and vacuuming the records were dry with no visible residue under white light or UV light. However, when DIW rinse water was then applied, the rinse water quickly fluoresced. After vacuuming if the 1st rinse fluoresced, rinse water was applied a 2nd time to see if it continued to fluoresce. If not, then the surface was assumed residue free. For some high concentrations of cleaner that were used, two rinses were required to achieve a residue free surface. For all tests, the quantity of cleaner and rinse water applied was measured out and the concentration of cleaner (& dye) was known. If there is ever a 4th Ed of book, the full details will be described in Chapter XIII that discusses vacuum RCM. Otherwise as always use this info as you see fit.

FWIW: I do not believe the point-source vacuum RCM such as the Monks with small tip (no large lip) and much higher vacuum and much less are air flow would behave the same. I suspect that their ability/efficiency to draw/suck-up fluid from the record is much higher but only actual testing would confirm.

@wizzzard Thank You for your recommending a method for producing a solution, that can be used as a alternative to my already in use PAVCR recommended solution, for the successfully used Manual Cleaning Method.

I will be considering this alternative mixture for the BASF Dehypon LS 54, and will work out the best method for myself to determine if there is more to be attained over a already tried and tested method, that has yielded substantial improvements over all other cleaning methods used.

 

I don’t see the need to be concerned that Tergitol S7 or Lutensol® LA 60 are not readily available.

It does seem Neil Antin has found the substance that is readily available in the UK.  

@antinn 

I think there is way too much variation between vacuum machines to make a blanket statement. I'm a bit confused. You said the record did not fluoresce but the rinse water did. The stuff that did not fluoresce on the record now fluoresces in the rinse water. I'm having trouble with that.

My goal is to remove all the debris and contamination from the record. It is not to not leave a residue. As a matter of fact I want to leave a very small residue to combat static. The Tergitol is like water soluble oil. It is slippery stuff. This may be psychological but it seems to me that the background noise present in all records is quieter after cleaning and I question a lubricant effect. 

My experience with the Loricraft, when compared to the VPI 16.5, is that it does a better job of drying the record, and presumably removing dissolved cleaning chemicals. While I am currently experimenting with pure DW in a Degritter afterwards, I am not noticing any tendency to foaming, even towards the end of twenty records, at which time I change the water.

@mijostyn, 

"I'm a bit confused. You said the record did not fluoresce but the rinse water did. The stuff that did not fluoresce on the record now fluoresces in the rinse water. I'm having trouble with that."

The residue that was on the record was at levels below visually detectable.  The general rules of thumb are a person with unmagnified 20:20 vision can under bright white light (100-foot candle source positioned 18" above the surface) see a 50-micron particle while with intense UV (assuming the film/particle is fluorescent) can see 25-35-micron depending on the UV light source.  Industrial UV inspections lamps can be 100W (and can could damage the record) while what was used was 10W.  

However, once the UV dye was rehydrated and dissolved by the rinse water, and being effective at "ppb's", the rinse water covering the surface the record becomes easily detected.

The Tergitol is like water soluble oil. It is slippery stuff. This may be psychological but it seems to me that the background noise present in all records is quieter after cleaning and I question a lubricant effect. 

The quantity of Tergitol 15-S-7 you are using is 38 mg/L, which is the same as 0.038 mg/ml.  If you leave behind 1-ml, 0.038-mg uniformly spread across the record will yield a uniform film thickness of about 0.0038-microns.  This is below the best info I can find the record surface roughness of 0.01-micron which is smoother than a #8 Super Mirror Finish/Non-Directional Mirror Finish used to produce/polish stainless steel mirrors.  If the Tergitol 15-S-7 did provide a lubricant effect, then you should also believe that the LAST treatment works.  The LAST treatment as @wizzzard elaborated being nothing more than a perfluorinated oil (such as Fomblin Y45 datasheet.aspx (ulprospector.com)) dissolved in in a fluorinated solvent, the solvent evaporates leaving behind an oil film.  

Now all nonionic surfactants are somewhat hydroscopic, but they pale in comparison to the hydroscopic nature of the cationic surfactant BAK-50 that you use as an external anti-static.  

Note that RCA developed an internal cationic anti-static record composition over 60-years ago G. P. Humfeld, Anti-Static Phonograph Records, RCA Engineer Magazine Vol. 6, No.3. October-November, 1960 1960-10-11.pdf (worldradiohistory.com).  Given the complexity of coating the pellets, and the experiences with modern pressings, I doubt that this internal anti-static treatment is much in use today.

As far as 'why' your records have a lower background noise - you never indicated the composition/concentration of what your cleaner was, but you earlier indicated that detritus was periodically building up on your stylus - is that still the case?  If not, you may have your answer.  Any detritus that builds up on a stylus can have profound effects on playback beyond the simple background noise.  Read this article - STYLUS MASS AND DISTORTION, by J. WALTON, Wireless World, April 1963, Wireless-World-1963-04.pdf (worldradiohistory.com).

Take care,

@antinn 

Like I said, psychology is a powerful complicating factor especially when it comes to subtle differences. 

I just started using a new formulation with very small amounts of Tergitol and BAK, much less than I was using before. So far the stylus has remained clean. 

@wizzzard 

I hate to tell you this but the ethanol destroyed the seal in the water pump of my machine with obvious results. I took it apart, dried it out and fashioned a new seal with spicket packing. We are back in business. I also have a spare pump but I hate to use it. I exposed the packing to 150 proof ethanol and it dissolved. I have to reformulate. Any Suggestions? I switched back to Isopropyl 10% and increased the Tergitol to 4 drops plus 2 drops BAK which kills the static even at this low concentration.  

@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 

I apologize to everyone especially @lewm for allowing my emotions and my medical condition preventing the conclusion of my message to Lewm and others on 30 July 2023 @ 4:40 PM

I determined that I needed to submit another comprehensive statement explaining my issues concerning the undesirable direction of this particular Forum and that it is not proceeding as intended.  I wanted to obviously be totally objective and not allow personal experiences and issues interfere with what should be a purely clinical statement.

The following day I logged onto the Forum to be struck by profound but very dissimilar postings.  One post was a sincere expression by @lewm that I truly appreciated.  The other was a post by a new individual, @drbond, that was very perceptive in its’ nature, and his understanding of both the the objective of the Forum, as well as my visible frustration.  His suggestion of listening to music is one of my basic precepts, and his advice in musical selection could not have been better.  His selection demonstrated his understanding even further.  To the contrary of these meaningful posts was a post made by "Mr. W" which was clearly most disingenuous, even to the extent that it contained an additional caveat to enhance his pretense.

Needless to say, I again found myself unable to present any coherent statement that day and waited for another time while debating my intended presentation.

The next day I logged in again only to discover matters did not improve as "Mr. W" was now again providing his pontifications to matters that were intended for the Forum initiator.  "Mr. W" was now not just continuing to contaminate this Forum with his pontifications from his "collage" he calls a book, to essentially abducting this forum for his own intended purposes because of the lack of interest in his own forum that he started over two years ago.  The following days continued in a similar manner, it was at this point that I had an additional thought to consider.  Since I was still debating as how to best express myself, I considered to allow the Forum to continue as it had, to see if the outcome would approach my recent thoughts to any degree.  Never did I imagine that it would continue for such a period of time without a posting by anyone.  I obviously must now interrupt this cycle and post some statement.

The last post made was on 6 August 2023 at 9:04 AM.  It has now been 22 days without a post even though the views continued at a reasonable rate.  One can draw many conclusions from this however I have selected mine.  I wanted to understand the fundamental problems that I was unexpectedly having.  I now believe I understand, but I must now apologize for the method I selected.  I hope everyone understands.

I wish to share my knowledge with those that are interested, however, I do not wish to squander my limited time correcting certain individuals even though their incorrect statements can not remain without being corrected.  I also need to be careful because my riposte to certain individuals were considered offensive by them that they resorted to tactics to remove previous well expressed explanations of mine to be temporarily removed - I do not wish that to happen again.

If you find the time, much of this has already been covered from the onset.  It is mentioned repeatedly at the beginning of every page, which is the very first post.  You only need to read the last three short paragraphs of the first post.  Also, the brief statement I made 16 June 2023, and the rather lengthy, but significant, statement that followed on 17 June 2023 at 4:36 PM.  I am fully aware that two separate issues are fundamentally in play, however, they are interconnected to some extent.

In common terms there are expressions that are quite appropriate and meaningful, such as, "It only takes one rotten apple to spoil the entire bunch".  But, since this is intended to be a scientific and technical Forum, in Chemistry and in Physics there exists the concept of a "nucleating agent".  We witness this scientific event every time we prepare pasta.  When we bring water to a boil we add salt prior to adding the pasta.  The addition of salt at this period causes an "explosion" of millions of tiny bubbles while the salt still maintains its’ crystalline structure and subsides when the salt dissolves.  If the salt were to be replaced with crushed glass of the same consistency (not that I would ever suggest doing such) this event would continue unabated.  Which brings me to my first segment of my comprehensive statement, that to allow this Forum to continue as intended, we need to avoid the "salting" of the Forum.

This individual, "Mr. W", who has repeatedly stated that he would not waste any of his time with any involvement in this Forum, and said his "final farewells" more than once - FINALLY does keep his word and avoids inserting himself and his incorrect comments once and forever!

This individuals’ verisimilitudic meanderings contribute confusion by negating basic fundamental scientific realities, and in its’ stead inserting his sanctimonious perfunctory beatitudes is disturbing.  These ostentatious presentations of his disguised as sagacious posts are nothing more than pernicious deviations that intend to appear didactic on the surface, are in reality, a supercilious exposure that is extremely destructive in nature of very basic facts, which is a fundamental aspect that is sought on this Forum.

This methodology of his, that has obviously served him well in his prior endeavors of his career, is in opposition of my methodology that not only is inherently based solely on substantiated facts but with assiduity and diligence.  This methodology of "Mr. W" to attempt to elucidate an issue by continuously providing surfeit data creating a cancatervate of verbiage that is salient of incorrect data and contradicts the basic tenants of TRUE SCIENCE is dangerous and misleading.

I encourage those that are besotted by this individual and his postings to be more astute and aware of these incorrect statements presented as facts are nothing more than his misunderstood interpretations of what "others had written".  I ask you to carefully parse his collection of "data" and be aware to segregate his biased misunderstood statements presented as factual while truly being incorrect in a multitude of respects.

I assure you that I am fastidious and that my statements are factual and verifiable.  I may mention the work of others, but, never claim those works as mine.  And the verifications are not only based on scientific realities, but also verified by me personally.  I would never state something as factual unless I could also verify the statements by my own actions if and when necessary.

I would now like to revisit what started this dissertation.  After reading Lewm’s sincere message, the disingenuous post from "Mr. W" followed mentioning the "discourse" on Wikipedia about Mr. Hansen.  I am relating to actual personal exposures and dealings with these individuals.  Working with some of the most brilliant people in the Sciences, as well as with frauds.  Personal contacts and personal impressions and interactions, and, "Mr. W" meanwhile is referring me to a comment he read in Wikipedia.  And, in this same post he initiates another futile attempt to correct me.  (This is not the first time he has made such an attempt but his third).  he relates to a "childish reminder" that "20 drops of water is equal to 1 mL of water which is equal to 1 g. of water". He mentions his favorite Nalgene dropper bottle once again. And signs off with a fallacious "Peace".

I have had people correcting me on a variety of things. One individual was correcting me about the Degrees issued at U.K. Universities, such as Oxford, never ever even considering that "Wizzzard" attended one of those Colleges at Oxford University where such degrees are/were issued.

Another individual attempted to correct me by stating that "Chirurgie" is French not Latin, never stopping to consider that Wizzzard studied Latin for six years and ancient Greek for four years and attended a College at Oxford where some subjects were taught in Latin and Greek. Also, never stopping to consider that Wizzzard is fluent in several languages and "functional" in several others. (Latin, and ancient Greek not included, because they are not conversational).

And now "Mr. W" relates "grade school guidelines" about drops and weights, never stopping to consider that I, Wizzzard, actually weighed out two drops of Tergitol 15-S-7 on his $5,600 Sartorius analytical balance. Not just once but five times and taking the average of the five readings. This never crossed his mind because his mind does not even allow such things to ever enter or even be considered. Fact is, that 1 drop of Tergitol 15-S-7 weighs 0.02888 g. So in my presented "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" which is based on parts by weight, I state to use 0.038 g. to produce 1 kg or (Approximately 1 Liter) actually 998.203 ml. of cleaning fluid at 20°C, and, I placed in parentheses "Approximately 2 drops".  Two drops will equal 0.0577 g. which is 52% more than required.  I know, I knew, that at the onset.  My formulation is in parts by weight and many individuals, if not most, do not have the equipment to measure such small quantities, therefor, I had to approximate the amount in drops as well.  You can not measure half or quarter drops, so it was only logical to state an amount that would be sufficient, and, 1 drop would NOT meet the requirement, therefor, I stated 2 drops.  It is not because I do not know how to calculate, or, how many drops should have been stated as "Mr. W" implied on a few occasions.  It troubles me that I need to explain such things and wasting my time instead of providing other meaningful knowledge that I would like to share with everyone.  I realize that this is a weakness of mine, but, I can not allow such remarks to exist without correction and explanation.  This childish nonsense needs to STOP, and it needs to STOP immediately after this presentation.

When I indicated that the formulation I presented was done by "design", that was entirely correct.  I needed to take many things into consideration including the hundreds of formulations incorporated into "Vinyl LP records" over the years and also the hundreds of additives that were used to establish what was to be considered as a "most encompassing vinyl compounded formulation".  One of the main objectives was to "do no harm to the recording" besides developing the very best cleaning formulation for such a substrate.  This was all very carefully considered before beginning to formulate the cleaning formulation.  I did all the necessary mathematical calculations to determine what can be used and to obtain the lowest Surface Tensions at 20 C. and 25 C.  BUT, I also had to verify the calculated design by actually measuring the Surface Tensions at the intended temperatures.  I did so by using my Stalagmometer developed in the mid 1800’s to measure Surface Tension of liquids and is still the primary device used to this day.  I also had to follow the very detailed proper procedure required to obtain the precise Surface Tensions.  The Surface Tensions that are stated in conjunction with the formulation presented, are those that were actually measured, by me, using my Stalagmometer.  Yes, the mathematical expectations and calculations were very close to the measured values, but, only the actual measured values were stated.  I stated only the actual measured Surface Tensions.  That is what I refer to as Verification.  I hope you can understand why I get upset when someone, or, when someone’s devoted followers questions my statements as mere "suppositions" that require questioning or correction.

Also, as any good Chemist, I use a Stalagmometer to determine the amount of drops required as well to see how it also correlates.  A Stalagmometer is a pipet device that has a bulbous midsection with a capillary bottom and a standard upper portion.  It comes in three sizes and I have all three with duplicates of #1 and #3.  An A.S.T.M. method requires specification of type used for very technical presentations, and, since #1 is used about 95% of the time, and, this was not being presented to The American Chemical Society, but to audiophiles, I found no need to state unnecessary info and clutter a "simple post".  I am bringing these matters up only now in order that you understand and appreciate my efforts to be thorough in order that you can have absolute confidence in my statements.  I found no need to bore you until this provocateur "Mr. W" has forced me to write these unnecessarily long explanations in order that you may discount his interruptions and have the confidence I seek in those that read and post in this Forum, and are requesting additional information.

Also. "W" keeps referring to the explosive nature of a 22% solution of Ethanol in water, and continues to bring up "Flash Points".  Never once being specific as to whether the "flash point" was determined as a "Closed-Cup" or "Open-Cup" flash points.  Now back in the days when I attempted to communicate with him, he was extremely offended when I asked him about his Academic qualifications.  Since I am keeping my promise unlike his (which has no meaning), I wonder how offended "W’ would be if someone asked him how many "flash point determinations" he has made personally, and, not something again that he had read on Wikipedia?

The day after I turned 14 years of age and received my Social Security Number, I started working at a Public Library (part time) for $27.50 per week on average.  Later that same Summer at the age of 14 I began work at a major chemical company.  All starters at this company, with the exception of those with their Phd’s or those that were recruited, were required to work for 5 weeks in the Quality Control Lab before moving to an assigned Lab.  Whether you had your Masters or your Bachelor’s or nothing - this was the requirement by the C.E.O. of the company to familiarize yourself with all incoming raw materials including solvents, and intermediates produced, and finished products, including water-bornes that contained solvents, etc..  It was a great introduction.  The Lab had individuals that worked only in Quality Control as well as the 5 week transients that moved on to other areas.  One of the many tests I learned to preform was "flash point determinations", both Open-Cup and Closed-Cup.  Other tests included measuring Surface Tensions of Liquids including solvents, and solvent blends, and intermediates via the method I previously mentioned as well as other methods.  "Bottom Line ", at the age of 14, I preformed hundreds of both "Open-Cup and Closed-Cup Flash Point Determinations" that Summer before being transferred to "The Conductive Lab".  I was paid $136.00 per week.  That was a lot of money for a 14 year old in 1958 as a Summer employment job.  So, you might say that I have a pretty good understanding of "Flash Points" even at a very early age, and also had an excellent understanding of the results and their significance.  So, who is going to ask "W" how many "Flash Point Determinations" he has done personally, but, more importantly, what is his understanding of results, if any.  I have a notion that this question need not be asked, and I believe I already know the answer based upon his previous comments.

Another point that "Mr. W" had made that ruptured a blood vessel in my brain on 8 July 2023 at 3:35 PM, and I paraphrase, "Vinyl record is a co-polymer of PVC and PVA".  As I have stated many times do not make statements that you know absolutely nothing about.

Since "Mr. W’s" "book" is primarily a collection of works of others with inserted charts and graphs, and references to papers and other documents with notations of additional material that must or should be looked into, I do not know who is actually responsible for this monumentous error.  Is "W" the initiator, or, is he just parroting statements of others, because I have noted this error at other locations and papers, therefor, I am in no position to pass any judgement.  However, it is an excellent example of a terrific error not being corrected immediately and subsequently allowed to flourish unchecked.  I will now correct this once and forever.  "Vinyl LP records" are NOT MADE of a Co-Polymer of PVC and PVA.  PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) is a Homopolymer.  PVA, or more correctly PVAc (Polyvinyl acetate) is a Copolymer.  The mixture of both is NOT a Copolymer.  In Industry, a blend of these two ingredients is most frequently referred to as an "Admixture"!  Stating that it is a Copolymer is an enormous and important mistake, because, if that were the case it would be impossible to process as vinyl pressings are made.  [It is my understanding that LG has been able to make a copolymer very recently with limited success in 2019 to reduce costs of enhanced PVC products by avoiding incorporating specialized polyurethanes that make the end product more expensive.]  An addition of 8% (plus or minus) 1.5% significantly upgrades the physical properties of PVC polymers.  (I might add that I am the original developer of these specialized polyurethanes to be incorporated into PVC components).  If LG can develop a more extensive range it would allow upgraded PVC’s to be made for a little less money, but, the volumes of PVC are substantial, and, basically this little amount of money can actually become in total a lot of money.  I apologize for deviating, but you see this development is very new and limited in scope, but, still would never be able to be processed as records are made.

Now onto another statement by "W" when discussing with @mijostyn about a "typical" vinyl formulation developed by RCA in 1976 (one point) and using epoxidized soybean oil  which is "very stable" (second point).   This formulation is probably one of the worst examples of something that is "typical".  From what I have gathered, there appear to be many serious audiophiles who are well educated far beyond the norm and many appear to be of an older generation based upon their statements.  I am certain that many may recall "RCA Dynaflex" and the "wonderful sound" of these thin flexible recordings.  Yes, I am being factious!  Well that is the formulation presented as typical.  How many of you have any in your collection?  Using epoxidized soybean oil - how cheap can you get.  I assure you, off-hand I can not think of anything less expensive, other than the Toluene, that was also used as a "plasticizer".  Now this is a very remarkable technical subject, and, I mean that seriously, but, Toluene is very unique and I can go on for hours about this uniqueness - but it is also totally unrelated to the subject matter at hand.  Forgive me again!  To say that epoxidized soybean oil is very stable is again one of the most ridiculous statements made.  It decomposes RAPIDLY when exposed to sunlight or light at and near the UV spectrum.  That is why it is used and advertised as biodegradable because it is very much so.  A mere 15 minutes exposure to sun light initiates a decomposition process that can not be abated.

When I developed the Formulation I presented, I had to take many matters into consideration.  One matter that is completely overlooked is the number of "Vinyl Formulations" and the additives for the formulations.  A very important matter is the assumption of a "typical formulation".  Many people would be surprised if I tell them that I had to consider Hundreds of formulations.  Yes hundreds, and I am only considering the basics.  Most people do not realize during certain periods from around 1950 to 1990 the main ingredient of "vinyl records" were, in fact, Polystyrenes - yes, it’s true your "vinyl recordings" were actually "polystyrene recordings".  Not that they were ever called that but that was the case.  So, I also needed to consider what affected various polystyrenes based on the criteria "do no harm".  Many of you have "vinyl records" that are actually "polystyrene records", and, do not think that this is a small number.  It is possible that half of your collections are in fact polystyrene.

Much has to do with your choice in music. much with your favorite labels, much had to do with the time period.  Many recordings were for all intents and purposes polystyrene.  Many others contained varying additions of polystyrene.

Besides your personal selections, in some cases, it was beyond your control (that is, if you were even aware of this situation).  The primary reason for incorporating polystyrene had to do with what we in the industry refer to as "Feedstocks".  Feedstocks relate to the most basic of materials available and in use.  It also has to do with the location of the feedstock, and, let us not forget "Politics" one of the greatest disrupters of all to the chemical and plastics industries.  In the 1970’s and the 1980’s many records had no choice but to contain  varying amounts of polystyrene due to the oil embargoes.  I can go on forever about this subject because it affected all in the chemical and plastics industries.  I suggest if you have any specific questions please forward them to me and I will do my best to answer your specific question.  Examples, such as why did my Simon & Garfunkel album I purchased in 1970 sounds terrible, or wore out quickly, or competed with "Rice Krispies" on the "snap crackle and pop" sounds, while other releases were just perfect.  Perhaps you blamed your stylus or your cartridge.  I do know some details and particulars, but, please recall I am a Chemist, a Polyurethane Chemist.  But in this matter I think that is the best way to proceed.

Also, I would like you to know that I mentioned that we started our own polyurethane manufacturing facility.  We eventually grew and occupied 96,000 square feet, and the business, as most businesses, evolved.  Sometimes by choice, sometimes by accident.  Never did I imagine that I would be asked to make thermoplastic polyurethane pellets for injection molding equipment.  But two companies I knew very well and trusted propositioned us to do just that.  This happened in just our 9th year in business.  One guaranteed to purchase 5 million pounds per year for five years.  The other committed themselves to 1 million pounds per year also for five years.  In actuality the one committed to 5 million pounds per year averaged 6.75 million pounds per year.  The other took about 2.1 million pounds per year.  And they continued to purchase well beyond the original 5 year commitments.  Those of you not in Business, this is very significant.  We also later established a few smaller customers without any commitments and we also agreed to make some non-polyurethane products for some of our other key customers.  This required that I needed to purchase two Bausano twin screw compounding extruders with 5 station temperature control, and with Face-cut Pelletizers that filled product at -40 degrees dew point.  "Super cool machines".  Nothing against Krauss-Maffei but I preferred the transmissions on the Bausanos and the lower price.  At $674,000 per machine, we started with two but quickly added one more, this did not include all the support equipment necessary, just the main toys themselves.

I mention this because as time went buy and things changed, we knew we were going to loose a key account because they were being purchased.  Now we had over capacity in this area, so I took on what in the Industry is called "toll processing".  We were approached by two resellers of vinyl formulations to high end record making companies.  So we made over 3.25 million pounds of product for the recording industry in a two and a half year period.  We produced eleven different formulations that were their’s and to there specifications.  Actually way beyond their expectations, because it is one matter to have a formula, but it is another matter about the process and equipment used.  Using the Bausano to make their product is very different than what the industry normally uses.  It is like going shopping in a Ferrari versus a Toyota Corolla.  Nevertheless they wherever pleased.  This was just before my wife and I decided to retire.  I have no idea what is happening now nor do we care any longer.  The Governments made matters very frustrating and we could no longer tolerate their interference.  I am mentioning this only for the purpose to avoid discussions about anything that I claim to know about "vinyl formulations".  I just wanted to "nip it in the bud" so to speak.  So, unless you also produced about 3 million pounds of compound for the recording industry, please know what you are talking about before making any posts, especially if you read a "tidbit" inWikipedia.  However, I do welcome any questions.

My desire is to share the scientific knowledge with you all.  And, I do not wish to be interrupted by those who are not as knowledgeable as they think they are.  It is now up to you.  I do not need to do this, but, I sincerely wish to share my knowledge in other areas not just cleaning records.  I want to listen to records not devote my life to cleaning them.  I what to explain my position about ultrasonics without discussing ultrasonics.  I would like to discuss lubricants and dampeners. I would like to provide the results about my extensive study in record mat materials.  And so on, but, I need your help and assistance.  You can not continue to entertain nonsense.  I revealed a company that was a con.  Instead of agreeing or expressing any gratitude, I had an individual defending these corrupt practices.  Again, I require your support.

One last thing before I sign off.  And, as a Polyurethane Chemist and Polyurethane Promoter you may not appreciate how difficult this is for me to say.  I believe all LP recordings should be made of Polyimides and this should be done as soon as possible.  The benefits are enormous, but the outcome is far better than most of you can imagine.

I wish to share my knowledge and continue this Forum.  But, ultimately you will make that determination.  With your approval and assistance it will be very meaningful for many.  As I stated I require your conviction and assistance.

 

Thank you for listening!

       

      

      

@wizzzard I agree as well, that the interest in audio equipment is offering the best experience  when kept with the focus on the replay of the recordings and the resulting emotions that can be evoked by the period of listening, of which one emotion stimulated can be enjoyment, but not limited to this only.

I do believe the term enjoying the music, has a broader meaning, which is more akin to suggesting one is their better self, if seen to be enjoying the Activity, Hobby, Avocation and not being in contention with the subject, especially not being able to show acceptance of the views and made known practices of fellow like minded enthusiasts. 

Contrary content will always be discovered, there are many variables and individuals are quite different in their experiences of being exposed to those variables, which will be instrumental in how the individual becomes moulded into their ideas about what has and does not have value. In Psychology would this not be a environmental impact, that has a effect on the development of a person. 

The interest in audio equipment is quite able for certain types, to open up parallel avenues of interest, especially in how the time spent listening to recordings can be experienced.

Seeking out methods to optimise the performance of the critical ancillaries to be used, is a extremely common practice by individuals interested in audio, for some it is very important stimulant and fits into their interest in replays of recorded music like a hand entering a well fitting glove.

Your thread is supplying a Topic on a Mixture to produce a Solution that is with claims to be an optimised solution for decontaminating a Vinyl LP.

Your academic education and chosen career and seemingly the Cornerstone of this thread.

Do keep in mind, in relation to this thread, that you are dealing with the 'short-term past' and the 'now'.

In the future there will be individuals from across the Globe, with a developing  interest in caring for their Vinyl Collection, discover this thread and like a 'duck to water', commence taking on board your ideas to create a mixture to be used as a cleaning solution.     

@pindac 

Thank you for your comments.  But,I could not help but wonder what your particular field and speciality happens to be.  Do you mind sharing that information.  It has been 4 hours since I first read your post, and, you still have me guessing.  Obviously, you do not need to respond, but you were the first to comment, and your style of writing and composure is unique.  And, as a scientist, we are almost as detectives in nature.

So, it you do not mind, your answer would be satisfying, and, in some strange way, I would be grateful.

Thank you again.

Wizzzard 

@lewm 

I have a new detailed informative response for you, however, I have two Medical appointments this morning, and, last night was too late.  But, you will be seeing another helpful comment later today.

I know that you must be waiting with bathed breath!

Till later.

Wizzzard

@wizzzard,

And now "Mr. W" relates "grade school guidelines" about drops and weights, never stopping to consider that I, Wizzzard, actually weighed out two drops of Tergitol 15-S-7 on his $5,600 Sartorius analytical balance. Not just once but five times and taking the average of the five readings. This never crossed his mind because his mind does not even allow such things to ever enter or even be considered. Fact is, that 1 drop of Tergitol 15-S-7 weighs 0.02888 g. So in my presented "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" which is based on parts by weight, I state to use 0.038 g. to produce 1 kg or (Approximately 1 Liter) actually 998.203 ml. of cleaning fluid at 20°C, and, I placed in parentheses "Approximately 2 drops".  Two drops will equal 0.0577 g. which is 52% more than required. 

Did it ever occur to you that the size of a drop would be different from different eye-droppers, let alone a precision pipette?  I know that because I have measured it and others have also.  Of course, not with the extreme accuracy of scientific scale, but with a simple digital VTF scale.  Drops can easily be in the range of 0.03 to 0.06 mg/drop by measuring 10-drops and then dividing by 10 (to ensure the reading is in the range where the device has some reasonable accuracy).  The simple benefit of the Nalgene Dropper Bottle is that it delivers a fairly accurate 0.04-ml/drop - Factors to consider in accuracy and precision of Nalgene Dropper Bottles (thermofisher.com).   So, the variable of the drop is mostly eliminated - close enough.

Otherwise, if you knew "two drops will equal 0.0577 g. which is 52% more than required", given how specific, how scientific you were in the formulation, why did you not provide a tolerance for the composition which is normal engineering practice? 

Yell, scream, holler all you want, but my responses to people on this thread is to present information in a way that most anyone can hopefully understand.  When I trained many people in critical oxygen cleaning processes where death, injury and destruction were consequences of failure, and the deck-plate technician may have only a high school education, you keep it simple.  I reference scientific papers for those that may wish to dive deeper. 

Yes, you and I are wildly different - you are a scientist, I am an engineer.  You know what they say about engineers:  The optimist will say the glass is half-full, the pessimist will say the glass is half empty, the engineer just says you used the wrong size glass.  

 

@mijostyn 

As with @lewm  I also prepared a response that I will need to submit later today.  More like this evening.  I realize that your post was the last before "the void" and I wanted to respond much, much earlier, but I also needed to vent my frustrations and attempt to place this Forum in the context for which it was intended.

Perhaps it was futile, but, I needed to try one more time.  Since this Forum attracted more views in less than two weeks than "Mr.W's" forum did in over two years, it was understandable that he would "coattail" a popular site to post his postings.  But, the interference in the intent of THIS forum was getting out of hand.  So, I hope you are not terribly upset that I did not respond to you sooner, and I request your forgiveness and we can get back to reality.  You will. have your explanation soon and  proposed recommendations.

Thank you for listening, and, I hope you are not terribly upset.

Wizzzard

To All

"Mr. W" - you sir are using the WRONG Forum!

"I know Engineers, and, you sir are no Engineer"

Get back to your own site!

My solution has given me amazing results, I'll stick with that.  Take care everyone!

@wizzzard, 

"I know Engineers, and, you sir are no Engineer"

You're attempt at using the infamous "Benson Quayle" debate line as an insult is pathetic.  Just make sure you tell U.S. Navy and NAVSEA that they were wrong to award me the Engineer of the Year twice which no one else has ever done, or to use the manuals I wrote for the design of some nuclear submarine fluid systems, or to use the host other documents and designs that will be in-use and in-service with some to the end of this century.

Otherwise, now that you are back, having not abandoned people, and you claim this forum-post as your own, I have no reason to further participate which should just make your day.   

@wizzzard 

I just had a knee replaced and shoulder muscles reconnected. I am way far from being upset with anything.

@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 😉 .

@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 

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 

 

@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 

@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. 

@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.  

@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 

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 

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

@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 

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.

@wizzzard 

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

@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"

 

@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

@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? 

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.

@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. 

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. 

@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

@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

@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.

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.

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

@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

@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.

@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?

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.

@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

@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.