With 28,500 LPs and 7,000 78s, I often must clean records prior to play. I used the VPI 16.5 for 35+ years using a few formulations including disc doctor. Then I bought Kirmuss ultrasonic cleaner. Much quieter and easier with just distilled water, dried on the VPI. It cleans vinyl and shellac. No problem with the process, unfortunately, it also uncovers damage hidden by dirt and debris in the grooves of used records. So, I often end up with a noisier record post-cleaning. The benefit of the ultrasonic cleaning is superior resolution and overall sound quality from the record. Using a high end audio system, the "new" noise from wear and damage is obvious, for many listeners it may not be. So I do recommend ultrasonic cleaners that safely work at cleaning records despite the potential increased noise(s) from damaged/worn records.
The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"
The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"
I am providing this formulation for all who are interested in the very best, and can be proven and demonstrated to be the "Very Best". It can easily be made from available ingredients. On the surface, it appears to be very simple. However, it is based on extensive complex chemistry along with precise mathematical calculations and verifiable data.
You may use it with absolute confidence and be truly assured that it is beyond doubt the "Very Best". You may use it for your personal needs. Or, archival entities may use it for their purposes with confidence. Or, you may choose to start an enterprise that makes and packages quantities as either a "ready-to-use" or a "Semi-concentrated" version for sale and distribution knowing that nothing better exists. You have my blessings and encouragement with one condition. And, that is, that the pricing represents a "fair margin", and, not an obscene gouging, typical for such products.
Initially, I had prepared a presentation that briefly introduced myself, and provided the thought processes, design parameters, and the necessary basics of chemistry, physics, and mathematics to assure you and allow you to be absolutely confident in this formulation. I made a considerable effort to keep it as simple, but, also as thorough enough to achieve this confidence. However, that presentation entailed 5,239 words, typical of such a requirement, however, unacceptable in length by this website forum.
I have no option other than to offer the formulation as a 100% parts by weight version suitable to produce 1 Kilogram of the cleaner, and, invite you to question me about any aspect of the formulation.
Professionally, I am a Chemist, more specifically a Polyurethane Chemist. I have a Doctorate in Chemistry as well as two other Doctorates and a M.B.A.. I held prominent positions in significant corporations before being encouraged to start our (wife and I) manufacturing facility servicing those I previously worked for. We started, owned, and fully operated this business. We eventually obtained 85+% Market Share in our sector in Medical, Automotive, Sporting Goods, and Footwear areas before retirement.
The Audio Industry is extremely technical and many brilliant minds have contributed their talents over the decades in order that we may enjoy music today as we choose. Like many other technical industries, those of lesser minds and values invade the arena with their "magical" inspired revelations and offer their "magical" ingredients and items to all at extremely high prices. They promise that if only we are willing to part with our money - they can provide these items to you that make your audio system sound as if the orchestra, or vocalist, is in your room with you. And, after all, "magical items" must be expensive, otherwise, they would not be "magical".
This disturbs me enormously, and, it is for such reasons, I feel compelled to provide realistic and truthful information that conforms to basic Engineering, Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematical Principals in those areas with which I am very knowledgeable and familiar.
"Ultimate Record Cleaner Solution"
Ingredient Amount by Weight (Grams)
Distilled Water 779.962
Ethyl Alcohol 220.000
Tergitol 15-S-7 (Dow Chemical) 0.038 (Approx. = 2 Drops)
1,000.000
Important and/or Relevant Criteria
1.) Distilled Water ONLY. Do not use deionized, tap, rain, or spring water. Distilled Water is readily available in most grocery stores. Check labeling to be certain that it is distilled and not deionized. The pricing is comparable.
2.) Ethanol must be purchased at a "Liquor Store" or a "Liquor Control Board" that is suitable for human consumption, and the appropriate taxes must be paid. This assures that the alcohol consists of only Ethyl Alcohol and water. You need to purchase the 95+% version, also known as 180+ Proof. NOTHING ELSE is acceptable. (100% Ethyl Alcohol is not available under "normal" circumstances). Denatured alcohol from a Hardware Store or elsewhere is PROHIBITED, as well as ANY other alcohols.
3.) Tergitol 15-S-7 is made by Dow and is available on the internet in small quantities from Laboratory Supply Houses such as Fisher and Advance, etc.. I have no affiliations with either Dow Chemical, or Fisher, or Advance. You MUST use Tergitol 15-S-7 ONLY. No other Tergitol product is acceptable for this designed formula, and you need to acquire the undiluted form only.
4.) The above cleaner formula will result in a non-foaming (VLF) Surfactant Formulation that exhibits the following:
Surface Tension of 28.5 dynes/centimeter @ 20 C. (68.0 F.)
Surface Tension of 28.2 dynes/centimeter @ 25 C. (77.0 F.)
5.). A Surface Tension of 28.5 dynes/centimeter is Remarkable and will properly clean records of all organic soilings, and all oily substances, as well as very significant amounts of inorganic soilings. This available Surface Tension coupled with the Azeotropic Characteristics of very rapid evaporation and spotless drying occur because of the selection of Ethyl Alcohol and the very specific concentration determined as 22.00% p.b.w., further improves the products abilities. The "Ease-of-Use" and "Spot-Free" results are to be accepted.
6.). Be aware that an "ideal temperature of use" also exists for this formulation. And, that reasonable temperature is 40 C. (104.0 F.). Further increases in temperature offers no improvement, therefore, confirming the proper use of the term "ideal". I mention this not because of of any substantial improvement, but, only to be aware of its’ existence. And, if you have a choice to utilize a room that is warmer than another, select the warmer room closer to 104.0 F. There is no need to elevate the temperature of the records or the materials. Simply be aware that 104.0 F. Is ideal.
If interest is expressed in this submission, I am willing to provide additional submissions regarding other materials, and, other areas of interest. Such as"Best Contact Substance", "Best lubricants for turntables", " Better Dampening Materials" for turntables and tonearms, and, most significantly, "Best" material for "Turntable Platter/Vinyl Record Interface" usually called "Record Mats". The last item will certainly disturb many individuals and anger many suppliers.
Whatever I may contribute is substantiated by Science and Testing, and Verifiable. Science has no Opinions. Opinions in these matters are best reserved for those who rely on their imagination and wishful thinking.
Also, I have no vested interests in this Industry. Simply possess some scientific knowledge that also relates to some aspects of the Audio Area, and I am willing to share that information if requested!
- ...
- 470 posts total
lewm posted "Have you identified molecules that elute with IPA? In this regard, is ethanol safer? Thx." @lewm The main additives diffusing to the surface with concentrated alcohols were identified as plasticizers as well as some stabilizers, scavengers and conditioners. Ethanol and Propanol behaved similarly in this regard although I did not study this in great detail with vinyl records so there may be subtle differences. I was not able to detect any leaching of additives with alcohol concentrations <10% for a few minutes exposure. |
Can you describe exactly how you did these experiments? As noted, I am only concerned about very short term exposure to 22% Ethanol vs 25% IPA. I certainly don't expect you to repeat your work to appease me, but it would help to better understand your methodology for studying the effects of lower concentrations of various short chain alcohols. |
cc: @ljgerens @cleeds @dogberry @rich121 @noromance Just returned home earlier today. Have some appointments tomorrow. Intend on posting some responses Wednesday, 5 July 2023. Have no more time today. However your last post is staring me right in my face as I type. If you are going to ask ljgerens a question at least get your question correct. Apples to apples, and, oranges to oranges. Remember that one? You finally stated a few posts earlier that you are using deionized water, and "laboratory grade isopropyl alcohol that is 98.00% alcohol. You also stated that you are using Triton X-100, but, you did not state how much you incorporate. And, you stated that your formulation is by volume. If you are comparing your formulation to The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" that I posted, than you question to ljgerens should read: "...exposure to 22.000% Ethanol vs 19.635% IPA". The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" is stated in parts by weight, not by volume. Also, if you persist on "beating this dead horse", and insist on using your 98.00% IPA with your deionized water (recall, I told you I have no difficulties with your deionized water), and Triton X-100 (which is acceptable (refer to my post to @mijostyn )), then, at least formulate it at the "best correct balance". Your formulation in parts by weight, would then be as follows: Deionized water. 804.772 grams Isopropyl alcohol (98.0%). 195.000 grams Triton X-100 0.228 grams Total Weight: 1,000.000 grams There is no need to use more than 19.5% of your 98.00% in parts by weight, or, which is by volume 24% not 25% The primary inflection point of your IPA with regard to Surface Tension at 20 degrees C. PLEASE, look back when you first asked the question about "Why Ethyl alcohol versus Isopropyl alcohol". I answered your question to you directly on 6 June 2023 at 6:25 PM. You first asked the question only 2 days earlier on 4 June 2023. And, you persist on asking the same question over and over again. And, you ask it of others as well. If you did not understand the answer, why did you not ask a specific question of me about the answer. Because it was answered. I don't understand why you keep asking the same question. Are you expecting a different answer? Because, guess what you already have the CORRECT ANSWER, and had it for 27 days now. It is a different matter if you do not understand the answer. Regards, |
- 470 posts total