The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

Oh, I’m not offended @wizzzard , and don’t consider your case against Walter Davies’ ethics to be proven, nor that he even has an "other side." Even if Last products are what you or anyone else may consider grossly over-priced, that is not (to me at least) what constitutes a lack of ethics. Greed perhaps 😉. Now mis-representing the ingredients of a liquid product is an entirely different matter.

In a trial the jury doesn’t render a verdict after hearing only the prosecutor’s case against the defendant. I don’t consider the case you make against Last Record Preservative and/or Walter Davies to be proven just because you say it is. I prefer to withhold judgement until the defendant has presented his rebuttal.

You state a lot of opinions---and have reached conclusions---that you expect everyone else to accept as facts. You use cold, hard numbers to make your case, with which I have no problem (to me the most important information contained in Stereophile reviews is John Atkinson’s test bench findings). But I don’t assume your information to be correct, or even complete.

You obviously consider your numbers to be irrefutable proof of another’s lack of ethics and honesty, and seem to relish revealing that fact to the world. You remind me of Peter Aczel 😉 .

@bdp24 

cc:    @mijostyn    @ljgerens 

                                        “ I state NO opinions ”

And I encourage others to refrain from voicing their opinions as much a possible, and to refrain from repeating the opinions of others as well.  I intended this Forum to be as factual as possible.  Not only pertaining to myself, but desiring and requesting it of others as well.  In essence I can state that it is “The Prime Directive” of this Forum.  With regard to questions, that is an entirely different matter, because ALL QUESTIONS to me will be considered.  There is no such thing as a bad question!  I am not Ghandi, who could make such a remark.  I had indicated this, as of day one, in my original post.

This post was intended for Mijostyn and Ljgerens.  I included you because I recalled that you had a high regard for Walter Davies, and expressed your esteem of him on several occasions.  I believed it was necessary to express my sincere sorrow to you independently because I was a messenger / bearer of disconcerting news to you.  And, I also wanted you to understand.  As former President Bill Clinton famously and frequently stated:  “I feel your pain”.  I thought I was being nice to you by sincerely expressing my feelings to you.

You have somehow managed to misconstrue and subvert my sincerely into something sinister.  It is impossible for me to understand you, and how you have managed to contort my messaging to you.

If you wish to cling to the verisimilitude that Mr. Davies provided you - that is your choice.  And, you can continue to live in “your reality” of events if you so choose.  But, please do not dismiss the FACTS provided to others that read this Forum as “opinions”.  I take umbrage with your statements regarding my convincing display of revelations regarding the respectability of a particular firm because of their pricing of products, but also with regard to their claims that are disproven by their own admission in their patent submission.  I relied on only the information provided in the patent and the actual ingredients used and the foundational functions provided by the manufacturers of the products that are actually used.  And what is consistent with all known Technologies including especially the Chemistry involved.

If you choose to remain oblivious to the actual realities - that is your choice.  But, do not be gratuitous towards others that have read the post and sagaciously been revealed a realism of which you disapprove.  You can not and should not insult the intelligence of all the others that read this Forum that are seeking correct data and information.

Because of your one personal experience with one individual many years ago, you can not totally dismiss all scientific evidence presented by either myself or others, and refer to actual proven FACTS as opinions.  Your dismissiveness is unacceptable.  If I can not address you with a sincere regret, I do not believe I can ever relate any accurate information to you.  Perhaps, others can, and, perhaps they may make an attempt, but, as far as I am concerned, I need to proceed to respond to others that are awaiting a response from me to their questions.  But, I needed to make one last attempt, otherwise, I would regret that I did not try sufficiently enough to allow you  to understand.

                                     “No more soup for you”

Wizzzard 

@wizzzard 

I guess human noses are not all that accurate. It must be the fluorine that has a characteristic odor. They are all very volatile substances. As for the "lubricant," is that volatile also or do you think the concentration is so low I could not see it on the slide. I was always talking about the preservative which predates the cleaner by several years. 

The high pricing of the LAST products is another method used frequently on the audiophile community to convince us that something really works or sounds better. Ridiculous pricing should always set off alarm bells. 

I apologize for not being completely accurate, but the end result remains unchanged. LAST preservative is a rather typical audiophile aimed scam. When a product makes claims that are very difficult to validate, alarm bells should go off.  

@mijostyn 

As I stated in a previous post these perfluoropolyether lubricants are typically only a few nanometers thick. Assuming the LAST record preservative is a similar thickness, you would not be able to see it on your slide.

@mijostyn 

cc:  @ljgerens 

Regarding your post Today at 12:00 PM.  You are able to detect the difference in odour between Fluorine and Chlorine in their "Elemental Stage" which is as a gas, however, it is extremely difficult, or, rather more as impossible to detect a difference  in aroma as a Fluoride and as a Chloride.  So, there is nothing wrong with your nose.  Perhaps, a very well trained "nose" may possibly be able to detect the difference, but, even that would be exceptional.  Therefore, there was no error on your part.  I only wanted you to be aware, and, to be accurate in my response.

As I noted in my opening remarks of this Forum that "Magical Ingredients" that produce "Magical Results", most obviously, must be very expensive!

The perfluoropolyether lubricant is NOT volatile, nor would it be "carried" with the rapid evaporation of the perfluoroalkanes included in the product and compromises the vast majority of material of the "so called preservative".  The minute level incorporated in the claimed "preservative"  would not be able to be detected by you with your microscope.  I doubt that even @ljgerens  would be able to detect its' existence with his Electron Microscope.  But, I would not know that for certain, only he can accurately respond.  I am basing my statement  based on very similar compositions, and arriving at my statement to you founded on that particular knowledge.

Wizzzard