All you have proven is that you are not a very skilled or able
craftsman or mechanic.

You can repeat your mistaken belief that WD-40 is not a lubricant as
many times as you like, but it will not be correct.

You just don't understand what a lubricant is.

You are on the same level of expertise as someone who would claim that
motor oil is not a lubricant, because only axle grease is a lubricant.

I'd say Bzzzzt again, but I sprayed some WD-40 on it and the noise
stopped due to a sudden lack of friction.

It's a poor lubricant and shouldn't be used as such. Follow the link:

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

On Oct 15, 3:51*pm, wrote:
All you have proven is that you are not a very skilled or able
craftsman or mechanic.

You can repeat your mistaken belief that WD-40 is not a lubricant as
many times as you like, but it will not be correct.

You just don't understand what a lubricant is.

You are on the same level of expertise as someone who would claim that
motor oil is not a lubricant, because only axle grease is a lubricant.

I'd say Bzzzzt again, but I sprayed some WD-40 on it and the noise
stopped due to a sudden lack of friction.

It's a poor lubricant and shouldn't be used as such. Follow the link:

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"?

I'm not standing for or against WD-40 as a lubricant, I'm simply
pointing out that the source you provided is not exactly robust.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:51:51 -0400, wrote:



All you have proven is that you are not a very skilled or able
craftsman or mechanic.

You can repeat your mistaken belief that WD-40 is not a lubricant as
many times as you like, but it will not be correct.

You just don't understand what a lubricant is.

You are on the same level of expertise as someone who would claim that
motor oil is not a lubricant, because only axle grease is a lubricant.

I'd say Bzzzzt again, but I sprayed some WD-40 on it and the noise
stopped due to a sudden lack of friction.

It's a poor lubricant and shouldn't be used as such. Follow the link:

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

Well, for openers, WD-40 doesn't contain any kerosene. It's a common
fallacy, and dopey engineers and chemists are allowed to be gullible
too. However, if it DID contain kerosene, kerosene is also a
lubricant.

Your problem is that you don't know enough to pick the right tool for
the job. For some applications WD-40 is a great lubricant. It really
depends ENTIRELY on what you are lubricating and what you need the
lubrication to do.

The other problem with your link is the age. WD-40 today is not the
same formulation that it was even 5 years ago, let alone what it was
in 1997.

WD-40 is about 1/3 petroleum OIL. Granted it is a light oil, but an
oil nontheless.

Press down with your fingers on a dry, clean piece of glass and slide
them forward. Then spray the glass with a little WD-40 and do the same
thing. Notice any difference?

you can do the same thing with water.

s


wrote in message
...


Press down with your fingers on a dry, clean piece of glass and slide
them forward. Then spray the glass with a little WD-40 and do the same
thing. Notice any difference?

"Steve Barker DLT" wrote in
:

No, i'm not very mechanical. I've only been ASE certified since '79
in both automotive and heavy truck areas.

so, **** off and keep spraying your wd40 around. It helps the economy
i guess. It sure as hell doesn't help anything else.


steve


wrote in message
...
All you have proven is that you are not a very skilled or able
craftsman or mechanic.

You can repeat your mistaken belief that WD-40 is not a lubricant as
many times as you like, but it will not be correct.

You just don't understand what a lubricant is.

You are on the same level of expertise as someone who would claim
that motor oil is not a lubricant, because only axle grease is a
lubricant.

I'd say Bzzzzt again, but I sprayed some WD-40 on it and the noise
stopped due to a sudden lack of friction.



On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:17:32 -0500, "Steve Barker DLT"
wrote:

And neither will it be lubricated with WD40, cause WD40 is not a
lubricant.


so,

bzzzzzzzzzzzttt.... thanks for playing though.




wrote in message
news
You may free up a stuck part with a torch if you don't manage to
distort it, but it sure won't be lubricated.

So, bzzzzt.







as a penetrating oil,it's not all that good.

(you top posters are ruining the readability of the thread.
WHO reads bottom to top?)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:21:36 -0500, "Steve Barker DLT"
wrote:

you can do the same thing with water.

s


and?




wrote in message
.. .


Press down with your fingers on a dry, clean piece of glass and slide
them forward. Then spray the glass with a little WD-40 and do the same
thing. Notice any difference?

WD-40 is about 1/3 petroleum OIL. Granted it is a light oil, but an
oil nontheless.

WD-40 is primarily Naphtha a Paraffin.
http://www.wd40.com.au/msds/ChemWatc...-40%20Bulk.pdf

The Naphtha disappears quickly as it removes
the legitimate lubricant from the item that is in
need of lubrication. It then leaves a coat of
Paraffin behind.

See link:
http://www.lube-tips.com/focus/2006_02_15.htm

"Smitty Two" wrote in message

I'm with the dog on this one. I don't know why people love to trash
WD-40 so much. I've used it with tremendous success on many, many
applications over more years than I want to count, and the stuff works.
Not just sort of works, but really works. Better than advertised, IMO.

Have to agree. It is not suitable for every application, but certainly works
for many. We use it at work and on one application it causes none of the
problems we get with various greases. The lubricated parts get pushed
through a moisture laden aluminum chest and it holds up rather well.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:44:30 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Oct 15, 3:51*pm, wrote:
All you have proven is that you are not a very skilled or able
craftsman or mechanic.

You can repeat your mistaken belief that WD-40 is not a lubricant as

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.

AND?? And so, WD-40 is as good a lubricant as water.

s

wrote in message
...


and?

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:18:47 -0400, wrote:


WD-40 is about 1/3 petroleum OIL. Granted it is a light oil, but an
oil nontheless.

WD-40 is primarily Naphtha a Paraffin.
http://www.wd40.com.au/msds/ChemWatc...-40%20Bulk.pdf


It would appear that WD-40 in your country is a very different product
than the stuff in the U.S.

lbbss wrote:
I've googled this topic and there is two opinions out there. Some
say use regular oil because it last longer, others say use wd-40
because it does not collect dust, which will gum up and create
problems. Any ideas which is better?
Hi,
As far as I know WD40 is solvent, not a luricant. WD40 can induce rust.
I use WD40 for cleaning.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:47:18 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:18:47 -0400, wrote:


WD-40 is about 1/3 petroleum OIL. Granted it is a light oil, but an
oil nontheless.

WD-40 is primarily Naphtha a Paraffin.
http://www.wd40.com.au/msds/ChemWatc...-40%20Bulk.pdf


It would appear that WD-40 in your country is a very different product
than the stuff in the U.S.

Show me.

On Oct 13, 11:22*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:

I'd argue that there isn't really one perfect lubricant for all
applications. What is it that you are planning to lubriacte?

ID Lube

On Oct 15, 7:43*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:21:36 -0500, "Steve Barker DLT"

wrote:
you can do the same thing with water.

s

and?



wrote in message
.. .

Press down with your fingers on a dry, clean piece of glass and slide
them forward. Then spray the glass with a little WD-40 and do the same
thing. Notice any difference?

It does what is was designed to do. It wasn't formulated to be an
efficient lubricant...only displace moisture. Get it!

You must have stock in this company.

So you can't even discern the difference between water and oil? No
wonder you have these flakey ideas.


On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:44:35 -0500, "Steve Barker DLT"
wrote:

AND?? And so, WD-40 is as good a lubricant as water.

s

wrote in message
.. .


and?

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:38:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:47:18 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:18:47 -0400, wrote:


WD-40 is about 1/3 petroleum OIL. Granted it is a light oil, but an
oil nontheless.

WD-40 is primarily Naphtha a Paraffin.
http://www.wd40.com.au/msds/ChemWatc...-40%20Bulk.pdf


It would appear that WD-40 in your country is a very different product
than the stuff in the U.S.

Show me.

Show yourself. You found the MSDS for your own country easily enough.

On Oct 15, 9:50*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:44:30 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

wrote:
On Oct 15, 3:51*pm, wrote:
All you have proven is that you are not a very skilled or able
craftsman or mechanic.

You can repeat your mistaken belief that WD-40 is not a lubricant as
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.

WD-40 is primarily Naphtha a Paraffin.
http://www.wd40.com.au/msds/ChemWatc...-40%20Bulk.pdf


It would appear that WD-40 in your country is a very different product
than the stuff in the U.S.

Show me.

Show yourself. You found the MSDS for your own country easily enough.

I wanted you to do that. The actual product is the same. The U.S. MSDS
uses more technical chemical names for the Naphtha and paraffin within
WD-40

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.

On Oct 16, 3:19*pm, wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then I'll voice mine again. WD-40 is a poor lubricant.

We seem to have gone astray here.

I wasn't addressing or offering my opinions regarding the qualities of
WD-40 as a lubricant. (I did that earlier, feel free to read them at
your leisure). The only thing I was addressing in my responses to you
was the quality of your source. It was an 11 YO posting by a person
who had never analysed the substance being discussed in this thread.
I'm sure there are better sources to help you substantiate your
opinion- which, again, I'm not addressing here.

Let me put it another way...If I ask an expert on Jaguars to tell me
about a Porche, and he says "Well, I've never analysed a Porche but if
it's like a Jaquar it might have a 300-horsepower, 4.2-liter engine
and it might cost about $70,000" then I'll probably say "Thank you"
and go find an expert on Porches. I don't see the value in using the
Jaquar expert to substantiate my opinion of a Porche if he is merely
speculating on the subject matter.

apparently, you can't either. YOU'RE the one who thinks WDfukkin40 is a
lubricant.

s


wrote in message
news
So you can't even discern the difference between water and oil? No
wonder you have these flakey ideas.

I wasn't addressing or offering my opinions regarding the qualities of
WD-40 as a lubricant. (I did that earlier, feel free to read them at
your leisure). The only thing I was addressing in my responses to you
was the quality of your source. It was an 11 YO posting by a person
who had never analysed the substance being discussed in this thread.
I'm sure there are better sources to help you substantiate your
opinion- which, again, I'm not addressing here.

Let me put it another way...If I ask an expert on Jaguars to tell me
about a Porche, and he says "Well, I've never analysed a Porche but if
it's like a Jaquar it might have a 300-horsepower, 4.2-liter engine
and it might cost about $70,000" then I'll probably say "Thank you"
and go find an expert on Porches. I don't see the value in using the
Jaquar expert to substantiate my opinion of a Porche if he is merely
speculating on the subject matter.

The point of Mr Hamilton's opinion is that he didn't have to have
exacting specifics of what WD-40 is. He had enough information
and enough education to draw the correct conclusions on WD-40
even if he didn't have the exact recipe in front of him.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:19:37 -0400, wrote:


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.


Well, who says there was ANY lubricant existing where the WD-40 gets
applied? At least you now admit it IS a lubricant. Now you just want
to quibble about whether it is a good lubricant. My position has been
consitent from the beginning. WD-40 is a perfectly good lubricant for
THE CORRECT APPLICATIONS.

Do not use it as a substitute in the crankcase of your car, okay. That
would be a WRONG APPLICATION. At the same time, if you have a rusted
pair of pliers, WD-40 will free them up and lubricate them better than
the motor oil in you crankcase, which is too viscous, and will never
even reach the surfaces that need the lubrication, much less loosen
them up.

You'll also note that I haven't claimed that WD-40 is necessarily the
BEST product for any given application. I use two other products for
freeing up rusted parts that I prefer over WD-40 when they are
available. One is Kroil, and the other is PB Blaster. I do refute your
stubborn and misguided (and erroneous) claims that WD-40 simply
doesn't ever lubricate at all under any conditions.

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.

Sez you. How many times do you have to be wrong in a day before you
reach your quota, and go back to sleep?

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:52:06 -0500, "Steve Barker DLT"
wrote:

apparently, you can't either. YOU'RE the one who thinks WDfukkin40 is a
lubricant.

s

Q.E.D.



wrote in message
news
So you can't even discern the difference between water and oil? No
wonder you have these flakey ideas.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:08:16 -0400, wrote:


I wasn't addressing or offering my opinions regarding the qualities of
WD-40 as a lubricant. (I did that earlier, feel free to read them at
your leisure). The only thing I was addressing in my responses to you
was the quality of your source. It was an 11 YO posting by a person
who had never analysed the substance being discussed in this thread.
I'm sure there are better sources to help you substantiate your
opinion- which, again, I'm not addressing here.

Let me put it another way...If I ask an expert on Jaguars to tell me
about a Porche, and he says "Well, I've never analysed a Porche but if
it's like a Jaquar it might have a 300-horsepower, 4.2-liter engine
and it might cost about $70,000" then I'll probably say "Thank you"
and go find an expert on Porches. I don't see the value in using the
Jaquar expert to substantiate my opinion of a Porche if he is merely
speculating on the subject matter.

The point of Mr Hamilton's opinion is that he didn't have to have
exacting specifics of what WD-40 is. He had enough information
and enough education to draw the correct conclusions on WD-40
even if he didn't have the exact recipe in front of him.

In other words, he's incompetent. If he was a competent professional
chemist he would never offer a judgement without having the facts.

The point of Mr Hamilton's opinion is that he didn't have to have
exacting specifics of what WD-40 is. He had enough information
and enough education to draw the correct conclusions on WD-40
even if he didn't have the exact recipe in front of him.

In other words, he's incompetent. If he was a competent professional
chemist he would never offer a judgement without having the facts.

No. He is competent enough to recognize chemical properties and know
what makes a good lubricant and what doesn't.

It's like solving a puzzle. He only needed two clues before he knew
the answer. Going by your theory he must wait for all the clues
before he makes a judgment. Having to do that is what would
make him incompetent.

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.


Well, who says there was ANY lubricant existing where the WD-40 gets
applied? At least you now admit it IS a lubricant.

I have been consistent. " It is a poor lubricant."

Now you just want
to quibble about whether it is a good lubricant.

No, that's your quibble.

My position has been
consitent from the beginning. WD-40 is a perfectly good lubricant for
THE CORRECT APPLICATIONS.

OK. Name the applications where a real lubricant wouldn't be
better.

Admit it. WD-40's real benefits are related to rust prevention,
ability to penetrate, ability to clean, and convenience. It has no
advantage as far as its lubrication properties when compared to
any oil of similar viscosity.

I do refute your
stubborn and misguided (and erroneous) claims that WD-40 simply
doesn't ever lubricate at all under any conditions.

Now you are imagining things. Please quote me on your claim above.

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.

Sez you. How many times do you have to be wrong in a day before you
reach your quota, and go back to sleep?

It's common knowledge that WD-40 leaves this film.

In article ,
"Steve Barker DLT" wrote:

apparently, you can't either. YOU'RE the one who thinks WDfukkin40 is a
lubricant.

s


So do I. Can you please tell me why it contains 15-25% (by weight)
petroleum based oil, if it isn't a lubricant?

Let's see, the can I have here says:

Stops Squeaks
Cleans and Protects
Loosens Rusted Parts
Frees Sticky Mechanisms
Drives Out Moisture

Guess what? I've used it to do all of those things, a thousand times,
and I've *never* been disappointed in it's performance.

Stops Squeaks
Cleans and Protects
Loosens Rusted Parts
Frees Sticky Mechanisms
Drives Out Moisture

You proved your point...IT doesn't even CLAIM to be a lubricant!

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:42:47 -0400, wrote:


The point of Mr Hamilton's opinion is that he didn't have to have
exacting specifics of what WD-40 is. He had enough information
and enough education to draw the correct conclusions on WD-40
even if he didn't have the exact recipe in front of him.

In other words, he's incompetent. If he was a competent professional
chemist he would never offer a judgement without having the facts.

No. He is competent enough to recognize chemical properties and know
what makes a good lubricant and what doesn't.

It's like solving a puzzle. He only needed two clues before he knew
the answer. Going by your theory he must wait for all the clues
before he makes a judgment. Having to do that is what would
make him incompetent.

???

He doesn't know what is in the product. It could be 100% filtered goat
milk for all he knows.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:59:23 -0400, wrote:


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.


Well, who says there was ANY lubricant existing where the WD-40 gets
applied? At least you now admit it IS a lubricant.

I have been consistent. " It is a poor lubricant."

Now you just want
to quibble about whether it is a good lubricant.

No, that's your quibble.

My position has been
consitent from the beginning. WD-40 is a perfectly good lubricant for
THE CORRECT APPLICATIONS.

OK. Name the applications where a real lubricant wouldn't be
better.


It *is* a real lubricant

Admit it. WD-40's real benefits are related to rust prevention,
ability to penetrate, ability to clean, and convenience. It has no
advantage as far as its lubrication properties when compared to
any oil of similar viscosity.


or... Disadvantage

I do refute your
stubborn and misguided (and erroneous) claims that WD-40 simply
doesn't ever lubricate at all under any conditions.

Now you are imagining things. Please quote me on your claim above.


"WD-40 is not a 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.

Sez you. How many times do you have to be wrong in a day before you
reach your quota, and go back to sleep?

It's common knowledge that WD-40 leaves this film.

Yes, the manufacturer considers that film one of it's positive
attributes. And what makes you think this film does not lubricate.
Science says that it does.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:20:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Stops Squeaks
Cleans and Protects
Loosens Rusted Parts
Frees Sticky Mechanisms
Drives Out Moisture

You proved your point...IT doesn't even CLAIM to be a lubricant!


From http://www.wd40.com/faqs/#q6

What does WD-40 do?

WD-40 fulfills five basic functions:
1. CLEANS: WD-40 gets under dirt, grime and grease to clean. It also
dissolves adhesives, allowing easy removal of labels, tape and excess
bonding material.
2. DISPLACES MOISTU Because WD-40 displaces moisture, it quickly
dries out electrical systems to eliminate moisture-induced short
circuits.
3. PENETRATES: WD-40 loosens rust-to-metal bonds and frees stuck,
frozen or rusted metal parts.

************************************************** ****
4. LUBRICATES: WD-40's lubricating ingredients are widely dispersed
and tenaciously held to all moving parts.
************************************************** ****
5. PROTECTS: WD-40 protects metal surfaces with corrosion-resistant
ingredients to shield against moisture and other corrosive elements.

wrote:
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.

But Paraffin IS a lubricant:

http://www.outsideoutfitters.com/p-3...-lube-4oz.aspx

http://www.luxcowax.com/pvc.html

http://www.instructables.com/id/Lubr...sing_Paraffin/

Of course the purists use beeswax - it is all-natural and more ecologically
friendly that Paraffin.

wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:20:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Stops Squeaks
Cleans and Protects
Loosens Rusted Parts
Frees Sticky Mechanisms
Drives Out Moisture

You proved your point...IT doesn't even CLAIM to be a lubricant!


From http://www.wd40.com/faqs/#q6

What does WD-40 do?

WD-40 fulfills five basic functions:
1. CLEANS: WD-40 gets under dirt, grime and grease to clean. It also
dissolves adhesives, allowing easy removal of labels, tape and excess
bonding material.
2. DISPLACES MOISTU Because WD-40 displaces moisture, it quickly
dries out electrical systems to eliminate moisture-induced short
circuits.
3. PENETRATES: WD-40 loosens rust-to-metal bonds and frees stuck,
frozen or rusted metal parts.

************************************************** ****
4. LUBRICATES: WD-40's lubricating ingredients are widely dispersed
and tenaciously held to all moving parts.
************************************************** ****
5. PROTECTS: WD-40 protects metal surfaces with corrosion-resistant
ingredients to shield against moisture and other corrosive elements.

Thanks

Lou

He doesn't know what is in the product. It could be 100% filtered goat
milk for all he knows.

Filtered goat milk is more of a lubricant than WD-40

I do refute your
stubborn and misguided (and erroneous) claims that WD-40 simply
doesn't ever lubricate at all under any conditions.

Now you are imagining things. Please quote me on your claim above.


"WD-40 is not a lubricant"

Not only are you imagining things but you are now lying by making
up a quote and attributing it to me.
I will repeat. Where did I say that WD-40 doesn't ever lubricate?
Be specific and post the message ID

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.

Sez you. How many times do you have to be wrong in a day before you
reach your quota, and go back to sleep?

It's common knowledge that WD-40 leaves this film.

Yes, the manufacturer considers that film one of it's positive
attributes. And what makes you think this film does not lubricate.
Science says that it does.

Put that gummy wax substance on ways and it becomes glue.

But Paraffin IS a lubricant:

I never said it or WD-40 doesn't lubricate. I said it is a poor
lubricant.

http://www.outsideoutfitters.com/p-3...-lube-4oz.aspx

http://www.luxcowax.com/pvc.html

http://www.instructables.com/id/Lubr...sing_Paraffin/

Of course the purists use beeswax - it is all-natural and more ecologically
friendly that Paraffin.

If Paraffin is such a good lubricant then why isn't it used more
often? Could it be that there are better lubricants? Are these
better?

Vegetable oil
Soapy water
Baby oil

Just why is it that people use Synthetic oil or premium grade
petroleum lubricants? Do they like wasting their money or do you
suppose it has something to do with these products actually doing a
better job? Do you suppose that these products have multiple
desirable properties
that WD-40 or Vegetable oil can't come close to?

Frees Sticky Mechanisms

Another point someone else made...the mechanism after being freed-
up...will be sticky again in less than a week (in my experience).

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:09:12 -0400, wrote:



He doesn't know what is in the product. It could be 100% filtered goat
milk for all he knows.

Filtered goat milk is more of a lubricant than WD-40

Not according to anything your "expert" said.