Maybe I didn't make my interpretation clear. Your statements until this one have implied that hydroquinone's reaction products are what make the MQ synergism work. The experiment in question does not investigate that synergism in the presence of sulfite. In fact, hydroquinone has practically no reaction at pH 8.7. What reaction it has at high pH is accelerated by its own reaction products when sulfite is not present. Addition of sulfite retards development by hydroquinone. OTH, Metol is capable of development without sulfite, but development is retarded by its own reaction products. The explanation for the accelerating effect of sulfite added to a Metol developer was the formation of a Metol sulfonate, not a hydroquinone monosulfonate. Ascorbic acid had the same effect, mole for mole, but by a different mechanism. Hydroquinone, I repeat, had no bearing on the experiments because it was not present in any test where sulfite or ascorbate was present. If hydroquinone had been present, the results could not hav unequivocally supported the conclusion that was drawn, that the reaction products of Metol, in contrast to hydroquinone, retarded development by Metol.
Why are we arguing about these facts? How did I misinterpret the data? What difference does it make if I did? I got a working hypothesis out of it that did work as expected.
All I can say is I'm glad you are not my physician. If you don't take this personally, I won't take your slurs on my logical thinking personally. You are the first person, other than my own father, who ever accused me of not thinking straight. I was about 6 years old at the time, and he was a Professor at St.Louis University. A close friend of his, and my sponsor at Confirmation, was Dr. Vernon J, Bourke, a noted Thomistic Philosopher.