The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

@ljgerens 

I must have been having some bad days.  I recently purchased a new Mac Pro and a 32 inch (for old geezer eyes) 6k XDR Display while providing my wife with my previous Mac Studio and Studio Display.  All this while "suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune".  Further demonstrating my incapabilities of multitasking.  Therefore creating self-confusion.

Nevertheless my request to you, and to you specifically, was to obtain specifics about your own ultrasonic cleaning device you constructed for you own purposes, while also providing details (specifications only) of the various machines that you are aware of that are specifically designed and sold for cleaning vinyl records and vinyl records only.

As I mentioned to @rich121 earlier:   

[ I had requested information from Ljgerens.  And, I had written the following:  "Basically, I know all that I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning"

  Ultrasonic Cleaning - is a "Process"

  A vinyl record - is an "Object".

  A Ultrasonic Cleaner designed to clean vinyl records - is a "Device" 

I suggest you consult a dictionary to investigate the meanings of the three very different words are, that is, Process, Object, and Device.

And' yes, "I do know all that I need to know about Ultrasonic Cleaning"! When you have purchased more than several machines, some of which that did cost over $150,000.00, you tend to know a sufficient amount of information about the process and the specific devices that you had purchased, installed, and operated.

I was inquiring about the devices mentioned so far in this forum, because, I have not seen ANY specifics mentioned.  I mentioned just a few specifications to be congruent of a proper sentence structure, nothing more.  Neither Ljgerens, nor anyone else has yet to respond.  However, I did state that there is no immediate concern, just, that, at some point, I am provided some specific specifications before I make any response.  That is all, nothing more and nothing less. ]

My experience with Ultra Sonics  and vinyl record cleaning was more of a "giggle"at best, when I used one of our Lab Cleaners, which was an unusual valuable variable frequency (with limitations, of course) machine.  It was required because we were "Self- Certifiable" with regard to CSA Standards, and they specified certain criteria and equipment that we had to meet on a regular basis.  It was a pain but well worth it in the long run.

So, basically I know nothing about the machines that are being used for record cleaning, and, nothing has ever been mentioned by anyone else previously.  So, I am asking you for an outline and a brief synopsis, if and when you have the time.  There is no urgency but I would like to know some particulars before I voice any comments about the Chemistry and Physics aspects only that are involved.

Based on you previous posts I am requesting this information from you and only you because I sense that I can "trust" your information.

Also, sorry about the misunderstanding about your access to an Electron Microscope, however, that was also stated more in jest than in reality.  It is obvious that an Electron Microscope can and would be able to detect the perfluoropolyether as well.  I was intending to relate how little lubricant is in this particular product with the intent to express the insignificance of the quantity in the product in relation to the outrageous claims made by the firm.

I am sorry to have confused the matter, and I request your understanding and forgiveness.

Please keep me informed if you have the time available.

Thank you very much for your understanding in advance.

Wizzzard

@pindac 

cc:  @mijostyn ​​@lewm 

I remembered your original post, and I reviewed that you made that statement on 11 June at 11:46 AM that you have used Dehypon LS 54 nonionic surfactant as a substitute for Tergitol 15-S-9 and you noted that my recommendation was for Tergitol 15-S-7 and NOT Tergitol 15-S-9.

Somewhat later that same day, 11 June at 6:06 PM I stated that I intended to phone an old friend who is now retired but was the V.P. of Research and Development of BASF in Germany.  And that it was my turn to call him because he phoned me last just before Christmas last year.  Nevertheless, he is now on vacation (typical in Germany) so I will not be able to speak with him until about mid-August.

In the interim, perhaps, I can help a bit.  I am familiar with BASF’s “coding” system, so allow me to explain what Dehypon LS 54 really is.  First the name Dehypon simply is a Registered Trade Mark Name BASF has selected for a particular series.  The “L” in LS 54 stands for Laurel Alcohol.  Laurel Alcohol is a “common name” for Dodecanol.  Dodecanol contains exactly 12 Carbon atoms, and is a “Fatty Acid Alcohol” (I will explain).  Laurel Alcohol, as I stated is a common name which is based on what it is derived from.  Because of the derivative (today most likely coconut oil and / or palm oil), it can contain either 12 Carbon atoms or 14 Carbon atoms.  (13 Carbon atoms is a very rare possibility and is very unlikely).  And that is why you may sometimes see it written as C12-C14.  Fatty Acid Alcohols have an even number of Carbon atoms because of the nature of the fatty acid it is made from.  So, that takes care of the “L”.  The “S” stands for Secondary Alcohol.  And, as I stated in another post, that means, that the Hydroxyl Group (-OH) which makes an alcohol an alcohol is not located at the end of the molecule but rather at the midpoint of the molecular structure.

The “5” stands for 5 moles of Ethylene Oxide, and the “4” stands for 4 moles of Propylene Oxide.

So, in the case of LS 54, we need to add 5 moles of Ethylene Oxide to 4 moles of Propylene Oxide.  Thus giving us a Total of “9” moles of reactant with the alcohol to produce the desired surfactant.

Do not worry there will be not be a test afterwards.

So, in your first post on this matter you compared it to Tergitol 15-S-9.  Do you now see that both the Dow product and the BASF product are based on Laurel Alcohol and they both use 9 moles to produce the surfactant.  However, and that is a big However.  The Dow product uses Ethylene Oxide exclusively, while, the BASF product uses combination of Ethylene Oxide and Propylene Oxide.

This makes the BASF Dehypon LS 54 an excellent nonionic surfactant to add to a laundry detergent to clean your dirty underwear and dirty socks.  And if you use the BASF product the propylene oxide is better if your underwear and socks are 100% cotton rather than a blend or containing some synthetic fabric.

So yes there is a meaningful similarity of Dehypon LS 54 to Tergitol 15-S-9.  However, my stated formulation calls for Tergitol 15-S-7 because I intend to clean vinyl records and not to launder dirty underwear.

So, while we are at it, lets simplify some of this alcohol classification.  We are aware of the most basic alcohol, Methanol.  Methanol contains only 1 Carbon atom.  It is sometimes called “wood alcohol” because originally it was produced from the destructive distillation of wood.  Next, we have Ethanol which contains only 2 Carbon atoms.  It is produced by the fermentation of sugars (mainly derived from corn starch) with a yeast.  The starches are converted to sugars, and the sugars are fermented to produce  -  Booze  -  or Ethanol.  Next we come to the Propanols'.  Here we have 3 Carbon atoms.  Now the Hydroxyl group (-OH) can be located at the end, which is N-Propanol, or, the (-OH) group can be located the midpoint, which is Isopropyl alcohol.  Isopropanol is the “most simple” Secondary alcohol.  This becomes important for other reasons that continue to be mentioned on this Forum.  “Why Ethanol, and why not Isopropyl Alcohol”  Ethanol is called a Primary alcohol.  Isopropyl Alcohol is a Secondary Alcohol.  “Therein lies one rub”.  I will not get into the complicated reasons at this point as to the “Whys”.  But, Primary Alcohols react in specific ways in which Secondary Alcohols can not.  Likewise, Secondary Alcohols react in specific ways in which Primary Alcohols can not.  Very distinct reactions with very distinct consequences.  This pertains to all Primary and Secondary alcohols.  That is why differences are noted in the end results.

Butanol, also known as Butyl Alcohol contains 4 Carbon atoms.  It is the First in the series of “Fatty Acid Alcohols, and, you can go up to 30 Carbon atoms which is called Tricontanol.  So, the vast

majority of alcohols are “Fatty Acid Alcohols” and all are made by the same process.  And with rare exceptions the number of Carbon atoms is an even number.  To make odd number Fatty Acid Alcohols other unusual steps need to be taken. (No reason to go there.)

Nobody ever need to know more about alcohols unless it is your career.

I promise to find out if BASF has a product identical to Tergitol 15-S-7.  But, in the interim the BASF Lutensol LA more closely resembles the 15-S-7 because it uses 7 moles of Ethylene Oxide and no Propylene Oxide.  However, the “A” in Lutensol LA stands for a Primary alcohol.  The “L” stands for Laurel alcohol again.  There are no numbers that follow because that purports that “7” moles are reacted to make the surfactant.

If you continue to use Dehypon LS 54 follow the following formula:

  Distilled Water                          77.900%  parts by weight

  Ethanol                                      22.000%  parts by weight

  Dehypon LS 54                          0.100%  parts by weight (Approx. no less than 5                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                             no more than 6 drops)        

  Total                                        100.000%

If Lutensol LA is readily available, then follow the following formula:

  Distilled Water                     77.930%  parts by weight

  Ethanol                                22.000%  parts by weight

  Lutensol LA                           0.070%  parts by weight  (Approx. 4 drops no more) 

  Total                                   100.000%

Can I post now?

THAN YOU!!

@cleeds 

Go in a dark room with a flashlight and look at the beam from the side. That is the stuff that lands on your record when you use an evaporative drying technique on a record open to air. To dry the record correctly you would have to buy a vacuum machine causing a messy PITA. The KL uses the same fluid over and over again. It does filter particulates but can not filter substances that are dissolved. Ideally you would have to change the water with each cleaning, another PITA. 

@wizzzard 

Hi Wiz, please pardon me if I intrude. Having researched this recently I think I can provide most of what you are after. Please comment as I am not an expert on ultrasound machines for cleaning. I can scan your gallbladder:-)

The Degritter pulses a sweep of 120 to 125 Hz @ 300 watts. It is the only machine that pulses. I suspect this is to keep the water from heating up with obvious consequences. It is the most powerful unit.

Audio Desk does not publish its specs. It has a reputation for breaking.

Kirmuss 35 kHz @ 220 watts If you want a good giggle, read his literature.

Vevor 40 kHz @ 180 watts. 

KLAudio 40 kHz @ 200 watts total 

All these machines use an evaporative drying technique. All reuse dirty water although some filter it. All use a method of cleaning that is very difficult to validate which should raise everyone's antena. You can use 4000 psi pressurized water to spray off a dirty car. You will remove some dirt but you will not have a clean car without picking up a mit and using some elbow grease. I have seen jewelry come out of an ultrasound machine spick and span using 150 degree F water and dish soap. It can not remove tarnish! Suggested frequency is 80 to 130 kHz. Higher frequencies get into smaller places and are less likely to cause damage. 50 to 100 watts/gallon is recommended. Knowing this it would seem that the Degritter is more likely to be effective and kinder to the vinyl. But, this is an assumption and assumptions are the mother of all F-ups. 

The machine I eventually decided on cleans both sides of the record three times with fresh fluid each time then vacuum dries the record bone dry. A full cycle takes 2 maybe 3 minutes.  I have to fill the reservoir and drain the refuse tank every 30 cleanings. 6 microfiber pads need to be changed once a year or so costing $40.00

mijostyn

Go in a dark room with a flashlight and look at the beam from the side. That is the stuff that lands on your record when you use an evaporative drying technique on a record open to air ...

My Klaudio machine doesn’t dry in open air, because it’s installed in the Klaudio isolation box. That also has the advantage of containing the machine's noise.

Perhaps someday, @mijostyn, you’ll actually witness one of these machines in operation in real life. Then you’ll see how it’s a convenient, trouble-free, one-button solution to record cleaning.