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!

128x128wizzzard

@lewm,

The KL Audio is 40kHz, with four 50W horizontally positioned transducers, two each side (200W total) with a UT tank volume of only about 0.78L - that is it's a very powerful machine.  Note that the reservoir is 2.4L, but someone recently measured the change in reservoir volume to fill the unit - ergo the UT tank volume.  With the very small volume and amount of power available, it does not need any enhancement with chemistry.

Here is a quick summary of UT concepts and some basic thumb rules:

Ultrasonic tanks 'grow' bubbles Principle-of-ultrasound-cavitation-16-The-initiated-bubbles-grow-due-to-evaporation.png (850×553) (researchgate.net) until the bubble collapses. Watch this video between 6:19 and 8:30 Cavitation - Easily explained! - Bing video to see how the bubble collapses.

Here are the basic thumb rules for ultrasonic tanks:

-The power to produce cavitation is proportional to the kHz, so a 120kHz UT needs more power than a 40kHz.
-For ultrasonic tanks, the bubble diameter is inversely proportional to the kHz, so a 40 kHz UT produces a large bubble than a 120kHz UT.
-The cavitation intensity is proportional to the bubble diameter and the tank power (watts/L) but there is a maximum power above which no addition cavitation intensity is obtained.
-The number of cavitation bubbles produced is proportional to kHz, so a 120kHz produces more bubbles than a 40kHz, but smaller bubbles.
-The smaller the tank volume, the more power that is required. It has to do with the ratio of the tank volume to its interior surface area.
-For lower kHz units (<60kHz), if the tank bath flow rate (from filtering or spinning) >50% of the tank volume per minute, cavitation intensity decreases.

For records, in general, the most difficult items to clean/remove are particulate.  The paper Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces, Aerosol Science and Technology, M. B. Ranade, 1987 (Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces: Aerosol Science and Technology: Vol 7, No 2 (tandfonline.com) shows for aluminum oxide particles, the force (acceleration) required to remove a 10-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^4 g’s, a 1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^6 g’s and a 0.1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^8 g’s. A simple brush or wipe is not going to get the smallest particles/debris that can ‘hide’ in the valleys between the groove side wall ridges. As fluid flows past a surface, a boundary layer is developed and depending on its thickness (upwards of 5 microns) it will essentially shield any particles within it. So, agitation is critical in reducing the boundary layer to expose the surface with its particles to the cleaning fluid and the fluid velocity (shear force) that can remove them.

-The boundary layer thickness is dependent on the ultrasonic frequency (high kHz = thinner boundary layer), acoustic energy, and fluid properties (viscosity & density). To get the most effective cleaning, the complete cleaning process has to penetrate the boundary layer to remove the soil and particles that are contained within it. At 40-kHz, the boundary layer 'can' be as thick as 5 microns, while at 120-kHz, the boundary layer 'can' be as thin as 2 microns.

-Lowering the surface tension of the fluid reduces the energy needed for cavitation and can improve cleaning efficiency - better opportunity to penetrate the boundary layer.  The KL Audio unit does it by brute power.

-But there is a delicate balance with using chemistry and UT that can improve the cleaning efficiency more than the small expense to the cavitation intensity (more an issue with low power units). But use too much chemistry or the wrong chemistry and it's all downhill.

There is an entire science about particle adhesion and removal and if you wish to entertain yourself here is a good book to start with - Particle Adhesion and Removal | Wiley Online Books.  

Beyond all this, if you are going to get into an academic discussion on record cleaning, there is the existential question of just how clean a record needs to be to provide maximum playback fidelity?   From my research, the answer is quite complex and a topic unto itself.  But absent the details, people default to trial and error, and what they hear.   Which is perfectly acceptable, and which is why when someone asks me what is best, I will always say, what is best for you.

Now back to the regular scheduled programming.  

I used a VPI 16.5 since 1981 (with 28,500 LPs and 7,000 78s).  Various solutions were used including one which used ethyl alcohol for LPs as well.  Lastly Disc Doctor.  Then I began using the Kirmuss US with drying in the VPI.  With many used LPs, I found that the sound was uniformly enhanced using just water and/or the water/alcohol solution.  HOWEVER, what is revealed on some used LPs is noise and damage that was done.  So, previous debris covered divits or other imperfections are now exposed and make more noise.  Overall, I love using it and most of my LPs are just quieter with enhanced sound.  

Maybe the only thing we can all agree upon is that a clean record is a bigger upgrade than money spent on downstream components. I have certainly found it so.

cleeds, Have you really experimented with mixtures such as the one recommended by Wizzzard, for your Nitty Gritty, and compared such a mixture with plain water? If you find no difference between the two, using the NG, then I am surprised.  And can only say good for you, or something like that.  I have no US RCM.  I use a VPI HW17, and have done for the past 25 years at least.  My go-to mixture has been distilled deionized water plus IPA plus Triton X100. (Despite Wizzzard's antagonistic attitude toward my posts, I may change the formula thanks to him.) I do find a big improvement with that solution vs water only. I do buy mostly used LPs, but my standards for purchase are very high.  I only buy LPs that appear perfect to my visual inspection and/or are "A" rated by the seller, and I really only buy from one local vendor who has been reliable or from Disc Union, in Tokyo, on occasions when we are visiting our son who lives there.  Which is to say I don't buy junk from Goodwill or sight unseen off eBay.  And yet the alcohol and nonionic detergent containing solution obviously works better than plain water.  I do also rinse with plain distilled water after the first wash cycle.  That clearly makes a difference too.

Are your assertions supported by clinical trials, control groups, or pier review? If not, any claim to ' proof of efficacy ' OR lack of long term consequences is specious.