The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

@wizzzard 

i was probably missing some context.  Sorry about that.  

There have had recent discussions comparing the AudioGon forum to others.  Your deep dive into record cleaning solution is certainly a great example of resources and information for the benefit of audiophiles on this forum.

Well done.

@lewm 

With regard to your most recent post 12 June 2023 at 8:28 PM.  Sorry I did not get to your earlier post that I had read, but I just logged on to submit my answers to @mijostyn  and others and noticed the above post, and thought to respond immediately rather than later.

You are correct in mentioning that I diid not intend to mean that deionized MUST be avoided.  I am highly recommending distilled water over deionized water.  On the other hand you can assume correctly that all the other alternatives such as rain and tap water, etc MUST be avoided.  As I interpreted you previous post, and I hope I got this correct.  Is that you did not have the same confidence level in your distilled water supplier, but, felt more comfortable in your deionized water supplier.

If you have a higher level of confidence in the deionized water to you, then by all means choose the deionized water source.  Your confidence in what you are doing may not have a tangible value, but it is important, and continue to "follow your gut" in this matter.  In the interim seek out a distilled water supplier that you can be confident in using.

I hope this clarifies my position to you and others.

@mijostyn
Comprehension? Also, making assumptions will cause you to be wrong.... along with your other non-thoughtful comments.

"You go through all this trouble making ultrapure water only to contaminate it with dirty records over and over again. Then, you use an evaporative drying technique that redeposits all that stuff that was not in the ultrapure water to begin with, back on the record. Yes, there is some contaminate in store bought distilled water and a good record cleaning machine with vacuum drying will suck it all off".

At no point in my post did I say I used UltraPure water.
I stated:
"I tired of buying distilled water from the store to make record cleaning fluid for my Keith Monks RCM, so I made an investment in a 7-stage RO/DI system"

To make UltraPure water, it would take another piece of equipment, called a polisher, that costs about 20 times what I paid for my RO/DI system (less than $350). This system also supplies drinking water, as it has a tap between the RO and DI part of the system to be used for drinking water.
This is actually cheaper than purchasing distilled water and filtered drinking water, it I am not driving anywhere to purchase distilled water/drinking water.
As I stated... I use a Keith Monks RCM (dual platter Gemini series) and have been for well over 30 years.

A few years ago I upgraded/modified my Keith Monks. I replaced all electric motors. including the Thread drive and arm drive, with heavy duty Industrial ’Hurst’ custom motors, I replaced the vacuum pump with a new, more powerful KNF vacuum pump, I modified the platter speed from 100rpm down to 55rpm had new pulleys machined for both the thread spooling pulley and arm pulley (lower speed 50%) to add 100% more surface cleaning time and reduce the amount of water being ’flung’, added quality vac gauge etc. I would put this up against any RCM, and if I could only have one RCM, this would be it.... but, it still has its limitations.
That is where ultrasonic comes in... it makes a wonderful accessory to a physical RCM.

I have spent MANY years experimenting and cleaning records. Like many here, I have been collecting for over 50 years, have a collection exceeding 25K and have had many cleaning devices.

I also stated that I "added" the Degritter (twice, as first failed, which is not uncommon with that machine) and now I am "adding" the Klaudio.
At what point did you comprehend that I "air dry" my records? I never stated my cleaning regime, but you rather assume.
For someone who never even cleaned their records before, and now being an ’expert’ on the evils of air drying... amazing. So, was it the (recent?) purchase of your Clearaudio Matrix Pro RCM what made you the expert?
I am very curious of your experience and knowledge of both the Degritter and Klaudio machines? How long have you used either?
Your comments show your lack of knowledge of these devices and your obvious, admitted lack of experience, as you you only recently started to clean your records.

@mijostyn   

       @drkingfish  @recklesskelly   @whart ​​@lewm 

I initially thought it would be best to resolve the selection of ethanol and the specific concentration of 22.000% before discussing other matters.  And, I thought the best and easiest way was to prepare a very accurate and detailed graphs demonstrating the transition points.  One being extremely significant and the others less so important.

And, that is exactly what I had done, however, I am unable to post this graph or a pdf.  I contacted the Administrator on how to proceed, however, I have not as yet received a response.  So, I am going to ask you to prepare your own graphs on either graph paper, or quadrille paper, or a simple sheet of 8.5 x 11 paper.  I will provide you with only the 4 key points and describe how to prepare the graph to see the significant slopes related to the 22.000% value.

If you choose the 11 inch vertical side as you y-axis representing the Surface Tension at 20 degrees C and expressed as dynes per centimeter into 75 segments, and then select the horizontal 8.5 inch bottom to represent the x-axis indicating the percentage of Ethanol from 0% to 95.6% at 20 degrees C in parts by weight into 100 segments, we can begin.

At 0.00% Ethanol on the x-axis, the corresponding Surface Tension is:  72.72 dynes per centimeter on the y-axis.

At 22.00% Ethanol on the x-axis, the corresponding Surface Tension is:  30.28 dynes per centimeter on the y-axis.

At 41.50% Ethanol on the x-axis, the corresponding Surface Tension is:  27.59 dynes per centimeter on the y-axis.

At 95.60% Ethanol on the x-axis, the corresponding Surface Tension is:  26.63 dynes per centimeter on the y-axis.

(I will explain the reason why the values are to two decimal places rather than my original three decimal formulation a bit later).

You can immediately see the very steep slope between 0.00% Ethanol concentration and the 22.00% concentration.  At 41.50% Ethanol you notice a slight decline, and, at 95.60% the additional decline is even less significant.  Many people, would have considered only one   inflection point, but, I choose not to deviate from established mathematical guidelines.

From 0.00% Ethanol to 22.00% represents a drop in Surface Tension of a phenomenal 42.44 dynes per centimeter.

Going to than 41.50% represents a rather meaningless drop of only an additional 2.70 dynes per centimeter.  And going the max of 95.60% represents a drop of only 0.93 dynes per centimeter.

Now, I hope EVERYONE on the Planet understands the selection and significance of 22.000%

This data is available from many reference sources such as "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics", "Lange’s Chemical Handbook", etc.  However, I choose the most comprehensive study of alcohols and water starting at 20 degrees C to 50 degrees C, at 5 degree. C intervals, and the Surface  Tension done at 20 C.  The slopes of the 25 C graph are identical only the values are different.  They presented their representations in two decimal places, and, that is why I conformed to their numbers.  Other resources clearly  establish 22.000% , that is why in is in the formulation.

I do not take any credit for any of the values stated.  The credit need to be given to Dr. Gonzalo Vazquez, Dr. Estrella Alvarez and Jose M. Navaza that was recorded in "The Journal of Chemical Engineering".  All products were supplied by Merck Laboratories and all solutions were prepared to 4 decimal places on identical Sartorius Analytical Balances, but the results were chosen to be represented to only 2 decimal places.

Now @mijostyn we have established your reasoning for your selection of BAK.  Thank you for making that clear, and, in your case, it is TRULY a VERY SIGNIFICANT matter, and one that can not be ignored.  You asked if the BAK is detrimental in any way.  The only detrimental effect is the resultant residue, but more significantly, your level of 7.600% parts by weight is "off the charts" so to speak, which now leads to a more significant level of residue resultant.

But most importantly you need something that will not only will kill the mildew and mold, but also something that will prevent it from further happening.

I have the PERFECT solution for you, and, it is something with which you are very familiar.  The additive is:  2-phenoxyethanol.   It is a hand antiseptic for surgeries, and is in some hand antiseptics, and, is used as a preservative in IV medications and vaccines.

A 1.00% addition is over kill.  A 0.500% represents a 87.5% potency of a 1.00% addition.  (It is non-linear).  Therefore if you were to use 0.500% of 2-phenoxyethanol, it would be much less than the 7.600% BAK you were using.  But you would have NO residue, and the effectiveness is even difficult to compare because the 2-phenoxyethanol is so much more effective.

"I wold like to continue but my "medical demon" is summoning me."  The rest  will have to wait until Wednesday.

In the interim, find out how easy it is for you to obtain the 2-phenoxyethanol.  It is commonly used in labs as well, my wife has some here at home, but. Its’ best before date has long passed.  It is still good and effective but not to the same degree.  Good Luck!  Till later…