@bdp24 @ljgerens @mijostyn @whart
Not something that I thought I would find myself doing. But I feel the need to step in as moderator. My justification in doing so is actually stated in the very initial post about one of the quintessential reasons I posted my “Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation” was in order that people should not be found paying ridiculous high prices for products that cost pennies to make, and for products that may not even provide the claims made by these companies or individuals.
@mijostyn , a person I have learned to respect from his posts, has stated his position about these products produced by The LAST Factory. And, he is correct in doing so. I may be mistaken, but, in his response to @ljgerens he may have gotten the “LAST preservative” mixed up with the “LAST cleaner”. In his brazen enmity and disdain for the worthlessness of the products I find it very easy to understand and accept.
And also Ljgerens did not appear to support any of the products or validate them in any of my readings of his posts. It is exactly as he had stated and that he was only commenting on what is included in the patent and brochures that he has viewed. Nothing more, nothing less.
And @bdp24 , I know you had stated that he “was one of the most ethical persons I have ever known”. He was an excellent hi-fi storeowner Livermore, California. You obviously knew Walter E Davis and was very impressed by him, and, as you state, that he had an extensive technical background and education. I am truly sorry that I must make some “Factual Statements” as has Ljgerens has already made some, I intend to further expound,
First there is no” binder” (whatever that may imply) in The Record Preservative. Mijostyn stated: “lying is an art form among human beings, and that the products are a hoax”. I fully agree with the exception that he should have inserted the word “some” between “among—-and—-human”.
I can only go by the presented information posted the “LAST Factory website”, and the list of products and their claims and their pricing. And by the patent filed by Walter E. Davies and Marion M. Fulk on 1 November 1993 and issued on 14 February 1995. and, that is, U.S. Patent number 5,389,281. First I would like to inform you that my first employer after completing my initial academics chose several people to attend law classes in Patent Law at a nearby University that had an excellent Law School. This is not an unusual activity for some major Corporations, and, do not mistake and I know Patent Law “inside and out”. But, I am surprise that such a Patent was even issued, and, how it slipped by the reviewers to be issued. Any Lawyer knows that the value of the patent is only truly established when it is challenged (if that ever occurs). But there are minimum standards for all claims, the lack of any unrelated or similar existing patents, etc., etc..Perhaps @whart may be interested to contribute with regard to this matter. He did state he was a retired Lawyer, and I realize Patent Law is a Speciality, but, he is certainly better qualified to provide accurate information related to this discussion. I hope he has something to contribute and is willing to do so. It would be sincerely appreciated by me as well as others because my knowledge is limited to several classes in Patent Law. Especially his input with regard to the “claims” made in the patent.
I will discuss “The all-purpose cleaner” and “The record preservative”. “The all-purpose cleaner” is sold in 2 packages. A 2 oz. bottle sells for $38.95, and, a 4 oz. bottle for $58.95. “The record preservative” is available as 2 oz. for $64.95, as 8 oz. for $228.95, and a 16 oz. bottle for $432.95.
“The record cleaner contains 4 ingredients. It is more than 97% deionized water, 2.34% Isopropyl alcohol, 0.01% of an anionic surfactant, and 0.48% of 3,5-dimethyl-1-hexyn-3-ol (a relatively common alcohol). Both the Aerosol OT-75, and the Sulfynol 61 are both very “cheap”. Both commonly used in low cost automotive windshield washer fluid among many other products that require a flow agent and surfactant.
“The record preservative contains only 2 ingredients. The one ingredient is perfluoropolyether (which is covered in a previous post), and as Ligerens also stated as a fluorinated lubricant which he is familiar with as well. This lubricant was originally developed by DuPont Chemical. It is incorporated at a level of 0.055%, and the other 99.945% is a blend of perfluorohexane, perfluoroheptane, and perfluorooctane. The majority of which is perfluorooctane. A blend such as this perfluoroalkane in “Industrial Circles’ is frequently called a “DAG”, which is a various blend allowing the product to be about 50% to 60% lower in cost than a specific ingredient, as in this case, that would be perfluorooctane. Another way of lowering the cost. For the benefit of Mijosyyn in his discussion with Ligerens, it is not a CFC because it contains no Chlorine, not that it matters much, but just to be precise.
Nevertheless, I took the liberty to calculate the raw material costs based on current pricing of materials in what would be considered relatively small quantities, that is, 5 gallon containers versus 55 gallon drum price which would be far significantly lower in price,
The 2 oz. All-purpose record cleaner that sells for $38.95 per bottle contains $0.030 worth of materials.
The 4 oz. All-purpose cleaner that sells for $58.95 per bottle contains $0.060 worth of raw materials.
The 2 oz. of LAST record preservative that sells for $64.95 contains $0.094 worth of raw materials.
The 8 oz. version that sells for $228.95 contains $0.374 worth of raw materials, and the 16 oz. “best value for your dollar” selling for $432.95 contains only $0.748 worth of raw materials.
And, if you believe a major investment in equipment is required, you would be wrong. A 5 gallon Plastic bucket and a stir stick and two scales, a funnel, and a few coffee filters and you are in business. A semi-sophisticated (meaning non-automatic) which would require a variable mixer, and a 25 litre stainless steel mixing vessel, with more accurate scales, and a variable volumetric manual filling device with proper industrial filters, wold cost no more than $2,000.00.
I took only the 16 oz. Record preservative as an example and contacted people that we use to purchase high quality “peel and stick” labels, and a company we purchased bottles from (colorred glass in this case). I am speaking high quality labels, better than those of The LAST factory, and they would be impervious because they would be coated and in three colour printing. I considered employing someone at $55,000.00 annually including all benefits and insurance, including Workers Compensation Insurance, and I calculated the Total Cost to produce a 16 oz. bottle of LAST record preservative to cost only $1.936 per bottle. The same product that you are expected to pay $432.95. That is a whopping 5,595 % Margin. I hope I made my point.
Now, @bdp24, if you believe this to be “ethical" , you need to re-evaluate your meaning of the word. I believe it is abhorrent, and almost criminal. I know it is not criminal, but my beliefs are different than the Law.
The claims, on the other hand, is another matter. Again, I ask if @wart to weigh in with his understanding. Fact, the “preservative” is a lubricant. It provides no preservation of the actual vinyl. And, their statement that it “bonds to the records” is an absolute impossibility. It is a surface application only, no bonding! Also, NO penetration takes place. And, certainly no bonding, even remotely, can take place. The Chemical bond between a Fluoride and another Carbon atom is one of the strongest chemical bonds to exist. In order for bonding to take place, this chemical bond needs the be “altered”, even just slightly, and that is a TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITY! Therefore, this claim is absolutely false.
I stated that I have no intension to ever express any opinions, so, anything else I would have to offer would only offensive. So I will make no other comments other than everything stated is factual and verifiable.
I realize my explanations are, at times lengthy, but I do want to be understood by everyone, and I find it necessary to at least provide enough information in order that I may be understood. I could have been even more detailed, and more technical, and provide even additional information, but I believe this is sufficiently adequate. And, if you have any additional specific questions, I will gladly provide you the necessary answers.
Thank you for your time. I hope this is finally laid to rest!
Wizzzard
