@bdp24 @cleeds @dogberry @lewm. @drbond @drkingfish @ericsch @eryoung2k @fleschler @gemoody @jasonbourne71 @jm-audiophilemusiclover @joenies @jwillox @kennyc @kylehildebrant @lewm @llg98ljk @lloydc @mijostyn @mojo771 @moonwatcher @mrthunder @normantaylor @noromance @oilmanmojo @ossicle2brain @pindac @recklesskelly @rhg3 @rich121 @richmon @rtrlover @thecarpathian
I apologize to everyone especially @lewm for allowing my emotions and my medical condition preventing the conclusion of my message to Lewm and others on 30 July 2023 @ 4:40 PM
I determined that I needed to submit another comprehensive statement explaining my issues concerning the undesirable direction of this particular Forum and that it is not proceeding as intended. I wanted to obviously be totally objective and not allow personal experiences and issues interfere with what should be a purely clinical statement.
The following day I logged onto the Forum to be struck by profound but very dissimilar postings. One post was a sincere expression by @lewm that I truly appreciated. The other was a post by a new individual, @drbond, that was very perceptive in its’ nature, and his understanding of both the the objective of the Forum, as well as my visible frustration. His suggestion of listening to music is one of my basic precepts, and his advice in musical selection could not have been better. His selection demonstrated his understanding even further. To the contrary of these meaningful posts was a post made by "Mr. W" which was clearly most disingenuous, even to the extent that it contained an additional caveat to enhance his pretense.
Needless to say, I again found myself unable to present any coherent statement that day and waited for another time while debating my intended presentation.
The next day I logged in again only to discover matters did not improve as "Mr. W" was now again providing his pontifications to matters that were intended for the Forum initiator. "Mr. W" was now not just continuing to contaminate this Forum with his pontifications from his "collage" he calls a book, to essentially abducting this forum for his own intended purposes because of the lack of interest in his own forum that he started over two years ago. The following days continued in a similar manner, it was at this point that I had an additional thought to consider. Since I was still debating as how to best express myself, I considered to allow the Forum to continue as it had, to see if the outcome would approach my recent thoughts to any degree. Never did I imagine that it would continue for such a period of time without a posting by anyone. I obviously must now interrupt this cycle and post some statement.
The last post made was on 6 August 2023 at 9:04 AM. It has now been 22 days without a post even though the views continued at a reasonable rate. One can draw many conclusions from this however I have selected mine. I wanted to understand the fundamental problems that I was unexpectedly having. I now believe I understand, but I must now apologize for the method I selected. I hope everyone understands.
I wish to share my knowledge with those that are interested, however, I do not wish to squander my limited time correcting certain individuals even though their incorrect statements can not remain without being corrected. I also need to be careful because my riposte to certain individuals were considered offensive by them that they resorted to tactics to remove previous well expressed explanations of mine to be temporarily removed - I do not wish that to happen again.
If you find the time, much of this has already been covered from the onset. It is mentioned repeatedly at the beginning of every page, which is the very first post. You only need to read the last three short paragraphs of the first post. Also, the brief statement I made 16 June 2023, and the rather lengthy, but significant, statement that followed on 17 June 2023 at 4:36 PM. I am fully aware that two separate issues are fundamentally in play, however, they are interconnected to some extent.
In common terms there are expressions that are quite appropriate and meaningful, such as, "It only takes one rotten apple to spoil the entire bunch". But, since this is intended to be a scientific and technical Forum, in Chemistry and in Physics there exists the concept of a "nucleating agent". We witness this scientific event every time we prepare pasta. When we bring water to a boil we add salt prior to adding the pasta. The addition of salt at this period causes an "explosion" of millions of tiny bubbles while the salt still maintains its’ crystalline structure and subsides when the salt dissolves. If the salt were to be replaced with crushed glass of the same consistency (not that I would ever suggest doing such) this event would continue unabated. Which brings me to my first segment of my comprehensive statement, that to allow this Forum to continue as intended, we need to avoid the "salting" of the Forum.
This individual, "Mr. W", who has repeatedly stated that he would not waste any of his time with any involvement in this Forum, and said his "final farewells" more than once - FINALLY does keep his word and avoids inserting himself and his incorrect comments once and forever!
This individuals’ verisimilitudic meanderings contribute confusion by negating basic fundamental scientific realities, and in its’ stead inserting his sanctimonious perfunctory beatitudes is disturbing. These ostentatious presentations of his disguised as sagacious posts are nothing more than pernicious deviations that intend to appear didactic on the surface, are in reality, a supercilious exposure that is extremely destructive in nature of very basic facts, which is a fundamental aspect that is sought on this Forum.
This methodology of his, that has obviously served him well in his prior endeavors of his career, is in opposition of my methodology that not only is inherently based solely on substantiated facts but with assiduity and diligence. This methodology of "Mr. W" to attempt to elucidate an issue by continuously providing surfeit data creating a cancatervate of verbiage that is salient of incorrect data and contradicts the basic tenants of TRUE SCIENCE is dangerous and misleading.
I encourage those that are besotted by this individual and his postings to be more astute and aware of these incorrect statements presented as facts are nothing more than his misunderstood interpretations of what "others had written". I ask you to carefully parse his collection of "data" and be aware to segregate his biased misunderstood statements presented as factual while truly being incorrect in a multitude of respects.
I assure you that I am fastidious and that my statements are factual and verifiable. I may mention the work of others, but, never claim those works as mine. And the verifications are not only based on scientific realities, but also verified by me personally. I would never state something as factual unless I could also verify the statements by my own actions if and when necessary.
I would now like to revisit what started this dissertation. After reading Lewm’s sincere message, the disingenuous post from "Mr. W" followed mentioning the "discourse" on Wikipedia about Mr. Hansen. I am relating to actual personal exposures and dealings with these individuals. Working with some of the most brilliant people in the Sciences, as well as with frauds. Personal contacts and personal impressions and interactions, and, "Mr. W" meanwhile is referring me to a comment he read in Wikipedia. And, in this same post he initiates another futile attempt to correct me. (This is not the first time he has made such an attempt but his third). he relates to a "childish reminder" that "20 drops of water is equal to 1 mL of water which is equal to 1 g. of water". He mentions his favorite Nalgene dropper bottle once again. And signs off with a fallacious "Peace".
I have had people correcting me on a variety of things. One individual was correcting me about the Degrees issued at U.K. Universities, such as Oxford, never ever even considering that "Wizzzard" attended one of those Colleges at Oxford University where such degrees are/were issued.
Another individual attempted to correct me by stating that "Chirurgie" is French not Latin, never stopping to consider that Wizzzard studied Latin for six years and ancient Greek for four years and attended a College at Oxford where some subjects were taught in Latin and Greek. Also, never stopping to consider that Wizzzard is fluent in several languages and "functional" in several others. (Latin, and ancient Greek not included, because they are not conversational).
And now "Mr. W" relates "grade school guidelines" about drops and weights, never stopping to consider that I, Wizzzard, actually weighed out two drops of Tergitol 15-S-7 on his $5,600 Sartorius analytical balance. Not just once but five times and taking the average of the five readings. This never crossed his mind because his mind does not even allow such things to ever enter or even be considered. Fact is, that 1 drop of Tergitol 15-S-7 weighs 0.02888 g. So in my presented "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" which is based on parts by weight, I state to use 0.038 g. to produce 1 kg or (Approximately 1 Liter) actually 998.203 ml. of cleaning fluid at 20°C, and, I placed in parentheses "Approximately 2 drops". Two drops will equal 0.0577 g. which is 52% more than required. I know, I knew, that at the onset. My formulation is in parts by weight and many individuals, if not most, do not have the equipment to measure such small quantities, therefor, I had to approximate the amount in drops as well. You can not measure half or quarter drops, so it was only logical to state an amount that would be sufficient, and, 1 drop would NOT meet the requirement, therefor, I stated 2 drops. It is not because I do not know how to calculate, or, how many drops should have been stated as "Mr. W" implied on a few occasions. It troubles me that I need to explain such things and wasting my time instead of providing other meaningful knowledge that I would like to share with everyone. I realize that this is a weakness of mine, but, I can not allow such remarks to exist without correction and explanation. This childish nonsense needs to STOP, and it needs to STOP immediately after this presentation.
When I indicated that the formulation I presented was done by "design", that was entirely correct. I needed to take many things into consideration including the hundreds of formulations incorporated into "Vinyl LP records" over the years and also the hundreds of additives that were used to establish what was to be considered as a "most encompassing vinyl compounded formulation". One of the main objectives was to "do no harm to the recording" besides developing the very best cleaning formulation for such a substrate. This was all very carefully considered before beginning to formulate the cleaning formulation. I did all the necessary mathematical calculations to determine what can be used and to obtain the lowest Surface Tensions at 20 C. and 25 C. BUT, I also had to verify the calculated design by actually measuring the Surface Tensions at the intended temperatures. I did so by using my Stalagmometer developed in the mid 1800’s to measure Surface Tension of liquids and is still the primary device used to this day. I also had to follow the very detailed proper procedure required to obtain the precise Surface Tensions. The Surface Tensions that are stated in conjunction with the formulation presented, are those that were actually measured, by me, using my Stalagmometer. Yes, the mathematical expectations and calculations were very close to the measured values, but, only the actual measured values were stated. I stated only the actual measured Surface Tensions. That is what I refer to as Verification. I hope you can understand why I get upset when someone, or, when someone’s devoted followers questions my statements as mere "suppositions" that require questioning or correction.
Also, as any good Chemist, I use a Stalagmometer to determine the amount of drops required as well to see how it also correlates. A Stalagmometer is a pipet device that has a bulbous midsection with a capillary bottom and a standard upper portion. It comes in three sizes and I have all three with duplicates of #1 and #3. An A.S.T.M. method requires specification of type used for very technical presentations, and, since #1 is used about 95% of the time, and, this was not being presented to The American Chemical Society, but to audiophiles, I found no need to state unnecessary info and clutter a "simple post". I am bringing these matters up only now in order that you understand and appreciate my efforts to be thorough in order that you can have absolute confidence in my statements. I found no need to bore you until this provocateur "Mr. W" has forced me to write these unnecessarily long explanations in order that you may discount his interruptions and have the confidence I seek in those that read and post in this Forum, and are requesting additional information.
Also. "W" keeps referring to the explosive nature of a 22% solution of Ethanol in water, and continues to bring up "Flash Points". Never once being specific as to whether the "flash point" was determined as a "Closed-Cup" or "Open-Cup" flash points. Now back in the days when I attempted to communicate with him, he was extremely offended when I asked him about his Academic qualifications. Since I am keeping my promise unlike his (which has no meaning), I wonder how offended "W’ would be if someone asked him how many "flash point determinations" he has made personally, and, not something again that he had read on Wikipedia?
The day after I turned 14 years of age and received my Social Security Number, I started working at a Public Library (part time) for $27.50 per week on average. Later that same Summer at the age of 14 I began work at a major chemical company. All starters at this company, with the exception of those with their Phd’s or those that were recruited, were required to work for 5 weeks in the Quality Control Lab before moving to an assigned Lab. Whether you had your Masters or your Bachelor’s or nothing - this was the requirement by the C.E.O. of the company to familiarize yourself with all incoming raw materials including solvents, and intermediates produced, and finished products, including water-bornes that contained solvents, etc.. It was a great introduction. The Lab had individuals that worked only in Quality Control as well as the 5 week transients that moved on to other areas. One of the many tests I learned to preform was "flash point determinations", both Open-Cup and Closed-Cup. Other tests included measuring Surface Tensions of Liquids including solvents, and solvent blends, and intermediates via the method I previously mentioned as well as other methods. "Bottom Line ", at the age of 14, I preformed hundreds of both "Open-Cup and Closed-Cup Flash Point Determinations" that Summer before being transferred to "The Conductive Lab". I was paid $136.00 per week. That was a lot of money for a 14 year old in 1958 as a Summer employment job. So, you might say that I have a pretty good understanding of "Flash Points" even at a very early age, and also had an excellent understanding of the results and their significance. So, who is going to ask "W" how many "Flash Point Determinations" he has done personally, but, more importantly, what is his understanding of results, if any. I have a notion that this question need not be asked, and I believe I already know the answer based upon his previous comments.
Another point that "Mr. W" had made that ruptured a blood vessel in my brain on 8 July 2023 at 3:35 PM, and I paraphrase, "Vinyl record is a co-polymer of PVC and PVA". As I have stated many times do not make statements that you know absolutely nothing about.
Since "Mr. W’s" "book" is primarily a collection of works of others with inserted charts and graphs, and references to papers and other documents with notations of additional material that must or should be looked into, I do not know who is actually responsible for this monumentous error. Is "W" the initiator, or, is he just parroting statements of others, because I have noted this error at other locations and papers, therefor, I am in no position to pass any judgement. However, it is an excellent example of a terrific error not being corrected immediately and subsequently allowed to flourish unchecked. I will now correct this once and forever. "Vinyl LP records" are NOT MADE of a Co-Polymer of PVC and PVA. PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) is a Homopolymer. PVA, or more correctly PVAc (Polyvinyl acetate) is a Copolymer. The mixture of both is NOT a Copolymer. In Industry, a blend of these two ingredients is most frequently referred to as an "Admixture"! Stating that it is a Copolymer is an enormous and important mistake, because, if that were the case it would be impossible to process as vinyl pressings are made. [It is my understanding that LG has been able to make a copolymer very recently with limited success in 2019 to reduce costs of enhanced PVC products by avoiding incorporating specialized polyurethanes that make the end product more expensive.] An addition of 8% (plus or minus) 1.5% significantly upgrades the physical properties of PVC polymers. (I might add that I am the original developer of these specialized polyurethanes to be incorporated into PVC components). If LG can develop a more extensive range it would allow upgraded PVC’s to be made for a little less money, but, the volumes of PVC are substantial, and, basically this little amount of money can actually become in total a lot of money. I apologize for deviating, but you see this development is very new and limited in scope, but, still would never be able to be processed as records are made.
Now onto another statement by "W" when discussing with @mijostyn about a "typical" vinyl formulation developed by RCA in 1976 (one point) and using epoxidized soybean oil which is "very stable" (second point). This formulation is probably one of the worst examples of something that is "typical". From what I have gathered, there appear to be many serious audiophiles who are well educated far beyond the norm and many appear to be of an older generation based upon their statements. I am certain that many may recall "RCA Dynaflex" and the "wonderful sound" of these thin flexible recordings. Yes, I am being factious! Well that is the formulation presented as typical. How many of you have any in your collection? Using epoxidized soybean oil - how cheap can you get. I assure you, off-hand I can not think of anything less expensive, other than the Toluene, that was also used as a "plasticizer". Now this is a very remarkable technical subject, and, I mean that seriously, but, Toluene is very unique and I can go on for hours about this uniqueness - but it is also totally unrelated to the subject matter at hand. Forgive me again! To say that epoxidized soybean oil is very stable is again one of the most ridiculous statements made. It decomposes RAPIDLY when exposed to sunlight or light at and near the UV spectrum. That is why it is used and advertised as biodegradable because it is very much so. A mere 15 minutes exposure to sun light initiates a decomposition process that can not be abated.
When I developed the Formulation I presented, I had to take many matters into consideration. One matter that is completely overlooked is the number of "Vinyl Formulations" and the additives for the formulations. A very important matter is the assumption of a "typical formulation". Many people would be surprised if I tell them that I had to consider Hundreds of formulations. Yes hundreds, and I am only considering the basics. Most people do not realize during certain periods from around 1950 to 1990 the main ingredient of "vinyl records" were, in fact, Polystyrenes - yes, it’s true your "vinyl recordings" were actually "polystyrene recordings". Not that they were ever called that but that was the case. So, I also needed to consider what affected various polystyrenes based on the criteria "do no harm". Many of you have "vinyl records" that are actually "polystyrene records", and, do not think that this is a small number. It is possible that half of your collections are in fact polystyrene.
Much has to do with your choice in music. much with your favorite labels, much had to do with the time period. Many recordings were for all intents and purposes polystyrene. Many others contained varying additions of polystyrene.
Besides your personal selections, in some cases, it was beyond your control (that is, if you were even aware of this situation). The primary reason for incorporating polystyrene had to do with what we in the industry refer to as "Feedstocks". Feedstocks relate to the most basic of materials available and in use. It also has to do with the location of the feedstock, and, let us not forget "Politics" one of the greatest disrupters of all to the chemical and plastics industries. In the 1970’s and the 1980’s many records had no choice but to contain varying amounts of polystyrene due to the oil embargoes. I can go on forever about this subject because it affected all in the chemical and plastics industries. I suggest if you have any specific questions please forward them to me and I will do my best to answer your specific question. Examples, such as why did my Simon & Garfunkel album I purchased in 1970 sounds terrible, or wore out quickly, or competed with "Rice Krispies" on the "snap crackle and pop" sounds, while other releases were just perfect. Perhaps you blamed your stylus or your cartridge. I do know some details and particulars, but, please recall I am a Chemist, a Polyurethane Chemist. But in this matter I think that is the best way to proceed.
Also, I would like you to know that I mentioned that we started our own polyurethane manufacturing facility. We eventually grew and occupied 96,000 square feet, and the business, as most businesses, evolved. Sometimes by choice, sometimes by accident. Never did I imagine that I would be asked to make thermoplastic polyurethane pellets for injection molding equipment. But two companies I knew very well and trusted propositioned us to do just that. This happened in just our 9th year in business. One guaranteed to purchase 5 million pounds per year for five years. The other committed themselves to 1 million pounds per year also for five years. In actuality the one committed to 5 million pounds per year averaged 6.75 million pounds per year. The other took about 2.1 million pounds per year. And they continued to purchase well beyond the original 5 year commitments. Those of you not in Business, this is very significant. We also later established a few smaller customers without any commitments and we also agreed to make some non-polyurethane products for some of our other key customers. This required that I needed to purchase two Bausano twin screw compounding extruders with 5 station temperature control, and with Face-cut Pelletizers that filled product at -40 degrees dew point. "Super cool machines". Nothing against Krauss-Maffei but I preferred the transmissions on the Bausanos and the lower price. At $674,000 per machine, we started with two but quickly added one more, this did not include all the support equipment necessary, just the main toys themselves.
I mention this because as time went buy and things changed, we knew we were going to loose a key account because they were being purchased. Now we had over capacity in this area, so I took on what in the Industry is called "toll processing". We were approached by two resellers of vinyl formulations to high end record making companies. So we made over 3.25 million pounds of product for the recording industry in a two and a half year period. We produced eleven different formulations that were their’s and to there specifications. Actually way beyond their expectations, because it is one matter to have a formula, but it is another matter about the process and equipment used. Using the Bausano to make their product is very different than what the industry normally uses. It is like going shopping in a Ferrari versus a Toyota Corolla. Nevertheless they wherever pleased. This was just before my wife and I decided to retire. I have no idea what is happening now nor do we care any longer. The Governments made matters very frustrating and we could no longer tolerate their interference. I am mentioning this only for the purpose to avoid discussions about anything that I claim to know about "vinyl formulations". I just wanted to "nip it in the bud" so to speak. So, unless you also produced about 3 million pounds of compound for the recording industry, please know what you are talking about before making any posts, especially if you read a "tidbit" inWikipedia. However, I do welcome any questions.
My desire is to share the scientific knowledge with you all. And, I do not wish to be interrupted by those who are not as knowledgeable as they think they are. It is now up to you. I do not need to do this, but, I sincerely wish to share my knowledge in other areas not just cleaning records. I want to listen to records not devote my life to cleaning them. I what to explain my position about ultrasonics without discussing ultrasonics. I would like to discuss lubricants and dampeners. I would like to provide the results about my extensive study in record mat materials. And so on, but, I need your help and assistance. You can not continue to entertain nonsense. I revealed a company that was a con. Instead of agreeing or expressing any gratitude, I had an individual defending these corrupt practices. Again, I require your support.
One last thing before I sign off. And, as a Polyurethane Chemist and Polyurethane Promoter you may not appreciate how difficult this is for me to say. I believe all LP recordings should be made of Polyimides and this should be done as soon as possible. The benefits are enormous, but the outcome is far better than most of you can imagine.
I wish to share my knowledge and continue this Forum. But, ultimately you will make that determination. With your approval and assistance it will be very meaningful for many. As I stated I require your conviction and assistance.
Thank you for listening!
