Will Deoxit on a circuit board cause problems?

Think of it as a refresh cycle, as in dynamic RAM. If you don't use a word, we tend to forget it. It should help you recall the correct term, ummm... whatever it was, for an eye, ear, nose, and throat doctor.

I believer you may have misread the data sheet: "Shields Against Noise and RFI" By implication and due to general lack of specifics and details, methinks they are referring to RF noise, not audible acoustic noise.

If Deoxit really did reduce RF noise and RF interference, then it would need to apply some kind of barrier. There are two general types, absorptive and reflective. Unfortunately the data sheet also mentions: "Improves Conductivity" which could be either absorptive or reflective, because human skin is mildly conductive. Without further detail from Deoxit, I can't offer a mechanism for how it might function to reduce RF noise and RF interference.

you seem determined to miss the point and engage in a silly pissing contest . No matter.

no, I didn't misread it

Of course that is not implied, it is inferred by you. I would think it evident that the only possible credible claim re noise red uction is that it may reduce noise caused by oxidised contacts. That it mig ht reduce other forms of noise in real world electronic circuits seems whol ly unrealistic. I would therefore think it somewhat obvious that I was being facetious when discussing it's sonic noise reduction properties, which technically it doe s have, even if they bear no connection to its real world intended use. My apology for thinking all that obvious.

NT

Guilty as charged. If needed, I can supply a signed confession for a nominal charge. However, simply because I'm not providing the reply which you are expecting does not make this a pissing contest.

If you insist. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?

Correct. The author of the data sheet implied it and I inferred it. Using "noise" and "RFI" in the same sentence suggests that they might be connected in some way. Since audio was not specifically mentioned while interference was mentioned, perhaps they both involve RF? Either way, you cannot assume that the particular form of noise mentioned in the data sheet is audible or that Dexoit can be expected to function under water or in the ear.

Nothing is evident until demonstrated, proven, and tested. A simple test for this are numbers, the lack of which suggest that such performance claims are far from evident or obvious. In this case, the noise reduction should be specified and measured in dB decrease in accordance to a repeatable testing procedure. What Deoxit might do in a real world or under non-specific conditions is of no concern. It might be possible to contrive such a test and associated measurement at audio levels, but the mention of RFI in the same sentence suggests that it is an RF noise level, which would be more difficult to demonstrate and measure. Unfortunately, the picture in the data sheet is that of the rear of an audio amplifier, which suggests an audio test. Therefore, unless additional clarification arrives from Caig Labs, such a test cannot be performed. I'll leave it an open question while awaiting clarification and possibly test results.

The only thing that is obvious here is that you are frustrated by my unwillingness to accept your observations, deductions, and conclusions at face value. You have failed to see the value in refreshing your vocabulary. You have failed to distinguish between acoustic and RF noise. You have failed to recognize that miraculous performance claims by overpriced solvents must be tested, measured, and proven. You have failed to recognize that all things that are obvious, beyond any need of verification, are invariably wrong. You have also failed to agree with anything I have offered, which is prima facie evidence that you are most likely in error. You even failed by thinking that all things are obvious. With such a dismal success rate, there is little hope of recovery. I'll accept your apology for trying to think the obvious and leave it at that.

I just see no value in them

wrong, yet again

wrong & silly

wrong & silly

wrong & silly

wrong & silly

wrong & silly

just silly. I won't spend any more time on your weirdness today.

NT