tima's DIY RCM

[tima]

When I was first researching ultrasonic tanks in 2016, I found dozens of different models coming out of China with different features, frequencies, sizes, etc -- with price being the main feature. It was confusing and at the time there was very little guidance on the value of the various features, and what to look for when buying. Today it is difficult to speak beyond what is in an advertisement or a manual without direct experience hands on. Some conjecture based on experience can be reasonable. I don't see any hidden gems or great deals in today's market. -- maybe that will change. I suggest looking at tank and rotisserie together.

Ultrasonic tanks are a commodity as all will wear out, some sooner a few later. The quality of the stainless steel tank to which the cavitators are attached is important -- ask the manufacturer about that. I look for, at minimum, distributor level support in the US.

 

[Neil.Antin]

Sure. An index is very helpful as is a table of contents when they provide links to the relevant page(s).

The book does not have an index, but it does have a drop-down table of contents with links to the beginning of every chapter. If the book is ever revised, I will expand the table of contents to sub-sections.

 

[tima]

The book does not have an index, but it does have a drop-down table of contents with links to the beginning of every chapter. If the book is ever revised, I will expand the table of contents to sub-sections.

Yes. We discussed that before. There is so much information in your book -- both broad and deep.

 

[tony22]

When I was first researching ultrasonic tanks in 2016, I found dozens of different models coming out of China with different features, frequencies, sizes, etc -- with price being the main feature. It was confusing and at the time there was very little guidance on the value of the various features, and what to look for when buying. Today it is difficult to speak beyond what is in an advertisement or a manual without direct experience hands on. Some conjecture based on experience can be reasonable. I don't see any hidden gems or great deals in today's market. -- maybe that will change. I suggest looking at tank and rotisserie together.

Ultrasonic tanks are a commodity as all will wear out, some sooner a few later. The quality of the stainless steel tank to which the cavitators are attached is important -- ask the manufacturer about that. I look for, at minimum, distributor level support in the US.

Thanks Tim. That’s a key point about these pretty much being consumable items. Honestly, it makes me feel a little more in line with trying this less expensive alternative. If only the UC-3240L was larger than 300mm. That would have been the better choice from a fluid capacity perspective.

What an idiot I am! I kept using the maximum center hole diameter of an LP, only now realizing (as I’m looking at my next batch of records being cleaned) the record does not go halfway into the tank! A 300mm tank will work fine. I think I’ll try that UC-3240L.

 

[Jim in Missouri]

rdin suggested I start following this thread. I'm just in the process of catching up but thought I'd better say hello. I see Neil.Antin here, but understand tima , a new name to me, started the thread. I'll try to get caught up before throwing my few cents in, but for background, I'm now using a Degritter MKII and an extensive hand pre-clean process. Prior cleaning routines involved an MW-1 cyclone, AIVS fluids and a short-lived time with a industrial US tank with motorized pole mounted multi disc system. My experience with that rig was not good, but I'm inclined to chalk that up as much to user error as to the equipment itself. It's a learning curve and to that end, while I do find the Degritter MKII a useful tool, I'm at the point of considering it best used as a finishing step, which has led me to reconsider getting set up with something lower frequency to do the heavy lifting.

 

[tony22]

Hi Jim and Merry Christmas. First, get this

Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press

The Third Edition of Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records is a standard reference, covering chemistry, equipment and methods.

thevinylpress.com

and read it. Neil wrote this compendium that many of us use as the standard for record cleaning. It addresses just about every bit of knowledge one might need to understand how all this works, and different ways to get there. What were you unsatisfied with when you used the US tank?

 

[Jim in Missouri]

Hi Jim and Merry Christmas. First, get this

Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press

The Third Edition of Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records is a standard reference, covering chemistry, equipment and methods.

thevinylpress.com

and read it. Neil wrote this compendium that many of us use as the standard for record cleaning. It addresses just about every bit of knowledge one might need to understand how all this works, and different ways to get there. What were you unsatisfied with when you used the US tank?

Thanks, tony22. It's a valuable resource, one I find myself going back to, time and again. And Merry Christmas to you.

 

[Adelmor]

Here's mine just finishing a 15minute interval. After this then vacuuming a lot of stuff sounds clean like digital. But some simply will never get rid of the small pops because it isn't stuff in the grooves. They still sound cleaner even if it's a little beat up. There really is no comparison in cleaning methods in my experience. And you can't beat a post vacuum either. The all-in-one units just can't compete. When you look in the water afterwards you see stuff in it, that stuff can resettle on the LP, so a rinse of some kind is mandatory IMO.


View attachment 66237

HI,

I am new in the forum therefore reading this long thread. Could you pls let me know what is the capacity of your tank, is it 6 litres and are you still using it? How many LPs do you clean each time as I cannot see from the picture.

Tks n rgds

Adelmo

 

[tima]

rdin suggested I start following this thread. I'm just in the process of catching up but thought I'd better say hello. I see Neil.Antin here, but understand tima , a new name to me, started the thread. I'll try to get caught up before throwing my few cents in, but for background, I'm now using a Degritter MKII and an extensive hand pre-clean process. Prior cleaning routines involved an

Welcome Jim. This thread is kind of a history of my ventures into a DIY effort for ultrasonic record cleaning -- written as I went along. From a Loricraft PRC 3 vacuum to an AudioDesk Systeme to a generic Chinese US tank, eventually to the current dual tank (wash/rinse) system and protocol based on Elmasonic and Kuzma equipment. Some consider it state of the art. Along the way, Neil joined in my efforts at The Vinyl Press, where he published his work, and then here. I regard him as the top expert in vinyl cleaning chemistry, he knows pumps and water moving systems,and we are very fortunate to have his participation.

Please feel free to participate as you wish. Poke around -- there's a lot of information here -- and ask any questions in any of the threads. We try to help.

 

[Folsom]

HI,

I am new in the forum therefore reading this long thread. Could you pls let me know what is the capacity of your tank, is it 6 litres and are you still using it? How many LPs do you clean each time as I cannot see from the picture.

Tks n rgds

Adelmo

I believe it is 6L or 6.5L, and I do 3 at a time.

 

[Adelmor]

I believe it is 6L or 6.5L, and I do 3 at a time.

Many tsk for the information.

Best rgds

Adelmo

 

[tima]

This post is a carry-over from the discussion in the thread "Ultrasonic Cavitation & Cleaning Explained". The quotes are from that thread. I put this follow-up here in my DIY thread because it is specific to my Elmasonic/Kuzma RD setup. The initial question is about getting water on labels which ties into water height in the Elmasonic tank and spirals into related issues.

Dear Tim,

your photos and link are helping a lot, the Kuzma unit is exactly what I was looking for.. So you never had problem with water on the labels, no need of protectors, correct? Also no new dust during the drying?

Hi, yes I have no problems with wet labels. A practical concern is how much water to put in the tank when using the Kuzma RD. Over time you gain a sense of that but at first better to under-fill then top up with records in place. Covers, imo, are unreliable and can leak.

Drying can take anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour depending on room temperature and humidity. I have used a slow rpm fan which helps air circulate. I also have a small HEPA filter that I will use starting an hour or so before a cleaning session. Dust is everywhere but it has not really been a problem. With the records drying at a 45-degree angle (above picture) I may see a speck or two on the top most record. But that is not embedded dirt in the groove, and easily removed with air or a brush.

I should add a couple notes to this reply...

1. The Elmasonic P and S series machines, including the P120 have a waterline molded into the metal tank. This is their max-fill line and it is very close to where I fill the tank.

2. Something related to fill height that merits attention when setting up the Kuzma RD with the P120, and probably with any USC tank: The Kuzma RD, which really is a top quality product from Franc K. is adjustable in height with both variable height stainless steel spacers for the legs as well as threaded footers for fine-tuning height and leveling.

You want to set the height of the RD to accommodate two things: a) placing a spindle-full of records on the RD frame so the record groove is covered by water and maybe 1/8" to 1/4" into the records runout area. b) the spindle-full of records is positioned in the tank in a way that ensures adequate space at the record-edge -- tank-wall interface. This is necessary to allow the records to freely and fully rotate. The fitment is a bit tight and if it is just a little off a record, especially the frontmost record facing you can rub on the tank wall or stop the rotisserie motor from turning, which puts considerable strain on the motor.

Ideally you want to do this during setup without water in the tank which becomes unmoveable once full. However, with the tank full it is possible to adjust the position of the entire RD.

I will also note that you can adjust the RD spindle stop -- a puck held in place on the spindle closest to the motor that backstops the first record mounted on the spindle beyond which the record cannot move. This backstop puck, along with the spacers used between records wlll determine how many records you can fit on the spindle and how close the frontmost record is to the curvature of the tank wall as it wraps around from side wall to front wall. It is in that curve where the frontmost record is most likely to contact the tank wall. If things are too tight it is fairly straightforward to adjust the backstop puck with a hex key.

What I do: I now mount five records, each separated by two spacers. This leaves enough space at the records' edges to clear the tank wall. You can do six records but the fitment is very tight and the slightest movement of the RD can throw things off.

 

[Neil.Antin]

I should add a couple notes to this reply...

Tim,

Let me reciprocate and compliment you on a very detailed informative post. You should share it Frank Kuzma so that he can update the directions he has for the spinner.

Take care,
Neil

 

[stirlingtrayle]

Thank you tima, et al., for all of this great information. I'm embarking on reducing my ignorance in LP cleaning and the contributions here, and with Neil.Antin's epic research and book, I'm beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel. Thank you all for the illumination!

 

[tima]

Thank you tima, et al., for all of this great information. I'm embarking on reducing my ignorance in LP cleaning and the contributions here, and with Neil.Antin's epic research and book, I'm beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel. Thank you all for the illumination!

Stirling, you are certainly welcome -- your kind words are appreciated. Feel free to ask questions if you have them. We are here to help.

 

[scericson]

I have misplaced my copy of your cleaning fluid recipe. Can you repost your current version?

 

[tima]

I have misplaced my copy of your cleaning fluid recipe. Can you repost your current version?

Hi, sure. I am back to using isopropyl alcohol in the wash tank, but consider it optional. If you want to use IPA, use a 99.9% pure brand.

c) Use a reasonable cleaning solution. Tergitol 15-S-9 at a concentration of 0.150% + 99% IPA at 2% has proven safe and effective.

I can make that a bit practically clearer. The percentage for Tergitol works out to be 1.8ml for my Elmasonic P120 tank, 12.75 liters. I'll put in 2ml which maybe yields a small bit of foaming, but no problems.

 

[redandgold]

Dear Tim, dear Neil,

thank you so much for this huge amount of information in this thread. One of the best threads at WBF! I want to leave my current Audiodesk and change to your bath solution.

Preamble

Cleaning with an array of bath means first inconvenience and costs. First question I ask myself is the WHY. Why do I want to use the US method with separate bath? I want to get the best sound quality. I want to get to lowest surface/groove noise. I want to prevent the stylus best possible from wear. I feel this method is expensive, needs a lot of taking care to the process and it takes time and space. But I feel it is the best. And you have years and decades of experience.

Because a lot of my records are expensive, I want to avoid making mistakes. Therefore I took my time and read the whole 41 pages and worked out the essentials (I leave beside the different side discussions and different methods from other members.) Because I want to start this project the next weeks, I try to condense all information to a summary. Please feel free to correct me if I misunderstood something. I would appreciate getting answers from you to my still open questions. To make it easy my questions are simpe Q with number to answer specific.

Machines and process

The best available ultrasonic quality cleaning bath is the Elmasonic P120H. Easy to get for me here in Germany and relatively cheap here (min. 1860 €) for this quality product. This is the first step.

The USC machine uses both frequencies 37 kHz and 80 kHz.

Q1 to Tim:

Longtime you used 10 min 37 kHz and 10 min 80 kHz. Nowadays you use 10 min alternating 30 sec. 37/80 kHz and 10 min 80 kHz. Do you realize there is a sonic benefit to this new procedure? Or is there another reason changing to this dedicated procedure?

How do you set the program at the Elmasonic menu?

If I get it correctly rinsing is the most essential step of this whole process by solving the residues and getting rid of them.

Not your standard procedure, but I am thinking of adding an additional next step. I buy record protectors (instead of the standard Kuzma rotisserie pads) and I buy a pump pressure garden sprayer. I would put the spindle with records in a plastic box and pre-rinse the records spraying destilled water at the grooves. Makes it easier getting rid of a bigger part of the tergitol solution.

Q2:

Anything speaking against?

The next step is a rinsing bath. You use the S120H. I have seen at Elmasonic webpage they have a newer basic model called Easy 120H. It works with 37 kHz too and costs in Germany 1.125 €. This is a very good price and I see no downside.

Q3 to Tim:

For rinsing the records, why is it essential to use a second bath? Isn’t it sufficient to bath the records in a box of destilled water? Or does the cavitation pushs the bubbles deeper into groove for better rinsing?


To resume the Elmasonic P120H is the best bath for cleaning using double frequency with a lot of power. And the Easy 120H is the go to rinsing bath. So both machines I would buy with confidence due to the longtime experience of Tim.

I have understood from the great book of Neil that success of cleaning depends on frequency, dimension of bath and power of the bath.

I got reports from friends using the Degritter with 120 kHz frequency, they got even superior results to KLaudio and Gläss. Owning them before. Knowing the Degritter power is high and the bath is small. Furthermore I watched several videos from Steve Evans of Perfect Vinyl Forever (the only professional cleaning service specialized in record cleaning at a pro level). After years of development, additional to the essential 40/80 kHz, he feels best results needs reaching the bottom of the groove by 135/220 kHz. But it is hard to get a bath going so high with power and being a quality product. The only good bath would be the Martin Walter Powersonic P1100D HF:

https://www.martin-walter-ultraschalltechnik.de/produkte/powersonic-p-1100

It has 180/360W power, degas and customer support.

I know the statements from Tim and Neil, that the Elmasonic is sufficient. But I could imagine after a while getting experience with both Elmasonic bath to buy a Martin Walter as second cleaning step. To get an even better result. Maybe, maybe not.


Recipe

Q4 to Tim:

You used longtime Ilford Ilfotol. What was the reason? Simply cheaper or better results or availability?

Now I understand Tergitol 15-S-9 is the surfactant and detergent with best results and longtime experience. But the mixing ratio is one of the most important decisions overall.

Q5:

If I use Tergitol as surfactant and detergent, would 0,015% be the right concentration? 0,015% = 0,15ppt = 150 ppm, correct?

The bath has 12.700 ml. If I would take 2 ml, that’s 2/12.700 = 0,000157 = 0,157 ppt.

Q6 to Tim:

Nowadays you returned using 99% IPA at 2% (~254 ml) again. Can you hear any sonic benefit or is the drying cycle faster or what is the reason for the additional IPA?

The cleaning steps are degas/filtering, cleaning 37/80 kHz, cleaning 80 kHz, rinsing, drying.

Q7 to Tim:

Are 10min rinsing enough or better 20 min? Preparing a bath do you add first IPA followed by Tergitol or better opposite order?


Miscellaneous

I plan to clean 5 records each cleaning cycle.

Q8:

Would a distance of 1 inch be sufficient or do I need to keep 1,5-2 inches?

Q9 to Tim:

Longtime you warmed the bath to 30 °C, but you stopped this warming. Temperature is getting to high or no need of 30°C because 22°C is warm enough?

 

[Neil.Antin]

best results needs reaching the bottom of the groove by 135/220 kHz. But it is hard to get a bath going so high with power and being a quality product. The only good bath would be the Martin Walter Powersonic P1100D HF:

https://www.martin-walter-ultraschalltechnik.de/produkte/powersonic-p-1100

It has 180/360W power, degas and customer support.

I know the statements from Tim and Neil, that the Elmasonic is sufficient. But I could imagine after a while getting experience with both Elmasonic bath to buy a Martin Walter as second cleaning step. To get an even better result. Maybe, maybe not.

My previous response regarding higher frequencies stands - https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/ultrasonic-cavitation-cleaning-explained.36690/post-938421 and https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/ultrasonic-cavitation-cleaning-explained.36690/post-938270.

Martin Walter Powersonic P1100D HF is a 132-kHz unit 'rated' 360W-peak and 180W RMS. The Martin Walter Powersonic P1100D HF at 12.31-L and 132-kHz it's not much power. And the Martin Walter unit is no different than the Powersonic Benchtop Cleaner Tank – P1100D/HF-132 – Crest Ultrasonics (crest-ultrasonics.com) except it's rated less power - 160W. These are both Chinese common design market items; neither company manufacturers these.

The Elmasonic P120H 37/80-kHz is rated 1320W-peak and 330W and is a custom-made unit (made in Germany). If you wanted an effective high frequency bench-top unit (not saying that it's going to get you any better than the Elamsonic P-series) that could clean/rinse multiple records, then you are really looking at an industrial unit such as the Crest 13HT-1014-6 132-kHz 5-gal (11-L) tank with 500W ultrasonic power Layout 1 (crest-ultrasonics.com) and a cost of about $4500 US dollars.

For rinsing the records, why is it essential to use a second bath? Isn’t it sufficient to bath the records in a box of destilled water? Or does the cavitation pushs the bubbles deeper into groove for better rinsing?

You can design a spray box if you wish, except aligning the spray nozzles to reach all sides (unless you spray each record one at a time) is doable. Industry has high pressure parts washers for component cleaning, but they tend to be quite large such as Aqueous Parts Washers | Quality Services | Safety-Kleen. If you wanted to build a custom parts washer that is tailored for records, beyond the cabinet and spinner which is the easy part - the key items to consider are the nozzle(s) and the pump. Given the compact size, you are looking at high pressure/low flow. Here is some quick info - Spray Nozzle Chart (thepumpoutlet.com), and there are different nozzles for different purposes. The number of nozzles per side would be determined by the distance from the record and nozzle angle and having that adjustable would likely be beneficial to dial in the process.

The pump becomes the biggest problem. To get the pressure necessary for the nozzle you will generally be using multistage positive displacement pumps and the key is finding one that in operation will not contaminant the fluid stream otherwise you end up blasting the record with minute particles. Adding 1-micron sediment filter after the pump sounds easy, but the filter housing would need to be rated for the pump pressure which drives the cost high, and you would still need a strainer on the pump suction to keep it from being damaged (maximize service life).

Years ago, I developed a pressurized water spray system to clean an aluminum honeycomb design 30,000-gallon liquid oxygen (LOX) tank. We were using a custom non-foaming alkaline cleaner with corrosion inhibitor blend safe for aluminum and we used a lower pressure/high flow multi-axis tank sprayer nozzle with an air diaphragm pump using Teflon diaphragms to keep cleaning fluid clean with a large 1-micron absolute stainless filter housing (containing multiple filter cartridges) using thermally bonded electronics grade polypropylene filter elements. We used two capture tanks (captured the effluent from the LOX tank) one for cleaner and the other for DIW. This is just a basic summary, there were other details.

Otherwise, for the 2-tank system that @tima uses, for the rinse tank (which is convenient) consider the following. The first is the wash tank (~150 ppm Tergitol 15-S-9) that is filtered to 0.2-micron absolute, and the other is UT DIW rinse only that is also filtered. With the first so well filtered the only thing that carries over to the rinse tank is the Tergitol. But the small amount of carryover is inconsequential since the tank goes bad from ionic impurities (TDS goes high) before the Tergtiol carryover becomes a problem. I think he gets about 4-weeks on a tank before refreshing. I did a quick carryover analysis, and 150-ppm = 150-mg/L = 0.15 mg/ml. If you carryover 10-ml water per 5-record batch, that works out to adding 1.5-mg of Tergtitol to the rinse tank 12-L = 0.125-ppm Tergitol increase per batch of records. It would take 80-batches of record (400-records) before the rinse tank would reach ~10-ppm Tergitol which is insignificant, and the tank will go bad from high TDS before that.

If I use Tergitol as surfactant and detergent, would 0,015% be the right concentration? 0,015% = 0,15ppt = 150 ppm, correct?

The bath has 12.700 ml. If I would take 2 ml, that’s 2/12.700 = 0,000157 = 0,157 ppt.

The target concentration for Tergitol 15-S-9 as both a wetting agent and fully detergency is 0.015% (same as 150-ppm - specific gravity is close enough to 1.0). Very simply, 0.015% = 0.00015 x 12,700-ml = 1.905-ml, and you just round up to 2-ml. However, note that the 12.7-L is the max fill, and you will likely use a little less and @tima can advise, and if it were 12L, the calculation would be (0.00015)(12,000-ml) = 1.8-ml. Disposable 3-ml pipettes are good for adding - luckaide Pack of 100 Pipettes, 3 ml Disposable Pipettes, Plastic Pipette for Laboratory Trial, Essential Oils, Classroom Experiment : Amazon.de: Business, Industry & Science. Absolute perfection is not required, rounding up close to 2-ml will yield (2-ml/12000-ml) = 0.000167 = 0.0167%

Good Luck and Tank Care,
Neil

 

[tima]

Dear Tim, dear Neil,

thank you so much for this huge amount of information in this thread. One of the best threads at WBF! I want to leave my current Audiodesk and change to your bath solution.

You are most welcome. We try to help.

Neil covered most of your questions in his most excellent reply, so I won't repeat. And I'm not going into detail about why I changed/updated various protocols between when I started in 2017 (see the opening post in this thread to my early articles on The Vinyl Press) and now. I evolved over time as I learned and Neil is a tremendous help.

I am satisfied with the results I get today using my current approach. That is a product of trying different angles over time. I will say there are many ways to clean a record effectively. And there are some ways that are less effective. My system is more expensive than many and relatively more expensive than the top-of-the-line automated machines. Relative to my record collection it is but a small investment in maintaining that.

How do you set the program at the Elmasonic menu?

I go by the instructions in the Elmasonic manuals for the P120 (wash) and S120 (rinse) machines. Both work similarly and both are easy to use. The manuals document every option.

If I get it correctly rinsing is the most essential step of this whole process by solving the residues and getting rid of them.

Rinsing is a very important step in the overall process of several important steps, as you note.

Not your standard procedure, but I am thinking of adding an additional next step. I buy record protectors (instead of the standard Kuzma rotisserie pads) and I buy a pump pressure garden sprayer. I would put the spindle with records in a plastic box and pre-rinse the records spraying destilled water at the grooves.

As Neil notes, yes you can do that. Where it could give me pause is in the amount of manual handling that could be involved -- but I haven't thought it through. A question I'd ask is can you take your spindle of records from the wash tank directly to the rinse tank without having to change spindles and/or add record label protectors? If you don't use the Kuzma RD -- which makes it simple to move records from one RD tank to the next -- what rotisserie would you use with the Elmasonic wash tank?

Most of the DIY rotisseries I've seen have their spindle attached to the motor. Maybe there are ones out there that support 5 records with record protectors and allow the spindle to be easily moved from one rotisserie to another. I don't know of those, maybe Neil does. Otherwise I see a risk (and extra time) in physically manipulating records. In my view, the spindle defintely needs a stand, which the RD includes. I don't talk enough about physically handling records -- maybe I should.

To resume the Elmasonic P120H is the best bath for cleaning using double frequency with a lot of power. And the Easy 120H is the go to rinsing bath. So both machines I would buy with confidence due to the longtime experience of Tim.

The Easy 120H is a newer less expensive model. It does look like it could make a fine rinse tank, assuming its dimensions are the same as S120 or P120 to fit, in my case, a Kuzma RD.

Can you hear any sonic benefit or is the drying cycle faster or what is the reason for the additional IPA?

Yes, that is an interesting question -- what is the benefit of using IPA in the wash? I don't think it makes drying any faster because records to be dried are coming out of the rinse tank which only holds distilled water. As to sonic benefit, I'm still debating with myself. I believe it is perfectly fine to omit the IPA. I would say try it and see if you can hear a difference. Reasonable experimentation with formula is part of the DIY effort.

Are 10min rinsing enough or better 20 min? Preparing a bath do you add first IPA followed by Tergitol or better opposite order?

I find a 10 minute rinse quie adequate. I see no problem with a 20 minute rinse as long as you mind the tank temperature. I prefer not to go over 35° C at the very max and try to stay at 33°C or lower. The longer you run the tank, the more it will heat up. I no longer pre-heat the wash tank and llow its temperature to rise from room temperture across the two 10 minute wash sessions. My house is air conditioned in the summer and my rig is in the lower level where temps are relatively cool and stable. If wash temperature reaches 35° C I will stop the cycle if it goes above that. David uses a cooler adapted from a PC computer cooler.

However, note that the 12.7-L is the max fill, and you will likely use a little less and @tima can advise, and if it were 12L, the calculation would be (0.00015)(12,000-ml) = 1.8-ml.

I use a pipette for measuring the Tergitol at 2ml. It is graduated in 1-2-3 ml and not finer. As Neal suggests perfection is not required. Partly it is a question of foaming which comes with excess Tergitol.

Good luck going forward!



.