Pete, addressing your questions in order:
- Isopropyl alcohol is not sticky. Neither is Androsol when correctly applied. It is sticky only if sprayed much too heavily which is easy not to do. Whether the prohormone is dissolved in ethanol or isopropyl alcohol has nothing to do with stickiness.
Isopropyl alcohol dries at the rate I consider ideal. It hardly takes too long from the standpoint of being bothersome – I get dressed within 60 seconds of applying – but does give enough time for phase transfer: for the prohormone to partition from the evaporating alcohol into the lipids of the top layer of ths skin. My experimentation on alcohol choice included ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, n-propanol, butanol, and some mixtures of these. The isopropyl alcohol and n-propanol, which behaved very similarly, were the best choices and that’s why Androsol uses them.
Sure, an ad saying “Ours dries faster, while the competitor’s product dries too slowly because they use the wrong alcohol” is no doubt effective at sales but has no merit in fact. Faster is not always better and isn’t in this case.
Androsol leaves a white residue only rarely when applied improperly. The application would be improper – uneven film too thick in places – even if no residue formed. (If the film is too thick, it is simply wasted. The prohormone goes through the skin at the same rate regardless of film thickness, and if the film is so thick that it is not almost entirely used up by the time of the next application, the excess is simply wasted.) More to the point, this has nothing to do with the choice of alcohol. This trivial and avoidable “problem” does not occur with the other product for an entirely different reason, the IPM, which is discussed below.
So all those points regarding the alcohol are invalid.
- The president of the company in question admittedly publicly, on a Usenet newsgroup, that his sprayer was inferior and he would change to one like ours as soon as he exhausted his stock of the current sprayers. Perhaps he has not exhausted his stock yet, or perhaps the advertising advantages of asserting that Androsol is hard work to apply and too time consuming (both are false) outweigh the performance disadvantage.
Namely, it is impossible to apply as light and even a misting over as large an area with their sprayer, because it delivers far too much per spray. You just don’t have the control you need.
No one who has used Androsol considers it a hard matter to apply 70 sprays, or time consuming. So far as I know, no one who has tried both thinks the other sprayer is better. We have had posts on this forum, from people who have tried both products, saying plainly that the other is inferior, and I’ve been informed that personally many times. And as mentioned, the president of that company admitted it publicly sometime last year.
So much for that point.