Of my pipes, five had oxidation worth bothering with. As you can see, the levels of oxidation varied:
I submerged them in the honey-like (in appearance and texture... not smell...) substance for almost exactly two hours:
When I pulled the stems out, they left behind beautifully obvious streaks and clouds of oxidation in the substance:
I then wiped them down with paper towel and mineral oil, and was very pleased with what emerged:
(You should scroll up and check that "Before Pic" again.)
Some have speculated that this substance merely masks oxidation. This theory is disproven by the visible discharge of oxidation in the substance.
Others have speculated that this substance, in removing oxidation, must also remove good vulcanite. This does not appear (to the human eye or hand) to be the case. I cannot say with scientific certainty that it is not the case on any scale, but I can say confidently that neither my eye nor my hand can find any indication of this.
Others have said that, even if it removes only oxidized vulcanite, the substance must thereby leave pits or other such irregularities at some scale. To this I can only say what I said above: I neither see nor feel any indication of that. These stems seem brand new and perfectly smooth (apart from some chatter, of course -- I may deal with that later).
I understand the operating assumption of the skeptics:
The material world being what it is, there can be no removal of matter which does not result in less matter.
But perhaps even deeper assumptions about what rubber oxidization is, are off base? Is it a transformation of significant portions of the material? Or is it more like a deeply embedded yet theoretically distinct material which this substance removes with insignificant loss to the "host" material?
I know nothing about vulcanite or its oxidization, so I am not purporting this theory. I am only thinking outside of the box, because my experience with this substance doesn't seem fully explicable in terms of the box.
In any case, I can say with confidence that this works for all practical purposes, and that if there is any loss then it must be insignificant for all practical purposes. I'd use this product again.
Last edited: