Neal wrote:
> Are we talking about potentiometers, or just generally? It's alway
> been
> my understanding that the cleaner-lubricant formula for a pot is
> totally different from other cleaner-lubricants ... switches for
> example.
Geoff wrote:
There were well over 200,000 hits, with all the ones I looked at,
people happy with the results.
We have had unfortunate results with Caig switch, precious metal, and
fader products. This suggests the problem may be more with the
carrier (solvent) than with the "goo" (residue), but that is only speculation.
I would hazard a guess that many of the happy people expressed their
opinion soon after using it for the first time. Indeed, there are
lots of things one can squirt into switches and pots that will
seemingly improve things for a short time (including molasses, which
some TV techs of a bygone century mixed with oil and used to
"recondition" potentiometers -- much like auto mechanics putting
sawdust in manual transmissions to quiet them down). Technicians who
work on equipment that just passes through may remain happy even if
they use a lot of it, because they don't see the equipment afterwards
or do not correlate the experience if they do. There may also be
heavy users that are just lucky (they only use it on a few different
brands/models of controls with which it happens to be
compatible). However, people who have used Caig products month in
and month out on a stable of equipment, and have tracked its
long-term effects, often seem to develop a different opinion.
Best regards,
Charles
|