http://yarchive.net/chem/wd40.html

How much faith should we put in a source that contains phrases like
""I haven't analysed it" and ""That would make WD-40 *like* the
formulation above" and "It is possible" and "could be something crude
like"?

Probably more faith than any other post on alt.home.repair.
Bruce Hamilton is a author who majored in chemistry.

I'm not questioning Mr. Hamilton's credentials. However, in this case
(11 years ago) he did nothing more than voice an opinion on something
he never analysed. "It could be this, it could be that."

With all the data out there on the WWW, I would think a more direct
source - perhaps someone who actually analysed the product in question
- as well as a more current one, could be found.

But, just like Mr. Hamilton, I'm simply voicing my opinion.

Then I'll voice mine again. WD-40 is a poor lubricant. It is a solvent
that penetrates and removes the existing legitimate high film strength
lubricant.

Once the solvent evaporates the WD-40 leaves a thin coat of Paraffin
on the product that ends up gumming the works up, instead of lubing
the works.