Lets start at the beginning.

Diffusion controls the initial reaction rate of this material and therefore it will vary from film to film, but basically the accepted wisdom is that it takes 15" to fully diffuse a chemical into a dry sheet of film. (I know, you use wet film in processing, but bear with me.)

So, fixing at the bottom of the film takes 15" on dry film to begin and completion is at about 30". Therefore, fix time is 1 minute for a rough estimate.

This time can actually slow down depending on the developer used and the stop/rinse used before this fixer.

Therefore, you have to consider not just one sheet but what happens over 10 sheets or 20 sheets, closing in on the capacity of the fixer.

If it stays constant, then I would agree with you, but if it goes down, then you have a design problem.

Basically, the fixer you have there is based on the graph in Mees and James showing the sweet spot, but for various reasons we found otherwise due to synergistic effects.

Now, to go further, how did you prove your contention? Did you run retained silver tests? How about wash? Was it faster or slower, and how did you prove the value?

These are questions that should be answered to justify the fact that this is better.

AAMOF, the superfix that was published was #1 or 2 in a series, and I am now up to VII trying to tweak it into shape. I have VIIa on the shelf right now.

So, yes, your fixer works, but it may not be the best for wash rate and the silver retention is unproved.

It may turn out great, but I'm sure that one can be made that is better in several ways.

And, no offence is intended. You seem hyper sensitive to pissing contests, but so am I having had a number directed my way, but I must add that I spent over 5 years of my life at EK working on Fixes and Blixes and have the patents to prove it.