I haven't seen any negatives really ... just people with their own theories, which I absolutely welcome, and it's totally cool with me.
I enjoy provoking thought/discussion over this kind of thing.
And even MY theory, while I base it on years of first-hand visual evidence may in fact turn out to be "busted" (at least in the short term of one-month worth of mouth spit moisture exposure).
"And the book says: 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.'"
Frankie, if the contacts don't show any visible corrosion after the month is up, are you open to extending your experiment?
If people want me to keep going until something happens, I don't see why not. If I don't net any results, I could even modify the conditions...but I don't want to "force" it to happen. That's not very scientific.
The whole reason that I believe that blowing in games is a direct correlation to them having increased oxidation comes from my years at Funcoland:
Every time there was a batch of awful looking, heavily oxidized games, I'd ask the owner if they blew in their games to get them to work, and the answer was always "yes". And in each batch of games, the ones that were popular and likely heavily played often had the worst of it (and probably got blown in the most frequently).
I don't believe that heavy oxidation (especially to the point of damaging the contacts) is a spontaneously occurring phenomenon ... it has to come from somewhere, and most people didn't keep their games next to a humidifier. I really think it's directly linked to "blowing".
In any case, we'll take a look at the results at 30 days and go from there.
"And the book says: 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.'"
Then, like others, the only condition I'd suggest modifiying if that ends up being the case would be actually putting it into a system. That, and the system being powered for a length of time, are about the only two "missing" factors I can think of.