jimmyraythomason
Member
Yeah but that stuff stinks if you heat the metal when appying it.
brake cleaner on blueing/ stuck choke question.
- Thread starter chevyforlife21
- Start date
- Status
paducahrider
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 139
A Penetrating Subject!!
Howdy!
To natman and MachIVshooter:
First, natman, the point to be derived from me telling that, over three years, the French were shipping 13,500,000, liters of cheap wine and charging high prices for it, was not that I, personally, could tell the difference (I don't drink the stuff), but that millions of Americans COULDN"T, and were snapping it up as fast as it was shipped.
The same thing happens with a variety of products, if the truth be known.
I agree that not supplying the test result site that substantiates my contention that WD-40 works worse than water, as a lubricant, but I just haven't been able to find it recently. I had saved it on an old computer, but only found out this week that it was probably damaged last summer, during a lightning strike that took out a couple of other items in the house.
That computer hasn't been connected to the net in years, and we seldom use it, so didn't check it after the storm.
However, I did find a similar, unbiased test (without the Kroil, however)which actually had very similar results.
The site is: "why use dupont teflon bearing grease".
Overall, the winner was the same, with some additional, newer lubes being closer, and interestingly enough, it actually showed that WD-40 actually did a worse job than using nothing at all, rather than water, as I had stated.
So, your mis-statement about what I said actually turned out to true.
You are absolutely correct in pointing out that this type of test measures "lubrication" effectiveness, not "penetrating oil" effectiveness. but, in my defense, I only brought that up because of claims made about WD-40, in a variety of applications.
By the way, it also showed that the old Liquid Wrench, wo/Teflon, wasn't too great, but the old one with Teflon, was pretty good. The new Liquid Wrench, w/Teflon, however, doesn't do as good a job as the old formula.
I have actually used the DuPont Bearing grease for an action lube on auto-rifles, and it works great, in both cold and hot weather. I have also used it as an anti-seize agent, with super results.
Whether I found the site or not, most statements made on sites such as this have far less documentation to back them.
To MachIVshooter: Yep! The statement about disagreements making horseraces and progress, is mine, as far as I know.
To both of you guys: we seem to agree about more than we disagree.
My problem, which I readily admit, is that, decades ago I determined that I was just a cheap s.o.b who did not enjoy funding every national marketing campaign that scooted down the pike.
I have, at last count, more than seventy different types of lubes, in my shop. Some aren't worth the space they take up, but I'm too cheap to get rid of them. As I keep saying, my objection to some lubes is not their effectiveness, but their price. I have some Kroil and admit that it works, but not so much better than other stuff that I would buy it again (of course I may change my mind, if you guys keep hammering me about it)
I apologise for the double posting on this thread, but the I*&^%$&^% program keeps telling me to do something that seems to cause it.
Thanks for your time.
Howdy!
To natman and MachIVshooter:
First, natman, the point to be derived from me telling that, over three years, the French were shipping 13,500,000, liters of cheap wine and charging high prices for it, was not that I, personally, could tell the difference (I don't drink the stuff), but that millions of Americans COULDN"T, and were snapping it up as fast as it was shipped.
The same thing happens with a variety of products, if the truth be known.
I agree that not supplying the test result site that substantiates my contention that WD-40 works worse than water, as a lubricant, but I just haven't been able to find it recently. I had saved it on an old computer, but only found out this week that it was probably damaged last summer, during a lightning strike that took out a couple of other items in the house.
That computer hasn't been connected to the net in years, and we seldom use it, so didn't check it after the storm.
However, I did find a similar, unbiased test (without the Kroil, however)which actually had very similar results.
The site is: "why use dupont teflon bearing grease".
Overall, the winner was the same, with some additional, newer lubes being closer, and interestingly enough, it actually showed that WD-40 actually did a worse job than using nothing at all, rather than water, as I had stated.
So, your mis-statement about what I said actually turned out to true.
You are absolutely correct in pointing out that this type of test measures "lubrication" effectiveness, not "penetrating oil" effectiveness. but, in my defense, I only brought that up because of claims made about WD-40, in a variety of applications.
By the way, it also showed that the old Liquid Wrench, wo/Teflon, wasn't too great, but the old one with Teflon, was pretty good. The new Liquid Wrench, w/Teflon, however, doesn't do as good a job as the old formula.
I have actually used the DuPont Bearing grease for an action lube on auto-rifles, and it works great, in both cold and hot weather. I have also used it as an anti-seize agent, with super results.
Whether I found the site or not, most statements made on sites such as this have far less documentation to back them.
To MachIVshooter: Yep! The statement about disagreements making horseraces and progress, is mine, as far as I know.
To both of you guys: we seem to agree about more than we disagree.
My problem, which I readily admit, is that, decades ago I determined that I was just a cheap s.o.b who did not enjoy funding every national marketing campaign that scooted down the pike.
I have, at last count, more than seventy different types of lubes, in my shop. Some aren't worth the space they take up, but I'm too cheap to get rid of them. As I keep saying, my objection to some lubes is not their effectiveness, but their price. I have some Kroil and admit that it works, but not so much better than other stuff that I would buy it again (of course I may change my mind, if you guys keep hammering me about it)
I apologise for the double posting on this thread, but the I*&^%$&^% program keeps telling me to do something that seems to cause it.
Thanks for your time.
Last edited:
gotgcoalman
Member
I rest my case on WD 40 not working as well as other stuff or not at all!
Over here we have plus gas in the USA use break free/liquid wrench ets.
Soak for upto a week then use the propper tool or inprovise so you have something near to the tool needed(not coins) lol.
Once you get it out bronze brush the threads and check for dammage.
If all is ok apply a "little" copper slip or other anti seize conpound.
Job done.
Over here we have plus gas in the USA use break free/liquid wrench ets.
Soak for upto a week then use the propper tool or inprovise so you have something near to the tool needed(not coins) lol.
Once you get it out bronze brush the threads and check for dammage.
If all is ok apply a "little" copper slip or other anti seize conpound.
Job done.
jimmyraythomason
Member
You may have rested your case but you haven't made it. WD-40 does work very well as a penetrant and a rust inhibitor. Use what ever you like(I do). As long as what I use works for me,other folk's opinions are irrelevant.
paducahrider
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 139
The Neverending WD-40 Debate.
Howdy!
It has become painfully apparent to me that those who like WD-40 are not likely to be convinced of anything that will change their mind.
This is just something else for you guys to think about.
I have stated, incorrectly, that WD-40, completely evaporates.
I was wrong!!!
Actually, the Stoddard solvent(mineral spirits, similar to kerosene), which makes up 50% of the formula evaporates, leaving behind the mineral oil(actually like baby oil) and a little vaseline, which make up 15% of the remainder.
The remaining 35% is either propellant (25%, originally was liquified petrolem but is now CO2) or 10% inert(non-active) ingredients, which also evaporate.
It was primarilly developed as a water displacment (That's what the WD means), which worked by displacing(moving out of the way) the water that promotes corrosion.
The original liquified petroleum propellant contributed to spray WD-40's solvent capabilities, but the CO2, presently used, does not.
It was brought out in 1953 but really got a push when Hurricane Camille tore the heck out of Louisiana, in 1969.
Thousands of industrial motors were submerged in salt water and would have required replacement if they couldn't have been cleaned up.
One solution was to wash them out with fresh water, to eliminate as much salt and debris as possible, blow them out with compressed air, then hook electrical suppliy wires to the motor leads, lower them into barrels full of WD-40, THEN turn on the power to the motors.
The motors would operate in the WD-40, as it is a dielectric(doesn't readily conduct electrical current), and the combination of the created circulation through the motor and the water displacement capabilities of the WD-40, cleaned them out very well. Of course, they were then removed from the power supplies, blown out again, AND RELUBRICATED with a proper bearing lubricant. Failure to relubricate properly would quickly ruin any bearing.
This process saved industries MILLIONS of dollars and helped create a following for it.
As the basic formula shows, there really isn't anything in it that is in any way, exotic, and it is un-patented because it is easy to make, and once a patent expired, which is a relatively short period of time, ANYONE could make it, and many similar products exist.
It works, for some applications, but its results can be duplicated or exceeded, many other ways, more cheaply.
Keep buying it guys, if you like, but the original inventor has passed away, so it all goes to the corporation now.
I used to buy it pretty often, but just found other ways to do things, cheaper.
Thanks for your time.
Howdy!
It has become painfully apparent to me that those who like WD-40 are not likely to be convinced of anything that will change their mind.
This is just something else for you guys to think about.
I have stated, incorrectly, that WD-40, completely evaporates.
I was wrong!!!
Actually, the Stoddard solvent(mineral spirits, similar to kerosene), which makes up 50% of the formula evaporates, leaving behind the mineral oil(actually like baby oil) and a little vaseline, which make up 15% of the remainder.
The remaining 35% is either propellant (25%, originally was liquified petrolem but is now CO2) or 10% inert(non-active) ingredients, which also evaporate.
It was primarilly developed as a water displacment (That's what the WD means), which worked by displacing(moving out of the way) the water that promotes corrosion.
The original liquified petroleum propellant contributed to spray WD-40's solvent capabilities, but the CO2, presently used, does not.
It was brought out in 1953 but really got a push when Hurricane Camille tore the heck out of Louisiana, in 1969.
Thousands of industrial motors were submerged in salt water and would have required replacement if they couldn't have been cleaned up.
One solution was to wash them out with fresh water, to eliminate as much salt and debris as possible, blow them out with compressed air, then hook electrical suppliy wires to the motor leads, lower them into barrels full of WD-40, THEN turn on the power to the motors.
The motors would operate in the WD-40, as it is a dielectric(doesn't readily conduct electrical current), and the combination of the created circulation through the motor and the water displacement capabilities of the WD-40, cleaned them out very well. Of course, they were then removed from the power supplies, blown out again, AND RELUBRICATED with a proper bearing lubricant. Failure to relubricate properly would quickly ruin any bearing.
This process saved industries MILLIONS of dollars and helped create a following for it.
As the basic formula shows, there really isn't anything in it that is in any way, exotic, and it is un-patented because it is easy to make, and once a patent expired, which is a relatively short period of time, ANYONE could make it, and many similar products exist.
It works, for some applications, but its results can be duplicated or exceeded, many other ways, more cheaply.
Keep buying it guys, if you like, but the original inventor has passed away, so it all goes to the corporation now.
I used to buy it pretty often, but just found other ways to do things, cheaper.
Thanks for your time.
Chill.....
After application of penetrating oil apply heat with a hair dryer or heat gun, get it good and warm.
Now put a tubular ice cube inside the choke tube near the threads. Now break it loose with a choke wrench. Be quick.
I've used the hot and cold trick a bunch over the years, try it, it really works!
After application of penetrating oil apply heat with a hair dryer or heat gun, get it good and warm.
Now put a tubular ice cube inside the choke tube near the threads. Now break it loose with a choke wrench. Be quick.
I've used the hot and cold trick a bunch over the years, try it, it really works!
jimmyraythomason
Member
Thanks paducahrider. That's all I'm saying. Use what works best for your own applications. If a product works better for you(I'm speaking in generalities) or costs less by all means use it. My problem is with accusations that a particular product does this or doesn't do that when experience has proven the opposite to be true.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
