The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

@mijostyn 

I just arrived at the conclusion that if you are to await my "prepared hand response", and, the time it would take me to key in in onto the forum, you may not receive it until after the Summer, or, perhaps, even after the "Rapture".   (Perhaps, a bit of exaggeration).

Therefore, I have determined just to simply comment on some points you covered in your collective postings, and provide a comment or response.  And, if you have a particular issue in mind, you can relate back to the categories I have placed them in.  Also, I do not have sufficient details of some particular subjects to accurately determine and calculate an appropriate formulation that will accommodate all your requirements.  When I have that info, then the process is much easier for me to do, rather than review the "grand scheme of related issues".  So, here we go:

A.). You made a statement in a post, and I quote, "Ultrasonic Cleaning is an unfortunate Fad".  In only 6 words you have expressed yourself so succinctly, I can not conceive a more concise and accurate way of expressing that position.  I congratulate you and admire the clarity.  Obviously, you will not find any disagreement from me in this matter, so I will move on.

B.)  Your "residue" experience buy placing 1 cc. of store purchased distilled water leaving residue on a black glass plate is NOT related to the water.  I decided to duplicate what you did in a somewhat different manned.  First, I used 3.5 inch clear glass slide plates that would fit onto my wife’s $13,000.00 Leica microscope.  I should inform you that our house is heated and cooled via forced air.  In addition to a pre filter, we have installed the largest Electrostatic Air Cleaner that is made for residential purposes by Honeywell.  Afterwards the air flows to a combo activated carbon after filter.  Also awe have throughout the house 3 of the largest HEPA room filters made by Honeywell as well.  One of these is in my home office where I conducted the tests.  The Temperature that day in the office was 68 F, and the Relative Humidity was 35%.  I should state we live in the country in a rather dusty environment due to the clay soil, and, at the time we were being affected by the wildfires in Quebec.   

I injected 1 cc of store bought distilled water onto the plate.  It created a slightly irregular 36 mm diameter circle.  I did the same with double distilled water, and then did the same using my "formulation", that is when I noticed "I needed a bigger boat".  It had spread across all the glass.  The "formulation" evaporated in 13 minutes.  The two water samples went beyond 3 hours and 45 minutes.  This is where I gave myself a failing grade. I forgot to either change or check the battery in the timer.  Whoops!  Did look at the samples after 9 hours under the microscope.  Ignore this initial test.  Changed the amount of sample material to 0.20 cc for all samples.  Ran all the following: Store-bought Distilled Water,  Double distilled water, my "Formulation", Tetrahydrofuran, Freon 113 (1,1,2 trichloro-1,2,2, trifrluroethane), Acetone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Ethanol (95.6% pure with water), Cosmetic Grade Isopropyl Alcohol (99.999% purity), Butanol, Toluene, Heptane, Hexane, and Naphtha.

My wife examined the residue, basically because she is great at identifying "things".  Also, she probably does not like me "playing" with her Leica microscope.  Now, I can swamp you with details, however, the results became very obvious very quickly.  First, let me state there was NO DIFFERENCE between the store bought distilled water, and the double distilled water which was run through a 4 stage deionizing unit prior to distillations.  Second, all the residues were basically very, very similar.  The major residue (37%) was particles caused by the clay environment, (34%) was "house dust", surprisingly (15% to 18%) were from dust particles from the Sahara Desert.  Said, surprisingly because of the wind direction at the time and the time of year.  The other (12% to 13%) was organic in nature.  Dead skin deposits, insect parts and debris.  No ash was noted or identified.  Obviously, the most abrasive material was from the Sahara and afterwards the clay particulates.  I believe insect bits would also be abrasive.

But, the AMOUNT of residue was directly related to the evaporation rates.  Freon 113 having the least (basically nothing) followed by the others.  Pure ethanol did well.  The "Very Best Record Cleaner Formulation" did well primarily because of the Azeotropic chacteristics, but also related to the Surface Tension because it covered a far greater area for the evaporation to occur.

So, there you have it.  The residue formation is essentially related to EVAPORATION RATE and SURFACE TENSION.  Keep in mind, that unlike your original formulation that also contained a very large quantity of BAK, these test samples contained NOTHING ELSE except my 'Formulation" that contained a minute of Tergitol 15-S-7.

C.)  How did you make out locating and obtaining the 2-phenoxyethanol?  To prevent mold growth.

D.). I find vacuum cleaning of records extremely convenient and effective.  As I mentioned to someone else, I was given a VPI-HW17 Record Cleaning Machine from someone that I had purchased other items.  That was 28 years ago and never considered anything else.  When I am lazy, I also take "Short-Cuts", which seems to be O.K. as well, as long as I am using my formulation and not rinsing, just air-drying in both cases.

E.)  We need to discuss your static problem and avoid including another ingredient if it is not necessary.  If we determine it is necessary, then I can suggest non-ionic surfactants that are specifically designed for such purposes.  Not saying that cat-ionics,  quaternary ammonium salts are not great antistatic agents.  But, they are not necessary, and, especially at the levels you introduced.

I have no idea what kind of turntable you have.  You did not say.  And that would help.  Bun, let me take a guess by reading you and your posts "between the lines" as I did the Triton X-100.  I believe you may have a SOTA.  Either a SOTA Cosmos, or, an adaptation from SOTA.  Nevertheless,  you should not be generating THAT much static that consistently, and that frequently.  No disrespect to SOTA (if it is a SOTA), or, any other quality turntable manufacturer.  However, sometimes turntable manufacturers overlook some basics.  I assume they are using vacuum tubing.  I know that the vacuum is not great and does not necessarily need vacuum tubing, but, they shouldn’t skimp in this area for pennies.  If it is vacuum tubing, I hope that it is CONDUCTIVE, or, at least SEMI-CONDUCTIVE, and that all the fittings are made of either copper (preferred), or, a conductive material.  And, that this is all grounded properly.  Also, the vacuum pump should be shielded with copper coated foil, or copper foil, or copper mesh which is also grounded.  I do not know, I have never examined a vacuum clamping system or investigated it, nor, do I intend to, other than the turntable that you possess.

If this was not done, then it should be corrected, and I can help you. So, I would need that information first.  Because if you attend to this matter in this way, you do not need to consider additives.  I will await your information.  If it is attended to already as outlined, then I would require some other specifics to make accurate calculations and give you some alternative options to consider.  There are Non-ionic surfactants that would be incorporated at much lower levels.  Surfactants such as DOWFAX 63N10, or DOWFAX 20B102, or ECOSURFTM Bright 12 Surfactant.  Or, other items such as Polyethylene Glycol with a Equivalent Weight of 200, or, amines, such as DETA (Diethylenetriamine).  But, we can cross that bridge when we arrive there.

First feedback on the CONDUCTIVITY of the turntable system, if than necessary, answers to a series of questions before I speculate any further.  I just wanted to tell you these things because you have options, and, they are very good options.

I have some other matters, but, it may be best that I await your feedback.

Take care.  Till a later time again, hopefully, it will not be so long this next time.

Thank you for listening.

@wizzzard ,

Great experiment Wiz. Thank your wife for me. It backs up my argument against evaporative and for vacuum drying. Any silicone residue is disastrous for both record and stylus wear. I think you should make the experiment the subject of another post. 

I have a Sota Cosmos with vacuum sporting a Schroder CB arm and either a MSL Signature platinum, MC Diamond or Lyra Atlas SL cartridge. 

The turntable is well grounded. The  tubing is plain neoprene as far as I can tell And the pump is well shielded and four feet away from the table. You can not hear it run at all. I use a Hudson conductive sweep arm during play and ALWAYS use a dust cover during play. Records are NEVER allowed to sit out.

After playing a record side, if I remove an untreated record immediately, with the lights off, you can see and hear the sparks jump to the nearest grounded item which would be the cartridge! The mat is not conductive and very thick. If I leave the record on the platter, within 10 minutes the record will discharge probably via the spindle and there will be no noticeable charge. This is a wonderful example of how static electricity is a surface phenomena. Discharge is being slowed by the label as the paper is at the opposite side of the triboelectric series to PVC. The static is being generated at the surface of the mat. Making the surface conductive would be the only way I can think of to resolve the problem. Graphite powder would do it but it would contaminate the records. Very fine wire netting or fabric in contact with the spindle might work as long as it does not interfere with establishing a vacuum. I have not found any suitable material. I could also contaminate the mat with an ionic substance, an experiment I keep meaning to try.  BAK in the cleaning formula definitely works extremely well but leaves a residue on the records. It is readily dissolvable in water, easy to clean off. It does not accumulate. I can see it on the stylus after 7 or 8 sides. (under the microscope) It cleans right off. 

I have switched to ethanol and Tergitol. I use a Clearaudio Double Matrix Sonic Pro which is a beautiful machine and the importer, Musical Surroundings is a wonderful company to deal with. I was lucky and got an open box unit with a full warranty at a 20% discount just before the last price increase. IMHO it is the best record cleaning device out there. You put a record on it push one button and 2-3 minutes later you have a perfectly clean and dry record, both sides. The secret to successful record cleaning is spending as little time as you can doing it. 

@mijostyn 

E.). Forgot Scales.  You can buy very good weigh scales on eBay for just &15.00 each.  You need to buy two, one in 2 decimal places, the other in 3 places.  O.K. they ar not  a Mettler or  a Sartorrius, but, they are decent.

@wizzzard I appreciate your expertise, and your desire and willingness to share your knowledge of record cleaning solutions. For me, your first post was enough, and I appreciated someone willing to share what they think is best. Very helpful.

Personally, while the rest of the five page thread may have been helpful, it was of little interest to me; and honestly, at times became tedious, acrimonious, and opinionated to the point I could not, or chose not to, follow it. No disrespect meant to the many very smart people here, just sharing my experience.  I have ADD.

In that same spirit, I would like to take you up on an earlier offer. I would be interested in your suggestions for turntable damping, and record mat materials.

Thank you for your commitment to providing information. I hope your family’s health conditions become easier to manage for you all.

Best regards.

PS: if you come back, suggesting Townsend pods, I might be suspicious. << That last sentence was an old inside joke. Don’t take it personally.

Please forgive me; I’m using a cell phone on a moving train. I’ve been doing some research on how alcohols affect surface tension of water, here on the train. I found this publication from 1995: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/je00019a016

The tables therein suggest that for a given concentration (by weight) and temperature both 1- and 2-propanol are more effective at lowering the surface tension of water, compared to ethanol at the same conditions. For example, at 25 degrees C and 25% concentration (w/w), the surface tension of ethanol:water was found to be 35.51. Whereas the respective surface tensions of 1- and 2-propanol:water solutions was 26.64 and 28.78. In this study they did not look at 22% ethanol:water and so may have missed the minimum inflection point that Wizzzard noted. But at both 20% and 25%, the propanols were superior at least with respect to lowering surface tension of water. So I am still not clear what’s wrong with IPA or propanol. Thanks for any guidance.